The first type specimen is called “Meruba”, which means in Hebrew, square. This is not the common name associated for this design.

Why then did Frank refer to this design as “Meruba”?

“Meruba” is both a very old and yet also a relatively recent design. Many hand-drawn books from hundreds of years ago appear with this typeface design, usually to present Biblical material.

Relatively recently, the huge Romm family printing establishments in Vilna, Lithuania standardized their print jobs upon a version of this typeface design. Their popular printing of the Talmud for over a hundred years used it. Hundreds of other Torah books, including those of great Chassidic masters, used it. And even hundreds of non-Torah books of literature, poetry, Hebrew grammar, children’s primers, and secular thought, used it as well.

There are two reasons why this design style is referred to as “Merubah”, or square.

First, the dimensions of the design is very wide and square-like. This is conducive to accurate reading, good comprehension, and overall clarity.

Also, the design in some ways is comparable to the type design of the style used in the Sefer Torah scroll. In fact, many laws are derived from aspects of the “Merubah” design that would invalidate the Sefer Torah scroll style of lettering.

The second reason is actually associated with all non-script Hebrew type designs, and not necessarily to the “Merubah” design. Here, the choice of the word “Merubah” simply means “block letter”.

It is unlikely that Frank refered to this design because of the second reason. Clearly, the first reason accurately describes the most important aspect of the “Merubah” design, and seems to be the basis of Frank’s intention.

Nevertheless, Frank revolutionized the Hebrew printing industry with his new bold FrankReuhl design.

Here are two examples of the popular standard Hebrew design, created by Frank.

The top one, in regular and bold weights, is the most like the original design, with certain differences. A radical change was introduced by Varityper, a now extinct photo-typestting firm, later purchased by Agfa(-Compugraphic).

The type design was later revived for desktop publishing as an early Hebrew PostScript font by FontWorld, the leader in software products for professional typesetting of non-Latin laguages, such as Arabic and Hebrew.

Recently, an early pioneer in desktop publishing software for foriegn languages, Linquists’ Software, created an OpenType version for use in Biblical Publishing of a scholarly nature, in Micrsoft Word for Windows. It was incompatible with Adobe InDesign CS/3 ME.

Another example popular in Hebrew desktop publishing is Apple’s New Pnimim, another knock-off of FrankReuhl. New Pnimim is based upon (Merganthaler-)Linotype’s version of FrankReuhl. It contained many design differencs, depending upon the needs of metal type, which were varied besad upon the point size used.

Another example popular in Hebrew desktop publishing is FontWorld’s LinoNine, another knock-off of FrankReuhl, originally created by (Merganthaler-)Linotype, and FontWorld’s LinoTwelve, also originally created by (Merganthaler-)Linotype.

A sample of Raphael Frank’s original FrankReuhl:

This was a major revision of the enormously popular standard at the time, “Romm”, “Merubaas”, “Vilna”, or “Siddur”.

If we look carefully at these two designs, we can ask, what is different about them to cause such an upheaval in the Jewish printing industry?

First, the proportions are very different. The “Romm” design is much wider than Frank’s. This means, practically speaking, many more words per line typeset using FrankReuhl will fit in a given space. This is very economical to printers.

On the other hand, Romm is very wide, almost squarish. The letters are thicker. The results are much more conducive to repeated study.

A sofer, Hebrew scribe, once explained the advantage of the Romm typeface. “It has round soft edges,” he said. “I know what it means to look at letters for a long time. The design of this typeface is easy on the eyes. You can look at it forever, and yours never feel strain.”

Romm was designed for Bible and Talmud study, and the like. The prayerbook is typset in Romm. The Passover Hagada is typeset in Romm.

When Frank lived, the Jewish world was abandoning traditional Jewish study, and going away from use of books typeset in Romm. Frank’s design fit a gap, a need in Jewish society, that was different, and reformed of tradition. We see today that most secular literatures, newspapers, even pornographic writing use FrankReuhl.

This has been the norm for over fifty years.

The question is, with a revival called desktop publish, and a new font format excellantly geared for Biblical Hebrew, called OpenType, will the Romm design regain its status of dominance, particularly if multiple weights and widths of it appear to meet the needs of Jewish publishers today.

Since the creation of the State of Israel, many different designs have come on the scene. Some are used as display faces, some are used as text faces, and some are useda s an italic, for italic in general is not used in Hebrew.

Other popular Hebrew designs

A popular display in Israel is Aharoni.

Many Israeli newspapers use Aharoni for their headlines. A narrow version of Aharoni exists, which news papers in Israel use for the headlines of minor articles.

Another very popular design is David, created by the great Israeli type designer, Mr. Itamar David a”h. It is a script-like upright design, very unlike FrankReuhl. It’s light, not as wide, and very readable. Until the advent of Narkis, David became an exceedingly popular design, second to FrankReuhl.

FontWorld created another version, called King David. Purchased by Apple, MasterFont created, Raanana, as yet another knock-off of David.

Mr. David created many other remarkable designs, such as Itamar, but David was his claim to fame.

Your question of why Frank Reuhl won out is an interesting one to me.

Based on my own efforts to understand readability of roman text types, my guess would be that the ratio between counter and spacing is better in Frank Reuhl than in the older, wider styles, and that a better ’rhythm’ resulted in higher readability in extended text.

Another very popular modern Hebrew design is Mr. Henri Friedlender’s Hadasa, named after the printing school where he worked. Hadasa was created to be carved into stone on a new Israeli building. Friedlaeder resourched its design extensively, patterning it after motifs he took from very old Ashkenazic and Sephardic letter forms, and those of Bomberg and Soncino.

GoHebrew’s Henri is a faithful rendition of Hadasa, approved by Mr. Friedlander before he died. Another version was drawn for the Israeli distributor of Esselte/Letraset products. Very recently, a third design was designed by FontBit, called New Hadasa. Also, John Hudson’s Adobe Hebrew was inspired in part by Hadasa.

The very popular ArtScroll Orthodox Jewish publishing house based in Brooklyn uses Hadasa exclusively for its books. Mr. Friedlaender cried when he learned that the Bible today is studied by millions of Jews in Hadasa.

Although not as popular as David, Hadasa is a close third.

> the ratio between counter and spacing is better in Frank Reuhl

This is true.

To peruse text swiftly, comprehension is certained enhanced. Perhaps, that is the main reason for its popularity and longevity.

The wide Romm design nevertheless is preferred for lengthy concentrated study. Rabbi Akiva Eiger zatzal even strongly endorsed the Romm family efforts to produce the Talmud over the previous publishers of Slovita, causing a decade long batter over which publisher has exclusive rights.

Rabbi Eiger cited that study would enhanced with this typeface, and for that reason it was justified to replace the publishers of Slavita.

Today, new renditions of the Talmud are being produced, with the effort of Oz VeHadar leading the pact, followed by Zundel Berman Books. A third effort is being made by the Moznayim/Vagshall publishing house, for this very large market.

A fourth competitor is GoHebrew, whose near-identical version of the Romm and Rashi typefaces seeks to invoke Rabbi Eiger’s ruling and capture the entire market.

The goal of GoHebrew is to remake the entire library of Jewish classics, with an English translation, too.

Israel, just out of curiosity, since you worked with Friedaender, did he pronounce his first name dropping the H, as the French would, or did he use pronounce it?

Israel,

Where’s the head of this thread? What is subject? When you start a new thread try to take a little break; maybe drink... tea... coffee or something :) There’re ton of images — try to group them to one or two; rest a little bit, post more.

