Cantors Assembly Journal of Synagogue Music

July/Dec. 1992 . Tammuz 5752/Tevet 5753 . Vol. XXII . No. I-2

Reprint

Ta'amey Hamikra: A Closer Look

Joshua R. Jacobson 76

TA'AMEY HAMIKRA: A CLOSER LOOK

Joshua R. Jacob son

What's wrong with these tunes?
Example 1

Example 3

^ n i J j i i jjuj j i ^j ;

In the first example the word la-nu was changed by the composer'
to la-nu. La-nu means "to us;" la-nu means "they stayed overnight."

In the second example the same composer changed the words ve-
a-chal-ta and u-vey-rach-ta to ve-a-chal-ta and u-vey-rach-ta. Ve-a-chal-
ta and u-vey-rach-ta mean "you shall eat" and "you shall bless;" ve-a-
chal-ta and u-vey-ruch-ta mean "you ate" and "you blessed."

In the third example we see how the careless application of nusach
to this text changes its meaning from " He who abides for eternity, exalted
and holy is His name !" to "He who abides for eternity is exalted, and holy
is His name!"

Well, whocaresabout such linguistic nit-picking?and what does all
this have to do with ta'amey hamikra, anyway?

Ta'amey hamikra refers to the Jewish traditions of scriptural
cantillation: the system of motifs that are assigned to the text and the

1 Moshe Nathanson

graphic symbols that represent those motifs. The three functions of
ta'amey hamikra are (1) to enhance the aesthetic quality of public reading
by providing the texts with melodies, (2) to indicate the syllabic stress of
each word2 and (3) to clarify the syntactical sense by parsing each verse.
As Jewish music professionals, we are most often concerned with
the first two functions: how to chant the Torah, the haftarot and the
megillot with appropriate allocation of the motifs.

According to traditional Jewish practice, one is obliged to be
scrupulous about pronunciation when reading scripture in public. If a ba'al
k'riyah makes an error in cantillation that results in a change of meaning,
he is to be interrupted, the correct reading is to be pointed out and he is to
repeat the phrase with the correction.

The Shulchan A ruch, a sixteenth-century code of Jewish law
compiled by Joseph Caro in Venice, stipulates:

In the first place, the reader is obligated to read with
absolutely correct te'amim and pronunciation, so that he
does not confuse voiced schwa with unvoiced schwa and so
that he knows which letters take daggesh.. . If he makes an
error in the reading, even in the pronunciation of a single
letter, he is obliged to repeat it and pronounce it correctly.-?
The Mishnah Berurah, a nineteenth century commentary on the
Shulchan Amch by the Chafetz Chayyim, elaborates on this passage.
If the reader makes an error in the melody of the
te'amim, and that error results in a change in the sense of the
text (for example, if he chanted a word with a conjunctive
ta'am in place of a disjunctive ta'am), he is obliged to repeat
[the phrase] .4
Unfortunately, many of those who are scrupulous about observing
the correct word stress in cantillation are not always as careful when
chanting the liturgy and singing hymns. As we saw in the first two
examples cited above, a change in a word's stress can change a word's

1 Most te'amim (except the prepositive, postpositive and inierlogic signs)
indicate where in the word we should sing the 'body of the trope" (to borrow
Prof. Binder's term). Those who are confused about where to place the proper
stress on words which have prepositive and postpositive tropes should consult
the Koren editions of the Bible. The editors have consistently adhered to the
policy of placing a secondary topall sign on the stressed syllable of any word in
which the trope falls on an unstressed syllable.

3 Sluilclian Aruch, Orach Chnvyim. $142 (the present author's translation).
' iiiali ninth. Ortt Ch in (tin pi enl mill >fs translation).

meaning. Example four shows Louis Lewandowski's well-known setting
of the verses included in the zichronot portion of the Rosh Hashanah

-lon^i 1 ? Trot rt na« na nfixb o^arn^TKa Vangi *f?n
:ritfriT V? f'^na "diaa^nH ^roVT^^a nana ^"ron .

Jer. T 2:2

rro "n 1 ? Trtnom "rnwJ 'O'a "T^h wtstih "•» ""man

"" " '"" ' " '" ""' :t]Vl»

Ezek. 16:60

Note the difference in accentuation of the word 'mat. In the verse
from Jeremiah, the word is za-char-ti. "I remembered." But in the verse
from Ezekiel the word appears with "vav consecutive" (-pann n) as ve-za-
char-ti, "I shall remember;" the accent has shifted and the tense ischanged.
Was Lewandowski aware of this distinction when he composed his
setting?"

