טעמי המקרא | Cantillation Tables for Torah Readings

Nusaḥ Ashkenazi

קַדְמָ֨א מֻנַּ֣ח זַרְקָא֮ מֻנַּ֣ח סֶגּוֹל֒ מֻנַּ֣ח ׀ מֻנַּ֣ח רְבִ֗יע מַהְפַּ֤ך פַּשְׁטָא֙ זָקֵף־קָטָ֔ן

זָקֵף־גָּד֕וֹל מֵרְכָ֥א טִפְּחָ֖א מֻנַּ֣ח אֶתְנַחְתָּ֑א פָּזֵ֡ר תְּלִישָא־קְטַנָּה֩

תְּ֠לִישָא גְדוֹלָה קַדְמָ֨א וְאַזְלָ֜א אַזְלָא־גֵּ֜רֵשׁ גֵּרְשַׁ֞יִם

דַּרְגָּ֧א תְּבִ֛יר יְ֚תִיב פְּסִיק׀ מֵרְכָ֥א טִפְּחָ֖א מֵרְכָ֥א סוֹף פָּסֽוּק׃

שַׁלְשֶׁ֓לֶת מֵרְכָא כְּפוּלָ֦ה יֵרֶח בֶּן יוֹמ֪וֹ קַרְנֵי פָרָ֟ה׃

 

Nusaḥ Sepharadi

זַרְקָא֮ מַקַּף־שׁוֹפָר־הוֹלֵ֣ךְ סְגוֹלְתָּא֒ פָּזֵר גָּד֡וֹל

תַ֠לְשָׁא תִּ֩ילְשָׁא אַזְלָ֨א גֵּ֜רֵישׁ פָּסֵק׀ רָבִ֗יעַ שְׁנֵי־גֵרֵישִׁ֞ין

דַּרְגָ֧א תְּבִ֛יר מַאֲרִ֥יךְ טַרְחָ֖א אַתְנָ֑ח שׁוֹפָר־מְהֻפָּ֤ךְ

קַדְמָא֙ תְּרֵ֨י־קַדְמִין֙ זָקֵף־קָט֔וֹן זָקֵף־גָּד֕וֹל שַׁלְשֶׁ֓לֶת

תְּרֵי־טַעֲמֵ֦י יְ֚תִיב סוֹף־פָּסֽוּק׃

 

Nusaḥ Italiani

זַרְקָא֮ שְׁרֵ֒י פָּזֵ֡ר גָּדוֺל֡ קַרְ֟נֵי פָרָ֟ה תַּלְ֠שָׁא

תַּרְסָא֩ גַרְמֵ֤יהּ ׀ רְבִ֗יעַ פְּ֤סִיק שַׁלְשֶׁ֓לֶת

קַדְמָ֨א אַזְלָ֜א זָקֵ֕ף גָּד֕וֹל זָקֵ֔ף קָטָ֔ן

שְׁנֵ֞י גְרִישִׁ֞ין תְּרֵ֦ין חוּטְרִ֦ין דַּרְגָ֧א תְּבִ֛יר

טַרְחָ֖א מַאֲרִ֥יךְ שׁוֹפָ֣ר עִלּ֣וּי שׁוֹפָ֤ר הָפ֤וּךְ

שׁוֹפָר יְ֚תִיב שְׁנֵ֨י פַּ֙שְׁטִין סְמִיךְ־אַתְנָ֑ח

יָרֵ֪ח בֶּ֪ן יוֹמ֪וֹ גְּרִ֜ישׁ סֽוֹף פָּסֽוּק׃


We are sharing these tables for Taamei haMikra (cantillation for Torah reading) because we weren’t able to find these available in Unicode Hebrew text anywhere else on the Internet. We would very much like to also share the traditional tables of Taamei haMikra for the Nusaḥ Roma (Italy), Nusaḥ Teman (Yemen), and others along with excellent free-culture licensed recordings of these tables being chanted. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of free-culture licensed audio and video of the taamei hamikra being chanted. Please help us by sharing your audio or video with a Creative Commons Attribution license.

Sources

Miqraot Gedolot (1904 ed.), p.174

shemot-hateamim-leashkenazim

Sefer Torah Ohr (1850, Levorno), p.132

sefer-torah-ohr-levorno-seder-tamim-p132

10 comments to טעמי המקרא | Cantillation Tables for Torah Readings

  • todd.shandelman@gmail.com

    All of the following observations pertain to the Ashkenazi list.

    Nice work, having the ashkenazi list begin with qadma, not the erroneous pashta so often seen in that position. But the qadma note itself needs to be positioned on top of the mem of the word “qadma”, not the alef ! That makes it a pashta, meaning that you’ve only fixed half the problem, and have confused the issue even more. :-(

    Thanks too for writing “revia” not “revii”, another egregious and pervasive error in many such lists.