Because right now this thread is a big mish mash. Moreover, try to play a fair game. Why do you say knock-off and not version? — “MasterFont created, Raanana, as yet another knock-off of David”? Maybe FontWorld created knock-off?

So, what is the subject? FrankReuhl ? Aharoni? Romm? text vs. display? text vs. display vs. decorative?

> Many Israeli newspapers use Aharoni for their headlines

I have here Israeli newspapers — I don’t remember the last time that I saw Aharoni.

> Hadasa was created to be carved into stone on a new Israeli building. Friedlaeder resourched its design extensively, patterning it after motifs he took from very old Ashkenazic and Sephardic letter forms, and those of Bomberg and Soncino.

Are you aware of Friedlaender’s essay (appeared first in 1967, in German; 1975, Jerusalem) — The Making of Hadassah Hebrew? He was influenced by the Scroll of Esther (1800; Ashkenazic letter forms) and by the Italian semi-cursive Drugulin (also Ashkenazic letter forms). There’s nothing about Bomberg or Soncino.

His first experiment was in 1932; 1941 first draft; from 1932 to 1950 he was in Holland; From 1950 to 1970 he was head of Hadassah Apprentice School of Printing in Jerusalem.

So, “Hadasa was created to be carved into stone on a new Israeli building”? In 1932 he knew that? I didn’t know that Friedlaender has encountered the supernatural powers :)

William,

Henri Friedlander was a very old man when I worked with him. He was retired. I spoke to him only on the phone. Out of respect, I never called him by his first name, nor did ever even refer to himself, by his first name or last.

I remember 3 things in particular:
a) He cried when I mentioned that much of Orthodox world was studying Tanach, the Bible, in his Hadasa typeface;
this caused him great satisfaction to know this. (We spoke in Hebrew, so he was apparently unaware of ArtScroll.)
b) He approved my interpretation of Hadasa as authentic;
c) He criticized one detail in a few letters, urged me to correct them, and added this was the secret of good Hebrew fonts.

The story how we spoke on the telephone was really amazing. I had just married and created a PostScript version of his Hadasa design for a very early system of Apple Macintosh operating system, when the IBM PC just began. It was System 5.

Anticipating to license it to Apple Israel, I sent Mr. Friedlaender a check for 100 old shekels. He return the check to me, explaning that he sold the rights to a now-defunct small European type foundry many many years ago. Hence, he was not entitled to any money. I was very impressed with his honesty.

Not long after, Mr. Friedlaender called me in Kfar Chabad. He said that “I noticed from the address that you live Kfar Chabad. Kfar Chabad is village which is inhabited with the followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.” I replied, praised his work, extolled his important role in Jewish history, and added that the ArtScroll Orthodox publishing house in the United States had standardized their books on Hadasa. Then, I told him that even the Tanach, the Bible, appeared in Hadasa, and studied every day by many many Jews around the world.”

Mr. Friedlaender was silent, and I heard him weeping like a baby.

David,

What a hostile post.

The theme of this thread is Hebrew Type Designs, like its name. The first post begins with Mr. Raphael Frank a”h, desiugner of FranReuhl.

FrankReuhl is the first main topic. To appreciate its position as the premiere Hebrew typeface design, I compare it to the Merubah typeface design. Merubah means square.
This design was popularized in many other forms, particular by the Romm family of Vilna, Lithuania.

The Romm family printing establishments were reknown for very high quality workmanship. Even though they were very modern Jews, Chassidic masters sought for their books to be produced by the Widow and Brothers Romm.

In order of popularity, I move on to David, Hadasa and the rest.

I am glad that you add important details about Aharoni and Hadasa. I was unaware of this. In Israel, during the eighties, many popular Israeli newspapers used Aharoni for headlines, and Aharoni Tzar, its narrow look-a-like, for headlines of minor articles.

I don’t read Hebrew, except to pray or study, or read fascinating articles about Hebrew Type Design. Perhaps, another black typeface design is used, like Chaim Shamen, Fat Chaim.

I would be interested to read, as I am sure many others, for you to post a summary of Friedlaender’s article in German, and an overview of facts that you know.

He sold the Hadasa design I think to the Amsterdam Typefoundry.

In Israel, I read that he used the Hadasa design to be carved in an Israeli building. The book even included his picture, the building, and a picture of the short inscription. I never said that he made it for that purpose.

How is Drogolin in any way similar to Hadasa? Look, I have samples above. When I first saw Drogolin, I thought it was an attempt to capture the flair of Romm/Vilna. FontWorld called Drogolin by th name of Belz, because the Belz logo featured Drogolin.

Actually, the font called Margoliot is not really Drogolin. Drogolin had a peculian curl on the lower left side of the aleph, and this version cuts it out.

David, you are a treasurechest of knowledge Hebrew type design. Please don’t keep it to yourself. Share your knowledge with us, and post, post, post...

David voiced his objection to the subjective use of the term “knock-off”. A knock off is an imitation of a popular design, simply with a different name, to avoid payment to its designer or copyright/trademark owner.

He cited the example of Tzvika Rosenberg, a popular Israeli font-maker, of MasterFont, who created Apple’s Raanana. I called it a “knock-off”. The bold version is a really poor knock-off.

I called it a knock-off because when it was first created and licensed to Apple Israel, the unrelated name, Raanana, a small city in Israel, was picked to avoid payment to Mr. Itamar David, in the early eighties.

David wondered why I did not call FontWorld’s version, King David, also a knock-off, like Tzvika’s Raanana. It’s a valid question.

First, King David is not a “knock-off”. It is a very carefully rendition, inspired by Mr. David’s popular design. It is rendered not to divert from hiis designintentions, but to correct his design flaws.

The real differance is in appearance.

Raanana is a little, thinner, narrower, and not equally weighted in its strokes. Look at how David is different. Its strokes are weighted equally, making reproduction at even small point sizes looking right, while the same text, at the same point sizes, does not look right.

King David captures David’s flow, but adds a unique touch, like raising a bit the height of the lamed, or raising the top of the left hand lower stem of the gimmel to increase its clarity and legibility, or the lowering of the top of the detached stroke on left hand side of the kuf, to allow better distinction and “breathing room”.

FontWorld never issued Itamar David a”h any royalty out of “moral good sense” in the nineties, as it had no way to contact him (he was an invalid either living in an age hold or with a child in America). If anyone knows how to contact his descendants, please write to: ContactInfoforDavid@gmail.com

Ittai Tamari — Digitization of Hebrew Fonts (pp.190-191, p.195), about Frank-Rühl:

“Among its numerous faults one may mention its too dense and heavy appearance, which needs very careful letterspacing when hand-set in sizes smaller than 12 point...clear distinctions between similar-looking letters (Daleth and Resh, Vav and Za’in, Heth and Thaf) were not made, although the designer was well aware of the problem.
However, what interests us most is not the shortcomings of the design — rather, its incomparable success as the most-used Hebrew type....Any possible explanation is indeed a mixture of many factors: sociological, technical, human — and most of all the lack of other, more compatible choices, which would comply with the current taste. The Frank-Rühl letters appaered (at first only in normal weight, the additional bold weight was a later adaption by other designers), fortunately, in a significant period for the Jews: the establishment of the Zionist movment...; the visualisation of their return to the Promised Land....; Jewish authors and poets were endeavouring to write in the future only in Hebrew. These developments needed, of course, means of publications, i.e. text typefaces, which needed to be different-looking from the then familiar ones. These were found in the Frank-Rühl design.”

