@SmokeDetector I deleted that for being a duplicate, not as spam. It's a product-recommendation question; in this case links are ok. It (and his other) are not very good answers, but they're not spam.
In the book about Reb Aryeh Levin, "A Tzaddik In Our Time," (by Simcha Raz), Reb Aryeh says that he learned a lesson about self-sacrifice (messirut nefesh) from 2 students of the Vilna Gaon who were brothers. One of the brothers was dying of an illness, and the other brother prayed to God to save...
From Wiki: Maimonides wrote that it is the law transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai that a Torah scroll must be written on gevil or alternatively on klaf and that scrolls written on an alternative material are invalid for use, however it is preferable that they be written on gevil (Maimonides, Hilkhoth Tefillin 1:14).
I believe the Rambam was just trying to get back at the almohads
by relegating them to second place
As the Rambam writes in Hilchot Shvitat Yom Tov 7:1:
שֶׁל מוֹעֵד אַף עַל-- (Those of the [al]-Mohad-- awful)
A medieval text (Maimonides's commentary to chapter 2 of Eruvin in my retranslation from the Hebrew) discusses a rectangle whose area is $5000$ square cubits. It reads in relevant part:
… that the length should not exceed the width except to such an extent that the diagonal is double the widt...
@msh210 I suspect that the answer to this will have something to do with geometrical construction methods used by the Rambam. People who've learned a lot of Rambam and/or have learned things like the geometrical Rashi and Tosafot comments are likely to have at least as much insight here as generic mathematicians. I suggest also posting this on MY.
@DoubleAA Thanks. I'd thought of it, but this doesn't seem to be up their alley (though I'm not familiar with their alley) and it does seem to be up Math.SE's.
@DoubleAA i've still been working on finding out what happened to the Sephardic Pashta. There's a website called bar-mitzva.com which apparently got the approval of Chacham Ovadia Yosef. They give an example of using t'rei qadmin on Devarim 11:30 on the word b'eretz. Is that a pashta? sefaria.org/…
@DoubleAA it has two pashtas, but does it have it in every tiqqun? i know it's shown that way on sefaria. But do any tiqquns render it with just a pashta on the last letter?
@DoubleAA cause otherwise it would seem that the t'rei qadmin only applies to words that have "two pashtas" rather than one
@DoubleAA Which would mean the Sephardic system would not distinguish between a qadma and a "single marked" pashta
@Aaron I'm sure you can find texts which don't mark the extra Pashta on Mileil words, just as you can find texts which don't mark an extra Segol on Mileil words.
@Aaron The first column of the first page of the aleppo codex (that we currently have) has an example of a pashta on a mileil word. השמים. Marked with the extra Pashta.
@Aaron I can't think of any off the top of my head. Never really paid attention much.
@DoubleAA So basically we've established that Sephardim don't recognize a single pashta? But rather only a pashta that has an extra marking for the mileil words
@Aaron I don't know what you've established, but I continue to think that there are exactly two notes with that sort of symbol, one disjunctive and one conjunctive, which Ashkenazim call Pashta and Kadma respectively. Anyone else can call them whatever they want. Whether or not Sefardim have an extra name for a Pashta that's marked twice or not on a word doesn't really matter to me.
@Aaron Don't confuse trop (cantillation) with trop (symbols for cantillation). It sounds to me like you've found that a disjunctive cantillation's symbol comprising two strokes and a disjunctive cantillation's symbol comprising one stroke have different names -- but that doesn't mean the cantillation is different.
And it sounds to me like you've found some people who have the same name for a one-stoke symbol no matter whether the cantillation is disjunctive or conjunctive -- but that doesn't mean the cantillation is the same.
@msh210 i've found not only that, but also "some people" who claim that the symbol is always disjunctive. Such as the Syrian community that runs pizmonim.org who say that qadma is a third level disjunctive, like revi'a
@msh210 Yes, they could be wrong, but that's what i'm trying to establish. Are large amounts of Sephardic communities simply wrong, or is it a makhloket?
@msh210 Ashkenazim say that Qadma is a conjunctive, and Pashta is a disjuntive. Sephardim say that both symbols refer to Qadma, and Qadma is always a disjunctive
@Aaron There are Ashkenazim who don't know the difference either. Even some regular Ba'alei Keria I'm sure. It just so happens that most grammar works use Ashkenazi nomenclature, so you may be getting a false sense of "Ashkenazim have it right but Sefardim have it wrong". Really, it's just "too many people don't know their Trop".
@msh210 The only two examples in the Torah I can find where Trop rules can't distinguish (and we must resort to meaning) are Dev 15:18 and 23:15. What say you? Kadma? Pashta? K/P? P/K?
@DoubleAA Those all precede a mahpach. My impression is (possibly wrong) that kadma is much more common in that context. But that doesn't mean three are _kadma_s, of course. I've no idea what they are. Do you know of any sources on the issue?
Or have you any argument for saying any of them is a kadma or a pashta?
@msh210 I don't have any sources. From meaning (ie. how they parse the phrase) 15:18 is certainly a Kadma and 23:15 is pretty clearly a Pashta (you don't get saved in front of you).
I frankly don't really know what Chavakkuk is saying there. It's a particularly complicated chapter (essentially a Tehillim that wasn't placed in Tehillim). My Tanakh Simanim marks a Pashta, but from the Targum it seems it might be better parsed as a Kadma.
@DoubleAA Perhaps I'll ask about that. I've been meaning to, but am not sure how to formulate the Q and would like to include some examples but keep forgetting to jot them down when I come across them.
@msh210 There are plenty of cases where it might not be easily discernable to somenoe not well versed in subtle trop rules. Indeed there may be a rule that applies in the above cases that i missed.
@DoubleAA Related: This past Shabas afternoon, someone read "k'sones bad-kodesh" (kadma azla) instead of "k'sones-bad kodesh" (kadma azla). IIRC Mishna B'rura says switching a disj. and a conj. is go-back-worthy if it changes the meaning of the sentence. But this wasn't disj/conj., it was conj./makaf. (But it seems to change the meaning.) So I don't know.
@msh210 Why only switching a dis and con? Any change in nikkud or trop that changes the meaning should be correctable. Switching dis and con is just a common example.
@msh210 I doubt it. The better question IMO is if it really changes the meaning, or it Makkaf is just about syllable length and whatnot rather than meaning.
First I want to clarify that I don't want to complain.
I am very happy because I found an answer after some research. here
But I see that the question has been called "duplicate" to this but the later is unanswered.
I worked a little for the answer. is it lost? Perhaps we need to migrate the ...
@magicker72 פעלך is definitely the object. The question as I see it, is בקרב שנים an adjective (modifying פעלך) or an adverb (modifying חייהו)? Is it "enliven (his works that are in these years)" or "enliven in these years his work"? (mediocre translations my own)
A medieval text (Maimonides's commentary to chapter 2 of Eruvin in my retranslation from the Hebrew) discusses a rectangle whose area is $5000$ square cubits. It reads in relevant part:
… that the length should not exceed the width except to such an extent that the diagonal is double the widt...