Example 4: Two excerpts from Zacharti Lach by Lewandowski.

r i r i |

^^

el-t ' ^ rr

1~TJ U~^

f I I T f =

^^

^

5 I realize that it is tremendously difficult to impose new rhythm on a hymn that
the congregation has been singing in its own way for years (although I confess I

Ta' amey hamikra also function as an elaborate system of punctua-
tion, indicating the placement of major and minor pauses in the reading,
as well as groupings of words which are to be syntactically connected.
Every word in scripture is marked with a masoretic accent, or "ta'am."
Te'amim are either conjunctive or disjunctive. A conjunctive ta'am
indicates that the word is joined in meaning to the word which immediately
follows. A disjunctive ta'am indicates asyntactic separation following the
word. The masoretcs instituted the te'amim as a means of clarifying the
meaning of the sacred texts at a time when the Jewish people were no
longer fluent in the use of the Hebrew language.

Without punctuation, a verse could be open to more than one
interpretation. For example, this short verse from Gen. 24:34, layiatH
'DJNDn-nx could be read in any of three ways:

(1) with a disjunctive accent on nay:

A servant said, "I am Abraham." ^piKOPHSK *12fi "1Q«»T

(2) with a disjunctive accent on orax:

Abraham's servant said, "It is I." :p5K DlTn« "Dl? *1D«n

(3) with a disjunctive accent on nam:

He said, "I am Abraham's servant.": , ?i«Dn*^K*ninpX ! n
The third version is the masoretic punctuation.

Another verse from the same chapter serves to further illustrate the
point. Observe this phrase from Gen. 24:65.

The servant said, "he is my master.". ^KXin "Q5?n im*)

One who is careless about the te'amim, making the "insignificant"

error of confusing a mer'cha (a conjunctive ta'am) with a tipcha (a

disjunctive ta'am), might easily pervert the sense of this verse, rendering

He said, "the servant is my master." ^K~K ! )n*l51?rnDK*1
Another interesting example is this enigmatic verse from ISam.

am one of those noisy congregants who swims against the tide, bellowing out
the correct pronunciation of ba-ruch. no-deh and a-tah in En Kelohenu). Out ol
respect for the composer' s ideas and in the interest of correct performance
practice, I reject the idea of changing "wrong'' text rhythms in the classical
compositions of Lewandowski and others. Would one consider correcting the
playfully "incorrect" text rhythms in Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms or
Poulenc's Gloria'? However, there is no excuse for incorrect pronunciation in
rhythmically free nusach. And, furthermore, composers of the liturgy need to
be scrupulous in the pre-compositioiiai practice of ascertaining the correct
pronunciation of the text about to be set.

pin qb? nam 'n ta*ro 33» ■jHiDan roy cnanvrb* nn

At first glance we might translate this verse as "The lamp of the
Lord had not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the Temple of the
Lord where the ark of God was." 6 However, the masoretic interpretation
is quite different, and takes into account the fact that the young Samuel
would never have been allowed to sleep in the sanctuary. The ta'am
etnachta on the word i» indicates the main dividing point in the verse.
The phrase ending with the etnachta must therefore be treated as a
parenthetical phrase. The adverbial phrase "in the Temple.. ." modifies
"gone out," not "sleeping."
ft-IK Dtf~ltfK li 73T.3 330 bKlDCft H33" DTBb'PftH 131

- ' ' ' "" :6vf?K

"The lamp of the Lord had not yet gone out (while Samuel was sleeping)
in the Temple of the Lord where the ark of God was ."

At times an improper inflection in the reading can lead to a heretical
interpretation. In Isaiah 6:2 we encounter the following four words:
V^SDDD^DUD'BIB?. Connecting the last two words Vj^BBB
would result in the unacceptable translation, "Seraphim are standing
above Him." Isaiah's vision surely would not have allowed any creatures
to appear superior to the Deity. The masoretic interpretation places the
disjunctive ta'am oashta on the word 7PBB, separating it syntactically
from the word Y?: V? •J?BB I D'HBb O'EHfr, " Seraphim are standing
on high for [to serve] Him."