Line #1: the original — Berthold
Line#2: Linotype linecasting machine
Line#3: Monotype
Line#4: AM International
Line#5: Linotron 202
Line#6: Autologic

Right now there’s not a single revival that is close to the original.

> Why then did Frank refer to this design as “Meruba”?

Meruba= block letter, all non-script Hebrew type (page 9, 12 — his little booklet). BTW, Monotype’s version of Meruba was called Sonzino, Drugulin’s was called Magalith; the font Miriam — Frank also may have designed Miriam, since it appers in the 1924 Berthold catalog along with Frank-Rühl.

> These samples include rarely used examples of different type style designs,

Lettering. Don’t forget that Raphael Frank was Sofer Stam.

> Right now there’s not a single revival that is close to the original.

I also think this conclusion is accurate. Considering the specimens that we have before us from his book, which are for large size body text, we actually don’t have cpmparables.

Apparently, Frank made his design to typeset large Biblical texts, or Hadagas. The other venders aim were rabbinic commentaries, or political discussions, or literature in general, that appears at smaller text sizes, or even have very small footnotes.

There are multiple weights which I have from Linotype, 9, 10, and 12 point sizes. Vaityper’s version is even lighter, and very suitable for small text sizes. We don’t find a 18 pt. or 24 pt. FrankReuhl from Linotype.

Each one (the 9, 10, and 12 point sizes of Linotype’s FrankReuhl) is very different from its siblings. 9 in particulars has major differences.

I also has from a very old job a revival of FrankReuhl from an artist commissioned to draw very large letters from an unknown machine. There also an interesting design that is unique to all other versions of FrankReuhl from other venders, except one of the 3 point sizes from Linotype (the nine) [maybe, it was drawn from the nine].

I also have another set of drawings that I was told was drawn from an old Linotype machine, where Frankruehl is somewhat crossed in design with Romm. I haven’t revived it yet.

In these two versions (Linotype’s 9, and the very large drawings) the bottom of the right side is lifted off (in part) from the baseline. It looks like a person standing upon his toes, with his heel lifted off the ground.

I debated whether I should include this detail. A professor at RIT (Rochester Istitute of Technology, a leader om printing technology and type design studies) suggested that this peculiarity in design was like the design of serifs, to allow ink to gather during the print process. He reasoned that sonce this was no longer an issye, I should abandon thos aspect of the design.

I was unsure, so I left it in the Varityper revival. Later, I found ot only in the small 9 point aleph of FrankReuhl from Linotype.

Perhaps, the professor was correct, but his conclusion in my view was not. What do you think?

[My scanner is suffering from a paper jam in the printer (its an all-in-one), so it’ll be awhile until I can scan and post.]

Israel, I got hold of a Biblical grammar book, so I understand better now what David has been saying with regard to your idea of ’automating’ the setting of the kamatz ketan and shva na, as you discussed in the other thread. This thread seems to be ’live’, so I’ll post here.

The grammar book is by a Chinese guy, but it corresponds exactly to what David was writing, so I’m assuming it’s solid. It’s called “Grammar for Biblical Hebrew” by C.L. Seow.

So the rule for the kamatz katan—which he calls a kamatz chataf—is simple: if it’s in a closed syllable, then the kamatz is a kamatz katan, and otherwise not. This David wrote, and followed the rule with a ’smiley’.

Now I understand the ’smiley’, because the rule leads you into a whole chain of questions.

How do you know whether it’s an closed syllable? Simple, it ends with a consonant that has a schva nach under it, or is the last letter.

And how do you know whether it’s a schva nach or schva na? Well, now you get a bunch of rules, one of which is that it’s a schva na if comes after a letter with a strong dagesh.

So how do you know whether it’s a strong or weak dagesh? Well, one of the rules is that it’s a strong dagesh if it’s preceded by a short vowel.

So how do you know whether it’s a short or long vowel?

Well up till now I will probably forget all this, but a computer won’t, so there’s no problem programming it, I would guess.

But here is the kicker: you only tell whether it’s a short or long vowel by whether it falls on an accented syllable.

So you’ve hit a brick wall if you are only looking at syntax, because nothing in the letters or nikud are going to tell you where accent is. (David mentioned the accent issue also.)

To know the where accent is you are going to have to have a ’look up’ of the word in some kind of dictionary that will tell you where the accent lies.

So it looks to me like what you need is not open type programming to do what you want, but rather some kind of ’spell check’ that will automatically put the kind of nikkud you want. That you could do with the look-ups. I know that one of the Hebrew typing programs already has ’auto-nikud’, but I don’t know whether they will distinguish a kamatz katan and the different kinds of schva. But I don’t see why they couldn’t do it in principle.

So with a kind of spell checker which you would run or would be active all the time, it seems you could do what you want. But not by just sticking to the sequence of letters.

ps. Oops I left out that the cantillation marks for Torah writings—taamei hamikra—might change where the accent is, according to what David wrote. That might force you to look at more than on word, but presumably a spell check program could do that in principle.

Whether it’s worth the effort is another question.

pps. This book says that a kamatz katan is sometimes indicated by putting a meteg next to the kamatz. That seems to me typographically better than the line above the letter, or a bigger kamatz. However, I read somewhere that in the Siddur the meteg multiplied like measles so nobody really knows what they mean. So I don’t know.

As I listed earlier, Frank-Rühl (aka FrankRüehl, FrankRuehl, FrankReuhl) usurped the role of Romm (aka Vilna, Siddur, Meruba) as the leading popular standard Hebrew typeface.

Second in popularity, is Itamar David’s David. Third in popularity, is Henri Friedlaender’s David.

Itamar David created many other and varied Hebrew type designs. I revived one of them so far, which I called, “Itamar”, after hos first name.

William,

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation about Mr. C.L. Seow’s printed observation s on Biblical grammar. Where did you pick it up?

It seems kinda dire for programming it onto OpenType, as OT needs to substitute a string of characters, and there seems no Unicode value for stressed and unstressed (I thought that is the role of the meyeg in nikkud but not taamei mikra text).

Effort is not the issue. In OpenType programming, you do it once for the first and you never have to do it again.

I still like a visual indicator above the letter for a shvana.

My remaining question is the seeming preplanned design for the upper graphic symbol for shvana, because every occurance of shvana never had an upper taam. That seems to indicate that the lower taamim can cause a shvana but the upper taamim are immune to them. Why?

The answer is that upper and lower taamim must have a connection not only to cantillation but to grammar as well.

> Itamar David created many other and varied Hebrew type designs. I revived one of them so far

Israel, do you have the type catalog with Itamar? and any other designs?

I got it from a college library. It is also available at Amazon.

Before I mentioned that a popular display face was Aharoni. It was designed by a deceased Israeli graphic artist. FontWorld renamed it Aaron the Cohen, and below is GoHebrew’s rendition in two weights. David Hanuel objected to my statement it is used as a headline font in many Israeli newpapers. So, I am also showing the Chaim font: Skinny, Bold, and Fat (I am working on Regular), as I certain it is used now for headlines (I think it was designed in Germany). Perhaps, my memory does not serve me well, so David might be correct, as he has newspapers to prove it.

If anyone has other designs, please post then. Likewise, if you know further details about Hebrew type designs, their history, the names of their designers etc., your posts are very welcome.

Bill,

You’re fast :)

> This book says that a kamatz katan is sometimes indicated by putting a meteg next to the kamatz. That seems to me typographically better than the line above the

Meteg is Always placed underneath the letter. Never above.

> the line above the letter,

This is custom mark(s) much like the segol above the letter — metsudah siddur; horizontal line — artscroll siddur etc. etc.

William, thank you.

