Cantillation: more munach gershaim

[Ralph Isberg <risberg...>]

>Sam Wittenberg wrote [to Baruch Cohon]:
>>
>>As you correctly point out, the trop in the back of the Hertz Humash
>>are English Ashkenazi.  (I actually first heard them by a ba'al k'riah
>>in Jerusalem).  In my post, I meant to refer to a couple of lines of
>>music that specify which munach precedes specific ta'amim.  For
>>clarity, I am refering to "Cantillation of the Torah" (N'ginot
>>li'k'riat ha-torah) at the back of the Hertz Humash.  At the bottom of
>>the second page of this music are the music for two specific munach
>>motifs.  This implies one munach that precedes zarka, pazer, t'lisha
>>k'tana, and t'lisha g'dola, and another munach that precedes mahpach,
>>darga, mercha, geresh, and gershaim.  Applying Lithuanian trop to this
>>(in F major) munach before zarka, pazer, t'lisha k'tana, and t'lisha
>>g'dola would be sung F-A-G.  Munach before mahpach, darga, mercha,
>>geresh, and gershaim would be sung A-A-G-A-C.


>Baruch Cohon's reply:  HOLD ON!  WE MUST HAVE DIFFERENT EDITIONSOF >HERTZ.  
>MINE HAS THE FIRST
>MUNACH EXACTLY AS YOU MENTION.  BUT THE SECOND ONE GOES Bb Bb A Bb C A
G.
>>So my question is, does anyone else follow this practice?
>>

>NOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: The first Munach (F A G before zarko,
>pazer, etc.) is one I use and I hear other Baaley K'riah using,
>partiicularly in multiple repititions before pazer and t'lisha.  Before
>zarka, I like the munach that is a step higher than this: G Bb A, and
>leads right down into the trop.
    > The 2nd Munach -- in either version described above -- is not one
>I am familiar with.
   > What I generally do before a conjunctive like Mahpach or Dargo is a
>regular Munach l'garmey: F F-G-A F G.

>BARUCH COHON
>bjcohon (at) ix(dot)netcom(dot)com

     I think the point that Sam is trying to make is that before gershaim, he 
sings a munach that is identical to his munach that precedes mahpach, darga, 
and mercha.   This is in contrast to what Binder suggests in his book, which is 
to drag the munach into the gershaim, such that, for munach, two notes are 
repeated that are identical to the initial note in gershaim.

I would like to know what people think of this interpretation by Binder.  I 
personally don¼t like it and prefer Sam¼s interpretation  It seems that if 
Binder¼s interpretation is the way munach gershaim is supposed to be treated, 
then the trop should read ?mercha gershaim.¾  Munach implies to me that the 
word should have more emphasis than what Binder suggests.

Secondly, the treatment you use for munach mahpach is interesting, but it 
implies a stop in the passage that is not seen in the Masoretic text.  
Shouldn¼t the trope for munach mahpach be distinguished from munach | ?  This 
favors a distinct pause in the latter trop compination but not the former pair. 
 It is not usually written (if ever) munach | mercha etc.


Ralph Isberg