In the liturgy for the High Holidays wc frequently encounter the
phrase: / nDB?3K*lp , l. In chanting this phrase, should wc pause after
the first word or after the second word'? According to the masoretic
interpretation, the latter would be more correct. The source of this phrase
is Exod. 34:5. :H DBS Klp'l D» V3S 3JW1 )3»3 PI "T}>1
"The LORD came down in a cloud; He stood with him [Moses] there, and
proclaimed the name L0RD."7 According to Ibn Ezra, 'PI is the subject of
the verb KIp^God uttered His own name to teach Moses how to invoke
Him.8

6 Note that this is how the verse is translated in the new JPS Tanakh (Philadel-
phia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1985).
7 Tanakh.

8 Note that in this case Rashi disregards the masorctes and follows instead the

Targum, interpreting the subjeel of #yn as Moses.

Contrast this verse with Genesis 12%

b»a ^tnva rbnx o»i ^invab dip a mnn D»n pthrn
In Djfe T toj?»i nin'VWaf'B ngrtaji diJ>d ^ni

Here the conjunctive ta'am mer'cha on the word dm indicates that the
'word is in construct form (s'michut), implying that Abram is calling "in
the name of the Lord." The disjunctive ta'am tipcha on the word mp-i
causes a daggesh to appear in the first letter of dm.

Another commonly misread verse is, the quote from Jeremiah 3 1:11
which we chant in the ma'ariv service ^Nt31 3jpj^~nHl T\ nnS -, S
:13BP pTfl 1*13 , "For the Lord will ransom Jacob and redeem him from
one too strong for him." The ta'am tipcha indicates a slight pause after the
word to , while the mer'cha on pm indicates that it is connected
syntactically tq the word una. The common practice of pausing between
pm and iran contradicts the sense of the text.

In the Torah service, we often hear the fourth verse from Psalm 34
chanted as:

Example 4

But observe the biblical text: :inn* < intpnan < i-i3vn«n , ? , i , pna

The presence of a disjunctive ta'am on the word mm-m might suggest the
following alteration^

Example 5

-HJ- —

i ^r^rcj-ijLJ i Crp r'.

Note that Sulzer's original setting of the text shows that he was quite
sensitive to the correct accentuation and phrasing.

9 Note that the te'amim for the book of Psalms are different from those of the
twenty-one prose books.

Example 6, Salomon Sulzer, Gad'lu

Ga-de- lu la-doshem i

We would also do well to follow more closely Sulzer' s original
setting of the "Yehalelu" from the Shabbat Torah service. From an
examination of the te' amim9 we observe that there should be a slight pause
after (not before) the word vdd.

"Let them praise the name of the Lord, for His name is sublime-His alone."

Example 7: Salomon Sulzer, Yehalelu

Up until this point the emphasis has been on demonstrating how the
te'amim can serve as a guide to the correct pronunciation of individual
words and the proper inflection of verses. But we can also reverse the
process. By applying the principle of "continuous dichotomy "10 to a verse
of scripture we can analyze the sentence structure and thereby predict the
ta'am for each word.

Let us examine a simple verse: rbn a-xrnni v-irma intra uam
"His wife looked back and she became a pillar of salt." (Gen. 19:26)

The main syntactic division of the verse separates the two predi-
cates uini and vim.

9 Note that the te'amim for the book of Psalms are different from those of the
twenty-one prose books.

10 Continuous dichotomy refers to the process of dividing a scriptural verse
into two parts according lo die syntactical structure, then further subdividing
each part into two smaller parts, and continuing until the smallest indivisible
syntactic unit is reached. While this process was probably originally derived
from the parallel structure of Biblical poetry, it was later applied to the prose
books as well.

I rfra :m Trrii 1 1 mnxo iniz/K uam I

Each of the two halves of the verse can then be further subdivided.
According to one of the basic rules of syntactic subdivision, a phrase that
begins with a verb is subdivided before its final complement. 1 1

| v-inKD I intra mm |

modifier subject verb

In the second half of the verse we apply the principle that two words
in construct state must remain together as a syntactic unit. Since n'X] and
rf?n must remain together, the division must come before the word a'*].

I rt?n yxi I "-nm |

cmpound noun verb

Now that we have successfully parsed the verse down to its smallest
possible units, we next insert the te'amim appropriate to each syntactic
position. The disjunctive ta'am marking the last word in a verse is siluk.

nbn

3*xj *nn1 mnxn intra unnil

The disjunctive ta'am marking the last word in the first half of a
verse is etnachta.

nbo ira] - ™^ I innsn \

I inffN torn |

The disjunctive ta'am marking the next subdivision is tipcha.

| r6o 3^|^n^|vnnKQ|in»K unr^j

The conjunctive ta'am "serving" tipcha is mer'cha.
complement (o-'roo) can be subject, object or modifier.