My new hobbie: collecting Hebrew grammar books. :)

David,

Some 15 years ago, a paperbound book called Hebrew Typography was authored by Mr. Itamar David, with lots of designs that he made, including a few for the Hebrew Bible, including matching taamei mikra There no information in it at all. Just lots and lots of specimens. It looked like he knew his end was near, and wanted someone to implement his designs. Maybe, that person willo be you or me.

I haven’t seen it for many years. I know I have it somewhere. When I find it, I’ll post some scans. Each design is very different that the other.

> This booklet is special because it features a graphic symbol for a shvana.

Israel, do you have a scan/sample? samples of words with that mark?

edit: i need to go now; later on i’ll answer your question.

David,

Why do you think that a graphic symbol besides the shva to indicate a shvana is preferable to a graphic symbol above a Hebrew letter, like in the Kehot Publication Society books (floating asterisk), or in the books of Shay Lemorah publishers (a floating asterisk with a circle closely around it)?

How about three dots, one on top of another?

Another useful text face in book and bold weight is Apple’s Margoliot, created by Tzvika Rosenberg of MasterType, and GoHebrew’s Belz (which I created many years ago, based on gigantic drawings from an earlier photo-typesetting system, in a rare book on Hebrew typography.

Both are inspired by the Dragonal design. There is an important design element in the mem, which I decided to implement, and Tzvika did not. Perhaps, Tzvika had a different set of original artwork than I, as you the weights and metrics of both the book and bold are different. See the direction of upper right hand element of the tzaddi in the regular/book weight.

> Why do you think that a graphic symbol besides the shva to indicate a shvana is preferable to a graphic symbol above a Hebrew letter,

Are you talking about the meteg? let’s keep it simple: the meteg is part of the cantillation; placed underneath the letter. Any other graphic symbol e.g. floating asterisk isn’t part of the cantillation and/or the nikud. But before talking too much I’ll be glad to see that booklet:

> This booklet is special because it features a graphic symbol for a shvana.

> the shvana always appeared over the shva after the first letter of a Hebrew word, if that letter is a shooruk, a vov with a dot on it middle left side.

David,

A meteg as part of the taamim/cantilation set, true.

It is also a part of the nikkud/vowel set.

I don’t lein, chant the Torah according to the taamei mikra (even though I do sing some made-up verses in the shower). Does a meteg represent a sound in the taamei-mikra?

In the nikkud/vowel set, it is a stress mark, indicating which syllable in the word is stressed. Is this how it is used in Tanach?

So, too, a shvana. It is universal, applicable in both text without taamei-mikra and text with taamei-mikra (even though I have only seen it used in text with only nikkud, and not in text with taamei-mikra [except in Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld’s Shay LeMorah Tanach books]).

I don’t see the two things are related?

There are more differences between Apple’s Margoliot by MasterFont, and between GoHebrew’s Belz besides the unique shape of the mem. Take a look closely at the shapes of the lamed, ayon, amd tzaddi. It is clear the the regular and bold weights of Margoliot were drawn by two different artists. Although there is design integrity to both designs, I believe GoHebrew’s Belz is closer to Droginal’s original design intentions in both matching Book and Bold.

Four weights of Belz

Earlier, I showed you the populars designs by Itamar David and Henri Friedlaender. Before are 4 weights from each designer by GoHebrew.

Israel,

A question or a statement:
I don’t see the two things are related?

David,

In nikkud text, meteg is a stress mark; it is also a part of the taamim. Always, it is a narrow vertical line that is placed below the Hebrew letter. Under a vov, zayin, yud, nuhn, there is barely enough space to position a nikud, lower taam, and meteg.

And you would consider adding another meteg between the nikud and taam???

Im nikkud text, a shvana is used; it is also a part of the taamim, though it is not placed there except in Shay Lamorah books (and in the future Tanach books I typeset). Under a vov, zayin, yud, nuhn, there is barely enough space to position a nikud, lower taam, and meteg.

And you would consider adding another meteg between the nikud and taam???

The Shay Lamorah publisher, Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld of Jerusalem knew want he was doing when he placed the graphic symbol above and out of the way. Rabbi Menachen M. Schneersohn of Kehot Publication Society (the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe) knew want he was doing when he placed the graphic symbol above and out of the way.

David,

What are the names of books on Hebrew grammar and taamim that you recommend?

John,

I recall that you strongly recommended a certain book? What was it?

Re. meteg, in vocalisation and in cantillation:

The small vertical mark serves two functions with two names: meteg and siluq. Meteg is a vocalisation mark used to indicate secondary stress. Siluq is a cantillation mark signifying the end of a Biblical verse. Since the marks are visually identical but semantically distinguishable by context, Unicode unifies their encoding as a single mark.

It is the nature of chant — not only Jewish chant but also Byzantine chant and the varieties of Latin chant — that melody arises out of text. This means that it isn’t really possible to talk about cantillation independent of vocalisation; so, for instance, the marking of secondary stress using meteg has a musical function that derives from the musical function of syllable stress as a punctuating and rhythmic principle. Or, as Joshua R. Jacobson puts it: ’Where there are too many consecutive unaccented syllables, the rhythm of the chant may sound rushed. Accordingly, to slow down the pace of the reading, a secondary stress is often indicated on words with more than two syllables.... A syllable with a meteg should be chanted slightly louder and longer than a syllable that has no accent at all.’

Jacobson’s book, Chanting the Hebrew Bible, is excellent, and I learned more from it about vocalisation and cantillation than from any grammar I have consulted (and I have grammars dating back to 1539!)

John,

> Jacobson’s book, Chanting the Hebrew Bible, is excellent, and I learned more from it about vocalisation and cantillation than from any grammar I have consulted (and I have grammars dating back to 1539!)

Thank you.

Are some of yout very old grammar books in Hebrew by the Jewish grammar scholars of Spain, known as the Rishonim, the early dutactors of Jewish law?

A definition of shvana, kamatz katan, and hataf kamatz katan, is there. I believe Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld derived his information from there.

John,

> The small vertical mark serves two functions with two names: meteg and siluq.

> Meteg is a vocalisation mark used to indicate secondary stress.

> Siluq is a cantillation mark signifying the end of a Biblical verse.

This is very questional.

Are you confusing it with sof pasuk?

A meteg and sof pasuk has similar designs. Meteg though is small, like a nikud. Sof pasuk is much taller, does not descend below the base line, but does protrude above the other letters, like a lamed.

> Since the marks are visually identical but semantically distinguishable by context, Unicode unifies their encoding as a single mark.

If so, meteg and sof pasuk should have two distinct Unicode values. They appear together in a single verse.

Accoording to your definition of metrg, how then is a secondary stress indicated?

The grammar of Biblical Hebrew by Seow that Bill mentioned is a very good basic text. It manages to be a lot clearer than many other textbooks.

Genesius’ Hebrew Grammar remains extremely important, despite being well over a hundred years old now. I still refer to it when I want a really thorough explication of a topic.

Some of the older grammars have lovely woodcut or engraved alphabets to illustrate pronunciation of the letters. I have my eye on one of these as a source for a possible display typeface. And then there’s this beautiful piece of writing inside the back cover of my copy of Happellio’s Lingua Sanctae Canones grammatici (1561). The larger letters are about 3mm tall, and the small letters only 1.5mm.

Are you confusing it with sof pasuk?

No. One of the ways you can distinguish siluq from meteg is that siluq will always be followed by a sof pasuq. Siluq always occurs on the last word of a verse, so if you see what looks like a meteg on the last word, it will actually be a siluq unless there is another accent. [There are a few cases of polysyllabic words that have both a meteg and a siluq; the latter, of course, is the one nearest to the end of the word.] The siluq is specifically a cantillation mark: it indicates a melodic ending to be sung.