    And for not putting a munah on the word “zaqef” of “zaqef qatan”, another oft-seen error.

    On the other hand, why do telisha qetanah and azlah geresh and zaqef gadol have intervening maqqef, as expected, but other compound names, such as telisha gedolah and zaqef qatan in your list do not?

    • corrected. I’ve also added the source images from which the tables were derived.

    • marcstober2014

      Aharon, thanks for corrections and the sources! I notice that compared to the 1904 source a few things are in a different order and which things are considered compound and have a hyphen is still a little inconsistent. But unless you’re trying to transcribe the 1904 with errors, that’s probably fine. For example, the 1904 doesn’t have a makef (hyphen) in zakef katon, but also the vowel that should be a tzere below zekef in zakef katon isn’t clear. But I assume the transcription is correct and the original is wrong there. I’m also going to assume the exact order is not any particular tradition.

      They mystery around revi’i/revi’a deepens though. The 1850 source does show revi’a in all 3 traditions, but the 1904 Ashkenazi text shows revi’i. It would be interesting to find out how or why that change? But for purposes of learning and teaching cantillation, it seems like the word has changed over time and revi’i is what is used to day. (Actually, the Unicode text above just leaves out that vowel, was that was intentionally Solomonic or a mistake?)

      Which brings up bigger discussion about preserving what’s traditional vs. changing things. It’s really cool to see these old resources and even new things in the old style, but I also feel like there other more interactive ways these could be done now (e.g., through colors, recordings, interactivity, design). Maybe I’ll get to working on that at some point…

  • marcstober2014

    Can you provide some more background on what this chart is and what makes the Ashkenazi and Sephardi version different? I gather that these are the names of the ta’amei ha’mikra listed in an order that they are in printed tikkuns. The actual symbols are not ashkenazi or sephardi so why do the have different arrangements or names? Moreover, this is not necessarily how I learned so is there some significance to this “traditional” order?

    Yes, the kadma is misplaced on the first kadma, and I’d also agree about adding makef to telisha gedolah and zakef katan. Actually, since this is just Unicode I’m going to copy and paste that into a new doc send that to you!

    @Todd.Shandelman: What do you mean about “revia” vs. “revii” and do you have a source for that? I ask because I checked couple books from current reputable publishers (on the Reform side, the Wolff/Portnoy manual from URJ and on the Orthodox side, Tikkun Simanim from Feldheim) and they all have the second chirik to read “revii”.

    Speaking of which, there are some other minor differences between the Ashkenaz version here and my Tikkun Simanim, but I don’t know that they are wrong as opposed to just a slightly different arrangement by a different editor.

  • marcstober2014

    Todd Shandelman explained this further to me as follows:

    So about ‘revi`a’ vs. ‘revi`i’.

    It is not hard to notice that many if not most of the names of the te`amim / cantillations in the typical lists are (1) Aramaic, or of Aramaic origin. (2) Words referring somehow to some position of a body.

    E.g.: (translations are very approximate, not precise):

    munnah, etnahta = at rest;
    zaqef = standing straight
    pashta = extended
    mahpakh = inverted
    qadma ve-azla = advancing

    Now, ‘revi`i’ is a common Hebrew word meaning “4th”. But what sense does that make as the name of a cantillation symbol? None really.

    On the other hand, ‘revi`a’ is an Aramaic word corresponding to the Hebrew “rovetz,” lying down (of an animal, usually, but maybe not always). This can be seen very clearly in Targum Onkelos to Shemot 23:5.

    Bingo! Now we have yet another cantillation with a name indicating a bodily position, which makes quite a lot of sense in the context of all the other examples, as enumerated above.

    The printers were generally ignorant of Aramaic, apparently, or did not recognize the the word “revia`”, at least. So it seems they assumed that “revi`a” was an error, and they “corrected” it to “revi`i”. Ouch.

    But “revi`a” is the way to go.

    Todd made the follow request regarding posting this here:
    1. Please credit me by name.
    2. Please do not change anything I wrote; post it exactly as I wrote it.

  • Victor Tunkel

    Yes, revi’a is right. The tsaddeh-to-ayin change from Hebrew to Aramaic occurs in, for example, eretz becoming ar’a. “ravatz k’aryeh” in the blessing of Yehuda in B’reshit 49: = he crouches like a lion, shows the descending motion of the revia in almost all the leyening traditions.

  • Jacob

    Does anyone have an open source for the actual staff-music for any of these? I have only been able to find the Reform staff music so far.

  • Victor Tunkel

    My book: The Music of the Hebrew Bible is the standard primer with history, analysis and music of all six systems for the .western Ashkenazic tradition (which we believe to predate the style now adopted in USA and Israel). I would be happy to send a copy, if of interest.

Comments, Corrections, and Queries


בסיעתא דארעא