I rfto 3'X3p5^|vnnKia firifK earn |

The conjunctive ta'am serving siluk is also mer'cha.

[.nbn 2*»2tt fnrn IhnnKia fntfS Barn |

The verse is now fully accented.

Let us examine a slightly more complex verse.

.irnnnaxa uaoa oc 'a wst x 1 ? Vsn -op 1 ? uva u-nin -inx 1021
"We have brought in our hands other monies with which to buy food: we
do not know who put the money in our bags." (Gen. 43:22)

The primary dichotomy separates the two predicates lmn and
uyv.

| lrnnnaxa udos oc *a i:yv k 1 ?) | "?3X naff 1 ? in uriin nnx 1021 1

In the first half, we mark the primary subdivision before the final

| "?dk -ocq i:va lmin inx 1021

modifier modifier verb subject

We can now sub-divide the inner phrase; the dichotomy is before
the predicate.

ln-a imirr pnx 10211

modifier verb subject

The second half of the verse subdivides before the compound
complement.

| lrnnnaxa ubos dc 'n | uyv k"?|
object verb

Theobject itself is a phrase which further subdivides before its final
complement.

irnnnata| uses ov -n

modifier object verb

We now apply the te' amim according to the hierarchical structure
of the parsed verse. The final word of the verse is marked with the
disjunctive siluk, and the final word of the first half of the verse is marked
with the disjunctive etnachta.

| -.IJ'TlhnQlO I UD03 av 'ra I inn* K^wiC"^^? |irra UT1V1 h nx 1 03, l

In the first half- verse we mark the last word of the first sub-division
with the disjunctive tipcha.

i3^?lp3#[vj!?

IXITtlTK 1031

The last word in a phrase which is subordinate to tipcha is marked
with the subordinate disjunctive, t'vir.

| WghFlDga | ran dp <a|wr ift|p3ip9#|lJJ33 irnn|"«3« fO)\

We can now mark the conjunctives which "serve" the disjunctives.
Before tipcha- mer'cha.

| :13*nhnnK3| una av -a |usv *? | ^H'Tatf^ \oyft VTffffl] "in* io3i

Before t'vir, since there are two intervening unstressed syllables-
darga.

| :i3'nhnnKi3| HD03 w <fl|urr *| psH-ia^piTa UYilnhnKt «^;5}j

The second half-verse is accented in a similar fashion. The final

phrase before siluk must end with the disjunctive, tipcha.

I wnhnnaal 1390? dp ^|wv n^| |S3»— QttfSpa^a u-ninl inn ^gsi I

The first subdivision, since it is on a higher level than tipcha, must
be the disjunctive, zakef.

I :irnhni3K3| 1390? ov *a|i»^ *? psR-ia^un^ i3-jninpn» *$y\\

The conjunctive which serves tipcha is mer'cha.

I :irnhnn»3 |uBD3 0«pa|u»T *e?| | bsipaBq wi*a «nnin| -inn ^051 1

The conjunctive which serves zakef is munach.
The verse is now fully accented.

With knowledge of the rules of parsing scripture and of the
hierarchy of the te'amim, one can apply this method to any verse in the
Bible. Although this procedure may seem complex when revealed in such
a cursory fashion, a practiced reader studying the subject with a step-by-
step approach can become rather proficient.

Regrettably, this method of analysis is not well known outside of
Israel, where it is taught to young children in many schools. The benefits
of this knowledge to a ba'al k'riyah should be obvious. The ability to
predict patterns of te'amim can greatly facilitate the process of what often
seems to be rote memorization. The introduction of this method of analysis
into the curriculum of our day schools and Hebrew high schools could
potentially improve the students' ability to understand the Hebrew Bible
and could even increase the number of skilled ba'aley k'riyah in the next
generation. Ta'amey hamikra does not have to be taught as a purely
musical pre-confirmation exercise. It can and should be integrated into the
curriculum of Bible study.