Accoording to your definition of meteg, how then is a secondary stress indicated?

By a meteg. In the cantillation system, the meteg is used to indicate secondary stress. Primary stress is indicated by one of the other accents — which one depends on the melody —, but where a number of unaccented syllables follow in succession, the meteg is used to signify a secondary stress, which musically is a rhythmic device.

[Note that I only know about Biblical Hebrew. I don’t know how stress works in normal spoken Hebrew or understand what role meteg plays in the vocalisation system other than in cantillated text.]

Again, I strongly, strongly recommend Jacobson’s book. It comes with an audio CD, so you can hear the correct interpretation of the different ’trops’.

> I learned more from it about vocalisation and cantillation than from any grammar....

John,

The only complete book/work is by Mordechai Breuer Ta’amey ha-mikra (The Poetical Books +The Prose Books) +
Pisuk Te’amim sheba-Mikra
And of course Keter Aram Tsovah by Israel Yeivin!!!

About the meteg, there are ten different kinds of metegs.

Israel, how much do you know about linguistics and how much about music?

Because of the nature of chant — all chant, not just Jewish —, there is a strong relationship of music to text and hence to the characteristics of spoken language, particularly stress, which performs a rhythmic role in both speech and chant. So yes, there is a relationship between the ta’amim and the nikudot, but — and this is important — vowels are the most fluid elements of language. They are fluid in their individual and regional interpretation and they are also historically fluid (consider the ’great vowel shift’ in mediaeval English). So what the nikudot signify is something less fixed than either the consonant letters or the ta’amim. Note also that what the ta’amim signify is also changeable, although in a different way: how particular accents are interpreted by the cantor depends on the calendar, the same mark will be expressed musically in different ways depending on the text and the holy day. Historically, the ta’amim have also been given different melodies in different diaspora communities. Jacobson has a nice example of the intersection of these phenomena on page 16, where he shows six different melodic interpretations of the ta’am tevir — respectively for Torah, Haftarah, Esther, Lamentations, the Song of Songs, and Torah on a High Holiday — in a Lithuanian tradition.

The typeface design is Stam.

Better to say that Stam is a typeface in the style of this (probably 18th century) Ashkenazic formal writing.

John,

The sample contains a beautiful poetic prayer.

“I will praise You, my Father, Master of the Heavens and Earth, who arranged
Your will, from the wise (?) ones and the understanding ones,
And you make [your will] pleasant to youth.”

“From the flowing of the heart, will speak the mouth.”

Wow, where did you get these books from? Want to sell them? :)

The typeface design is Stam.

Regarding the first inscription, what does the arrangement of G-d’s will have to with pleasing youth?

Regarding the second inscription, this statement is reflected in the expression in Chassidic thought [on the opposite] that the more you speak, then the more you wake up feeling about that subject.

===

Did you see anywhere the discussion that there is a relationship between the nikud and the taamim? Or the taggim? I think there must be, but we must figure it out.

John,

> Stam is a typeface in the style of this (probably 18th century) Ashkenazic formal writing

Stam is as acronym foe three kinds of holy objects, the S-efer Torah parchment, Tefillin, and Mezuzah. That is why this design for religious writings.

> Ashkenazic

Now, do you see why I suggested (based on my research) when we worked on FrankRuehl and then Henri that the Romm design of Vilna, Lithuania, was based upon a Sephardic style of writing, and Adobe Hebrew, Henri (Hadasa), Koren (Crown), was based upon an Ashkenazic style of writing.

.
Each of the alephs have a left upper arm facing leftwards.

Henri right lower leg, and Adobe Hebrew’s, face to the right (in this, they blend traditions). Do you remember that I said that Hadasa inspired Adobe Hebrew?

Israel,

Part of the list:

Mordechai Breuer Ta’amey ha-mikra — this is the only book that covers The Poetical Books +The Prose Books;
Pisuk Te’amim sheba-Mikra
Aharon Ben Asher — Diqduqe Hate’amim (Dotan Edition, 1967, 3 vol)
Keter Aram Tsovah by Israel Yeivin
Norzi, Minhat Shai
Wolf Heidenheim, Mishpete Ha-Te’amim

And the rest... from the first thread e.g. Ibn Janah — Sefer Ha-Riqmah; David Kimhi (RaDaK) — Michlol , Sefer Hashorashim;

since they are dealing with issues/subjects/problems that no other book deals with.

John,

What do you know about the difference between the upper and lower ta’amim? Why are some above, and some below?

I checked in the Shay Lemorah Tanach to see if any shvanas bump into upper ta’amim. A shvana never appeared when there was an upper taan. That means, the ta’amim are related to the rules of Hebrew grammar.

I don’t see yet how, but there must be a relationship between the taamim, the nikkud, Hebrew grammar, and maybe even the taggim in the Sefer Torah scroll.

Now, if Hebrew words are spelled according to roots, and modifiers, based upon Hebrew grammar rules. So, if Hebrew grannar is related to nikkud and to ta’amim, then they are related to the letters.

Did you find any book discussing this?

John,

> Israel, how much do you know about linguistics and how much about music?

Not much, but I want to know, to learn...

Are there books which connect the two?

David,

Thank you. Do you know from which book stores I can acquire them, or libraries, or are they even in print?

Israel,

Try first a college library around you; becasue several of them are out of print, hard to find (and if you’re going to find....you need to payyyyy).

Most important: all of them in Hebrew (no nikud);

I don’t know if this is good idea to have all of them now — since too much and you won’t get anything. But first read any grammar book to see what I’m talking about.

> how then is a secondary stress indicated?

The meteg serves to indicate a certain “stop” — you don’t chant the meteg — for phonetic & musical reasons.

David,

Good suggestion. JTS (Conservative central yeshiva) library in upper Manhattan has everything.

Do you know how JTS? Before there was such a thing as Conservative (such a inappropriate name), there were only Orthodox and Reform rabbis. A convention of them was held in Philly. Some Reform rabbis thought it would be amusing to have non-kosher food, like pork, served at the main dinner. The Orthodox rabbis were outraged and stormed out. Maybe that really the intention.

In protest, they fonded JTS as a showcase central yeshiva with a tremendous library of every rare title you can imagine. The Reform in response founded Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati with its even greater library.

The Schneersohn/Lubavitch collection is as sizey. None of them are lending libraries. They do allow copies to be made.

> A shvana never appeared when there was an upper taan

Israel,

Again? would you mind to post an image — Shay Lemorah Tanach, Leviticus 14: 8-12

Israel,

> How does the reader know its a meteg or a silug,

I’m not sure if the reader knows ’silug’; John said that — siluq = at the end of the verse

> In Biblical text, is the meteg indicating this.

I guess this is a question, right?

David,

> Shay Lemorah Tanach, Leviticus 14: 8-12

...over easy...

(It’ll take a coupla days, as they’re my son’s books. I’ll call him, ask permission to borrow it, and when I do, I will look at it before I scan, because you made me curious.)

> I guess this is a question, right?

Is this an answer or a statement? :)

In Biblical text, is the meteg indicating this?

? ? ?

David,

A meteg is not chanted, but indicates a stressed syllable. In Biblical text, is the meteg indicating this? How does the reader know its a meteg or a silug, if they occurs at the end of a verse? All they both repeated?

.
.
John,

Does SBL-Hebrew have a double meteg by itself, a double meteg with each nikkud, a double meteg with each taam, anda double meteg with each nikkud and combination?

Must I have millions of ligatures (exaggeration), or is there an easier way in MS VOLT?

Hey, the neteg/silug combo only happens in a few words, right. Why not make just a ligature for that situation?

> In Biblical text, is the meteg indicating this?

Yes, of course, Biblical text.

And post an image:

> This booklet is special because it features a graphic symbol for a shvana.

> the shvana always appeared over the shva after the first letter of a Hebrew word, if that letter is a shooruk, a vov with a dot on it middle left side.

David,

> the shvana always appeared over the shva after the first letter of a Hebrew word, if that letter is a shooruk, a vov with a dot on it middle left side.

This is accurate if the word is a verb, but when it wasn’t a verb, then it was an ordinary shva. So the definition needs an exception.

That can’t be easily programmed in OpenType unless CSUB supports wildcard strings, since there are certain letters in certain places for verbs, and other places for nouns. Hence, if OT CSUB supports wildcard strings, it can be defined.

John,is that possible?

I am convinced it’s doable, but my research learning curve is like a big mountain to climb.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains the statement in Avot, yagata umatzata, not as a halevai statement, but as a promise. He points out the lashon matzata is beyond relationship to the yegia. Plus the Rebbe Reshab says in Ayin Beis by the concept of hashaara (conceiving in your whether or not it possible) that everything is then possible if one conceives it. A profound concept. I bet Obama wished thay he believe he could be president.

David,

> Yes, of course, Biblical text.

But is “it” referring to the kind of meteg which indicates stress, or the kind John referred to. Huh?

> Right now there’s not a single revival that is close to the original.

I created one very good revival, very close to the original, in 1986, based on excellent foot high drawings of various letter forms, including Frank’s. Plus I created another PostScript font for Empire Press also based upon very large drawings.

> Don’t forget that Raphael Frank was Sofer Stam.

At Bitstream’s www.myfonts.com, Frank is a rabbinical scholar. Chajmke writes that he was a chazan. Did he even wear a kippah? Maybe he was a Sofer Stam that wrote mezuzahs in FrankReuhl.

See http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/frank-ruehl-bt/familytree.html
or http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/frank-ruehl-bt/
or http://www.myfonts.com/person/frank/rafael/

David suggested that Miriam was also created by Frank. Kehot’s hundreds if scholarly books suggest this, as FrankReuhl and Miriam are teamed up together, with FrankReuhl in the lead as a text face, and Miriam as an “italic”.

I created this rendition of Miriam with a bold weughtm and a sans set also.

While you are listing sources on the grammar of the te’amim and nikud, I see that the Encyclopedia Judaica has a long article, amounting to a small book, on this, under the heading ’Masorah’. It looks very exhaustive—and to me exhausting! It has a huge Bibliography. (It is in vol. 16, the final one, out of order.)

There they talk about the Ga’yah, which seems to later be called the meteg. Apparently it was initially created in order to distinguish the schva nach and schva na! And then it came to be used in all kinds of capricious ways, which scholars tried to sort out and systematize.

Israel, according to Michael Meyer’s history “Response to Modernity”, the infamous “trefa banquet”, with shellfish (not pork) was ordered by by laymen from a Jewish caterer—who obviously didn’t know or didn’t care about kashrut. It was not a deliberate provocation by some rabbis, but rather a huge embarrassment. Some Reform minded Rabbis indeed didn’t care about kashrut, but they wouldn’t have deliberately offended their colleagues. Still the laxness did reveal dramatically the underlying differences of attitude.

The occasion was the first ordination of Rabbis from the Hebrew Union College, in 1883. At that time there were no separate Jewish denominations in the US, and indeed this did spark the actual split between Reform and Conservative, though the tensions were obviously already there.

@GoHebrew: I learned that Rafael Frank also published a siddur (I would consider myself as a collector of siddurim), together with a person called “Israel Wiesen”, but I wasn’t able to find a print of it...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.sprachkasse.de/blog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

William,

> According to Michael Meyer’s history “Response to Modernity”, the infamous “trefa banquet”, with shellfish (not pork)

I heard it from someone who read it in a book. Sorry. I like your version better.

> the actual split between Reform and Conservative,

You mean Reform and Orthodox. It created JTS, too. Si, HUC is older. Why is it in Cinci.?

Chajmke,

> Rafael Frank also published a siddur (I would consider myself as a collector of siddurim)

What was his role? Typesetter, editor?

What kind of type styles appear in your siddurim? Do you have any hand-drawn siddurim too?

William,

> There they talk about the Ga’yah, which seems to later be called the meteg. Apparently it was initially created in order to distinguish the schva nach and schva na! And then it came to be used in all kinds of capricious ways, which scholars tried to sort out and systematize.

Is there a resource for this account of this chronology? Are there any visual examples?

> Frank also may have designed Miriam

That is what I understand is explicitly stated in this (Hebrew) Wiki link about Frank.

Israel,

> This is accurate if the word is a verb, but when it wasn’t a verb, then it was an ordinary shva. So the definition needs an exception.

An image. or two. There’s no such a thing — if it’s a verb - yes; not a verb — ordinary shva.

> But is “it” referring to the kind of meteg which indicates stress....

There are ten different kinds of metegs:
1. Heavy meteg: 2 kinds of heavy — regular + not regular
2. light meteg
3. meteg on guttural
4. meteg on middle guttural
5. meteg on sheva
6. vayehi meteg
7. meteg + letter he
8. meteg on closed syllable + long vowel
9. meteg on open syllable + long vowel
10. meteg + similar letters

There’s a rare meteg (Poetical Books) that we don’t know why that meteg is there.

As a visual graphic (only Breuer and his school): there’s the “long meteg” — a long vertical line; ” short meteg — the usual short vertical line.

In general, as a type designer you don’t need/have to know the whole big family so called meteg. But if you want to deal with grammar you have to.

To add to your “research learning curve is like a big mountain to climb”: you want to have a special mark e.g. floating asterisk above the sheva na, right? But EVERY hataf is sheva na: hataf segol, hataf patah, hataf qamats.

>Is there a resource for this account

As I said, it’s all in a very long Encyclopedia Judaica article, with extensive bibliography.

The author is identified as Aron Dotan, who was at the time of publication (1972) a professor of Hebrew Philology at Tel Aviv University.

I’m afraid that if you want to study Hebrew grammar, you are not going to find sources that are kosher by your standards. The study of Hebrew grammar was developed largely by maskilim—Enlightenment Jews who rejected the Kabbala as nonsense.

On the chronology of the split, I’d have to check. Hebrew Union College was set up as a seminary for all rabbis, with the goal of keeping the Jewish community unified—hence the name. Of course, that didn’t happen. I think the formal separation into three branches—orthodox, conservative, reform—happened only after the trefa banquet. You have to remember that at the time there were relatively few Jews of any kind in the US.

About Cincinnati, IIRC, at the time it had the same Jewish population as New York City, and was a center of Reform Jews transplanted from Germany. The big influx of European Jews to the US only happened after 1880.

> The author is identified as Aron Dotan

Bill,

If it is Prof. Dotan — it is not just OK, but super-super-super OK!!!

> Frank also may have designed Miriam

References in the Wiki entry are unfortunately missing.