Unfortunately, there are no textbooks in English that adequately
treat this subject. Binder's text is an excellent resource but is limited to

musical interpretation of the motifs. 12 Cantor Samuel Rosenbaum's books
on Torah and Haftarah chanting reflect an earnest attempt to present the
techniques of cantillation in a logical manner, but contain a number of
errors. 13 Pinchas Spiro has a sound pedagogical approach, but his book is
riddled with inconsistencies. '"Maurice Gellis and Dennis Gribetz's book
presents many grammatical rules which are extremely helpful to the ba'al
k'riyah.15 Yet none of these authors explains the relationship of the
te'amim to the grammatical structure.

Solomon Rosowsky's revered tomel6 is many things. It is an
extremely thorough treatise on every possible permutation of the ta'amey
hamikra as they would appear in Western notation. It even presents a
method for cantillating the Bible in Swedish translation. While Rosowsky
does deal with grammatical aspects of the te'amim, he does so primarily
from the antiquated concept of the "chain of command" (emperors, kings,
dukes, and so forth). There is no attempt to correlate the te'amim to
grammatical parsing of the text.

The best (and only) book on the subject in the English language

remains William Wickes' Treatise on the Accentuation of the Prose Books

of the Old Testament, available now in a reprint edition. 17 Wickes gives
a thorough explanation of the relationship of te'amim to the syntax,
including the rules for parsing scriptural verse. But his book is better suited
to scholars than to young students.

In Israel, many scholars have delved into the complex functions of
the te'amim. Rabbi Mordecai Broyerhas writtenathoroughexplicationof
the subject in his Ta' ameyHaM ikra. IS There is one author, however, who,
until his untimely death last year, stood alone in his single-minded
dedication and his ability to present the complexity of ta'amey hamikra in
a clear and understandable way. Michael Perlman, of K'vutsat Yavneh,

12 Abraham Binder, Biblical Chant. (NY: Sacred Music Press. 1959).

1 3 Samuel Rosenbaum. A Guide to Torah Cham in;.; and A Guide to Haftarah
Chnnting. (New York: Ktav Publishing, 1973).

14 Pinchas Spiro. Haftarah Chanting. (New York: The Board of Jewish
Education, 1964).

15 Morris Gellis, and Dennis Gribetz. The (J Ory of Torah Reading revised
1983 ed. ( Jersey City: M.P. Press, 1982).

1 6 Solomon Rosowsky, The Cantillation of the Bible. (New York: The
Rcconstruciioiiisl Press. 1957).

17 William Wickes. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament.

2 vols. 1881-1887. (reprinted., New York: Ktav Publishers, 1970).

I 8 Mordecai Broyer. Ta ' ainei HaMikra. (Jerusalem: 1982. Reprint ed.
Jerusalem: Chorev. 1989).

had written more than twenty books on this subject. His seven-volume
Dapim LeLimud Ta'amey HaM ikra II presents the subject in a series of
fully -explained graduated lessons, with exercises for the student at the end

of each lesson. His six-volume Chug LeTa 'amey H aM ikra 20 is a

collection of lectures on various topics related to cantillation, including
fascinating parshanut based on the te'amim. He has also initiated a series
displaying the text of the Bible grammatically parsed with his own system
of analytical symbols. Always concerned with the practical application of
his work, Mr. Perlman has issued pamphlets for the shaliach tsibbur which
display liturgical texts with the parsing symbols, a tremendous boon to
those who are concerned with the correct rendering of the prayers.21

This article represents an attempt to stimulate interest in an area of
study which is largely unknown in this country and to raise the banner for
correct pronunciation and inflection of the sacred texts. Many performers
are extremely careful about consulting an authoritative ur-text score in
order to discover a composer's original intentions regarding the notation,
phrasing and articulation of a particular passage: yet these same musicians
are ignorant of the phrasing and articulation of the text of a Biblical
passage.

If we believe that Hebrew is a language meant to be understood, not
merely a gobbledygook of meaningless sounds to be spun out, then we
must make every effort to speak and chant the language correctly. Would
we respect a professional actor who constantly mispronounces words,
destroys syntax and evidences only a minimal understanding of a script' !
Certainly we, as Jewish music professionals, should hold to the same
standards in both performance and teaching.

The fact that most congregants can't tell the difference should not
be a determining factor. loiynnX-n^QVyT. Acknowledgement of the

19 Michael Perlman, Dapim L eL imud Ta'ama HaM ikra. 7 vols. (Jerusa-
lem: HaMachon HaYisra'eli LeMusikah Datit, 1962).

20 Michael Perlman. Chug LeTa' amey HaM ikra. 6 vols. (Tel Aviv: Zimrat,
1971).

21 To my knowledge, there has been only one attempt to translate Mr.
Perlman' s work into English. Alan Smith, a student of Perlman' s, has put
together a booklet entitled, Removing the Mystery from Ta' amey HaM ikra. a
lucid and entertaining introduction to the subject. Copies may be obtained
directly from Mr. Smith at 27 Bet Zayit, Harey Yehudah. 908 15, Israel.