Here is what I found in Sivan Toledo’s Anotated Bibliography of Hebrew Typesetting. First three references with their number in his list:

[1] Leila Avrin. The art of the Hebrew book in the twentieth century. In [49], pages 125-139.
[15] Ittai Joseph Tamari. Hebraische Schriftgestaltung in Deutschland von der Jahrhundertwende bis zum Ausbruch des zweiten Weltkriegesunter besonderer Berucksichtigung der “Frank-Rühl” Lettern. In German. Ph.D. thesis, Johannes Gutenberg Universitat, Mainz, 1993. Published on microfiche, Hansel-Hohenhausen, 1996.
[49] Leonard Singer Gold, editor. A Sign and a witness: 2,000 years of Hebrew books and illuminated manuscripts. New York Public Library and Oxford University Press, 1988.

About [1] Toledo writes: Avrin conjectures that MIRYAM was designed by Rafael Frank (the conjecture is proved as correct in [15]).

Michel

PS I don’t know if I should add that about [15] he writes: I cannot comment about the content since I do not read German. Of course this is an annotated bibliography and normally each entry is followed by a comment...

David,

> To add to your “research learning curve is like a big mountain to climb”: you want to have a special mark e.g. floating asterisk above the sheva na, right? But EVERY hataf is sheva na: hataf segol, hataf patah, hataf qamats.

I am a very pragmatic businessperson in matters of type design. A graphic symbol over a letter with a shva to indicate to the reader is an accepted practice by two of the largest Jewish publishers in the world. So I want my fonts to support it.

A graphic symbol over a letter with a hataf katan, hataf patach, and hataf segol, is not an accepted practice by any Jewish publishers. So I could care less, of the hataf part is a shvana or just a couple of dots...

This is primarily a business decision.

I am a professional with very high standards, so I want to become an expert in Hebrew grammar. I am also a thinker of lofty concepts, so I seek to understand how letters, nikkud, taamim, taggim, music are interrelated.

About William’s warning about the maskilim who excelled in Hebrew grammar, my role model is the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe. When he was a young boy, his parents hired secular tutors to teach him mathematics, Hebrew grammar, and other topics not studied in yeshiva. I am interested though in reviewing these same rules in the writings of the Rishonim (the early redactors of Jewish law), as I understand that all rules are derived from their writings.

.
Michael,

Thank you for posting those links. Can we find Friendlaender’s articles online?

> Can we find Friendlaender’s articles online?

I don’t know. I could not.

Michael,

Where are they available to see a hard copy?

David: If it is Prof. Dotan — it is not just OK, but super-super-super OK!!

Yes! Professor Dotan is a great expert. His edition of the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensis is superb.

Israel,

A meteg is not chanted, but indicates a stressed syllable. In Biblical text, is the meteg indicating this?

It is chanted and it is indicating (secondary) stress. Stress is part of chant.

What I am not sure about is how this chant stress — and hence this use of meteg — relates to stress in spoken Hebrew.

How does the reader know its a meteg or a silug, if they occurs at the end of a verse? All they both repeated?

Does SBL-Hebrew have a double meteg by itself, a double meteg with each nikkud, a double meteg with each taam, anda double meteg with each nikkud and combination?

There is no situation in the Bible text where meteg and siluq fall on the same syllable. There are cases where they fall on the same word, but always on separate syllables. So there is no need for a ’double meteg’ combination.

Think of is this way:

The cantor is studying the vocalised and accented text (obviously he needs to do this prior to the service, because the synagogue scrolls do not contain the nikudot or ta’amim; he has to practice ahead of time and do it from memory). He sees this little vertical mark which he knows has particular musical significance. In the midst of a verse it indicates secondary stress, which he will sing slightly louder and longer than a syllable that has no accent. At the end of a verse it indicates a final cadence, typically of two or three notes depending on the word. [Note also that the cadence for siluq varies when the verse is the final one in the reading.]

So the terms meteg and siluq do not refer to distinct marks, per se, but to different interpretations of the same mark in different contexts.

Some additional observations from Jacobson’s _Chanting the Hebrew Bible_ (p.430)

• The symbols for meteg and siluk look identical.

• Meteg is a secondary accent: it will never appear alone on a word without that word’s primary accent. The primary accent is placed on the stressed syllable. Meteg indicates a secondary word stress, usually two syllables before the primary stress.

Jacobson provides examples of both meteg and siluq.

From these rules it follows that:

if you see a word with only the meteg/siluq mark, and no other ta’am, then it must be siluq;

if you see a word with the meteg/siluq mark on one syllable but another accent on a later syllable, then it must be meteg;

siluq is the sign used as a primary accent;

ergo, if a word has two occurences of the sign then the first must be meteg and the second must be siluq.

I’m sure the more expert you are on the subject, the more you will enjoy the EJ article. It is sufficiently specialized and advanced that I can’t read it, except in very small doses.

> Where are they available to see a hard copy?

Such articles are generally to be found in university libraries. For instance, in Montreal, and if I understand well their online catalogue, McGill University seems to have the Printing & Graphic Arts article (Toward a Modern Hebrew) as well as the Typographica article (Modern and Hebrew typefaces). Both are in the rare book division; I never managed to get there.

Further research on meteg confirms that its origin is as part of the full accentuation (cantillation) of the Hebrew Bible, and its primary role must be understood as part of that overall system. However, it is unique among the accents in that it is also sometimes encountered in otherwise unaccented text, i.e. alongside the nikudot vocalisation.

I’m only familiar with the Biblical text, so I don’t know how meteg is used independently of the full cantillation system, and have not been able to locate reliable information on this (other than anecdotal comments that it represents ’stress’, which doesn’t really convey much: what kind of stress? in what circumstances?). What I am fairly sure of though is that this use is a later development and, presumably, derivative of the role of meteg in the cantillation system (as described above).

Here, for reference, is Gesenius’ explication of the meteg accent (2nd English edition, based on 28th German edition, Oxford 1910). German readers may wish to seek out Baer’s ’exhaustive account’ cited in the footnote on page 64.

Israel: Stam is as acronym foe three kinds of holy objects, the S-efer Torah parchment, Tefillin, and Mezuzah. That is why this design for religious writings.

Yes, I am aware of that. But the ’Stam Regular’ image you uploaded is a typeface and, despite the name, it seems contravene some of the rules of construction. Is it not a font in a style reminiscent of STaM, rather than an implementation of the Vaad Mishmereth STaM rules? It evokes the style of the STaM letters, but it does not follow them, if you will excuse the pun, ’religiously’.

> It is chanted and it is indicating (secondary) stress. Stress is part of chant.
> What I am not sure about is how this chant stress — and hence this use of meteg — relates to stress in spoken Hebrew.

John,

I was addressing this issue — along with other grammar-cantillation- biblical hebrew issues — not long ago. My solution was very simple; especially if we’re dealing with young students: to talk about prononciation with melody & prononciation without melody. Since, for example, meteg has no melody.
They understand that ’to chant’ is ’to sing’, singsong, so how do you sing without melody?

—-

We don’t use the meteg in spoken Hebrew.

> However, it is unique among the accents in that it is also sometimes encountered in otherwise unaccented text, i.e. alongside the nikudot vocalisation..... I don’t know how meteg is used independently of the full cantillation system

John,

Dictionaries (words with millera + mille’el)

Thanks for the clarifications, David.

How does one sing without melody? The answer to that depends on how one defines melody. If one assumes melody to include changes in tone, i.e. pitch variation, and not just changes in duration (rhythm), then such ’singing without melody’ would be what is called recto tono in Latin chant. This is a very simple style of chant that is rythmic but does not involve pitch variation; it is used for e.g. the liturgical confiteor (confession) and certain prayers, and can also be used, as a fallback, if one isn’t accomplished enough to sing the proper melody for e.g. an antiphon.