Divine Presence demands that our public prayers and reading of scripture
be formulated in the ancient sacred language. We now have the opportu-
nity and the sacred obligation to lead our communities with this knowl-
edge.

Select Bibliography

Avenary, Hanoch. The Ashkenazi Tradition of Biblical Chant between

1500 and 1900. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1978.
Binder, Abraham W. Biblical Chant. New York: The Sacred Music Press,

1959.
Broyer, Mordecai. Ta'amei HaMikra. Jerusalem: 1982. Reprint ed.

Jerusalem: Chorev, 1989.
Davis, Arthur. The Hebrew Accents. London: Myers and Co., 1900.
Gellis, Morris, and Dennis Gribetz. The Glory ofTorah Reading. Revised

1983 ed. Jersey City: M.P. Press, 1982.
Encyclopedia J lldaica, S.V. "Masore tic Accents," by Avigdor Herzog
Encyclopedia Judaica, S.V. "Music," by Hanoch Avenary
Kadari, Y ehudah. VeSh'mantam leVanecha: LimudTa 'amey HaMikra.

Jerusalem: HaMachon LeMusikah Yehudit, 1989.
Ne'eman, Yehoshua L. Tseliley HaMikra. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Israel

Institute for Sacred Music, 1971.
Perhnan, Michael. Chug LeTa'amey HaMikra. 6 vols. Tel Aviv: Zimrat,

1971.*
Perlman, Michael. Dapim LeLimud Ta'amei HaMikra. 7 vols.

Jerusalem: HaMachon HaYisra'eli LeMusikah Datit, 1962.*
Perlman, Michael. K'lalei HaTe'amim Shel Sifrei Emet. 4 vols. Tel

Aviv: Zimrat.*
Perlman, Michael. Sefer BaMidbar. Tel Aviv: Zimrat, 1981.*
Perlman, Michael. Sefer B'reshit. Tel Aviv: Zimrat, 1979.*
Perlman, Michael. Sefer Deva rim. Tel Aviv: Zimrat, 1981.*
Perlman, Michael. Sefer HaHaftarot. Tel Aviv: Zimrat, 1987.*
Perlman, Michael. Sefer Shemot. Tel Aviv: Zimrat, 1981.*
Perlman, Michael. Sefer Tehillim. Tel Aviv: Zimrat.*
Perlman, Michael. Sefer Vayikra. Tel Aviv: Zimrat, 1980.*
Perlman, Michael. Sefer Yehoshua. Tel Aviv: Zimrat.*
Rosenbaum, Samuel. A Guide to Torah Chanting. New York: Ktav

Publishing, 1973.
Rosenbaum, Samuel. A Guide to Haftarah Chanting. New York: Ktav

Publishing, 1973.
Rosowsky, Solomon. The Cantillation of the Bible. New York: The

Reconstructionist Press, 1957.

Schachter, Hershel. "Lesser Known Laws of Torah Reading." Joum al of
Jewish M usic and Liturgy VII (198485).

Sperber, Alexander. A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1966.

Spiro, Pinchas. H aftarah Chanting. New York: Board of Jewish Educa-
tion, 1964.

Talmudic Encyclopedia, S.I/. "Te'amim," (Volume 20)

Wickes, William. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament
(2 vols, originally published 188 1- 1887). New York: Ktav Publish-
ers, 1970.

Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian M asorah. Scholars Press,
1980.

Zeitlin , Shneur Zalman and Haim Bar-Dayan. The M egillah of Esther and
ItsCantillation. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1974.

*A11 of Michael Perlman's books and tapes are available through Zimrat
Publications, K'vutsat Ma'aleh Gilbo'a, Doar Na Gilboa 19145, Israel.

Joshua Jacobson is the Stotsky Professor of Jewish Cultural and Historical
Studies in the Department of Music at Northeastern University and
Adjunct Professorof Music at Hebrew College. He is also the founder and
Director of the Zamir Chorale of Boston and President-elect of the
Massachusetts chapter of the American Choral Directors Association. In
his spare time, he hopes to write a book on ta'amey hamikra.