Jacobson’s description of the interpretation of meteg in Jewish chant indicates that the reciting tone is maintained: the syllable with meteg is lengthened and sung slightly louder, but the pitch does not change. So the role of meteg is rhythmic rather than melodic in the sense used in the previous paragraph.

There is a much more general definition of melody, though: ’interacting patterns of changing events occurring in time.’ And in that case merely rhythmic changes could be interpreted as ’melody’, although I wonder how many lay-listeners would consider the results melodic.

More on meteg and siluq:

With the assistant of colleagues at Libronix, makers of Bible study software and members of the SBL Font Foundation, I can provide this list of instances of single words in the Hebrew Bible text containing both meteg and siluq. In all cases, these are the final words in the cited verses (a necessary condition for siluq; see above); the first ֽ mark in each word is a meteg and the second is siluq.

The list is divided into two parts: cases in which both meteg and siluq occur on a single word, and cases in which they occur on two words conjoined by maqqef (the hyphen-like mark) with the meteg on the first word and the siluq on the second. When two words are conjoined by maqqef, the rules of accentuation are applied as if they were one word.

I. Single words.

Genesis 2:5 אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה
Genesis 2:6 אֶֽת־כָּל־פְּנֵֽי־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה
Genesis 2:22 אֶל־הָֽאָדָֽם
Genesis 3:24 הַֽחַיִּֽים
Genesis 4:3 לַֽיהוָֽה
Genesis 4:10 מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה
Genesis 4:14 יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי
Genesis 4:22 נַֽעֲמָֽה
Genesis 5:2 הִבָּֽרְאָֽם
Genesis 5:12 אֶת־מַֽהֲלַלְאֵֽל
Genesis 6:16 תַּֽעֲשֶֽׂהָ
Genesis 6:19 יִֽהְיֽוּ
Genesis 6:20 לְהַֽחֲיֽוֹת
Genesis 7:4 הָֽאֲדָמָֽה
Genesis 7:8 עַל־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה
Genesis 7:16 בַּֽעֲדֹֽו
Genesis 8:5 הֶֽהָרִֽים
Genesis 8:8 הָֽאֲדָמָֽה
Genesis 8:13 הָֽאֲדָמָֽה
Genesis 9:5 הָֽאָדָֽם
Genesis 9:9 אַֽחֲרֵיכֶֽם
Genesis 10:18 הַֽכְּנַעֲנִֽי
Genesis 10:22 וַֽאֲרָֽם
Genesis 11:6 לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת
Genesis 13:18 לַֽיהוָֽה
Genesis 15:4 יִֽירָשֶֽׁךָ
Genesis 15:8 אִֽירָשֶֽׁנָּה
Genesis 18:31 הָֽעֶשְׂרִֽים
Genesis 24:26 לַֽיהוָֽה
Genesis 24:52 לַֽיהוָֽה
Genesis 24:54 לַֽאדֹנִֽי
Genesis 24:56 לַֽאדֹנִֽי
Genesis 26:34 הַֽחִתִּֽי
Genesis 27:23 וַֽיְבָרְכֵֽהוּ
Genesis 31:40 מֵֽעֵינָֽי
Genesis 32:3 מַֽחֲנָֽיִם
Genesis 32:22 בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Genesis 33:6 וַתִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶֽיןָ
Genesis 33:7 וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֽוּ
Genesis 34:3 הַֽנַּעֲרָֽ
Genesis 36:2 הַֽחִוִּֽי
Genesis 39:9 לֵֽאלֹהִֽים
Genesis 43:16 בַּֽצָּהֳרָֽיִם
Genesis 43:24 לַחֲמֹֽרֵיהֶֽם
Genesis 46:10 בֶּן־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִֽית
Genesis 49:14 הַֽמִּשְׁפְּתָֽיִם
Genesis 49:29 הַֽחִתִּֽי
Genesis 50:24 וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב
Exodus 4:16 לֵֽאלֹהִֽים
Exodus 4:31 וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽוּ
Exodus 5:17 לַֽיהוָֽה
Exodus 6:23 וְאֶת־אִֽיתָמָֽר
Exodus 7:26 וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי
Exodus 7:27 בַּֽצְפַרְדְּעִֽים
Exodus 7:29 הַֽצְפַרְדְּעִֽים
Exodus 8:16 וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי
Exodus 8:25 לַֽיהוָֽה
Exodus 9:1 וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי
Exodus 9:13 וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי
Exodus 10:3 וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי
Exodus 12:27 וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽוּ
Exodus 16:13 לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Exodus 19:16 בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Exodus 20:11 וַֽיְקַדְּשֵֽׁהוּ
Exodus 20:18 מֵֽרָחֹֽק
Exodus 20:25 וַתְּחַֽלְלֶֽהָ
Exodus 21:35 יֶֽחֱצֽוּן
Exodus 28:14 עַל־הַֽמִּשְׁבְּצֹֽת
Exodus 28:36 לַֽיהוָֽה
Exodus 30:13 לַֽיהוָֽה
Exodus 30:20 לַֽיהוָֽה
Exodus 33:7 לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Exodus 40:10 קָֽדָשִֽׁים
Leviticus 1:9 לַֽיהוָֽה
Leviticus 2:11 לַֽיהוָֽה
Leviticus 3:5 לַֽיהוָֽה
Leviticus 7:9 תִֽהְיֶֽה
Leviticus 7:25 מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ
Leviticus 7:27 מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ
Leviticus 8:14 הַֽחַטָּֽאת
Leviticus 9:11 לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Leviticus 10:4 לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Leviticus 14:6 הַֽחַיִּֽים
Leviticus 16:26 אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Leviticus 16:28 אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Leviticus 17:3 לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Leviticus 20:24 מִן־הָֽעַמִּֽים
Leviticus 22:19 וּבָֽעִזִּֽים
Leviticus 23:3 מֽוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶֽם
Leviticus 23:14 מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶֽם
Leviticus 23:17 לַֽיהוָֽה
Leviticus 23:21 לְדֹרֹֽתֵיכֶֽם
Leviticus 23:29 מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ
Leviticus 23:31 מֹֽשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶֽם
Leviticus 24:3 לְדֹרֹֽתֵיכֶֽם
Leviticus 24:7 לַֽיהוָֽה
Leviticus 25:45 לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה
Leviticus 26:13 קֽוֹמְמִיּֽוּת

Leviticus 26:31 נִיחֹֽחֲכֶֽם
Leviticus 26:37 אֹֽיְבֵיכֶֽם
Leviticus 27:2 לַֽיהוָֽה
Leviticus 27:18 מֵֽעֶרְכֶּֽךָ
Leviticus 27:22 לַֽיהוָֽה
Leviticus 27:30 לַֽיהוָֽה
Leviticus 27:32 לַֽיהוָֽה
Numbers 1:6 בֶּן־צוּרִֽישַׁדָּֽי
Numbers 1:12 בֶּן־עַמִּֽישַׁדָּֽי
Numbers 2:25 בֶּן־עַמִּֽישַׁדָּֽי
Numbers 3:37 וּמֵֽיתְרֵיהֶֽם
Numbers 5:18 הַמְאָֽרֲרִֽים
Numbers 6:2 לַֽיהוָֽה
Numbers 6:8 לַֽיהוָֽה
Numbers 6:25 וִֽיחֻנֶּֽךָּ
Numbers 7:36 בֶּן־צוּרִֽישַׁדָּֽי
Numbers 7:41 בֶּן־צוּרִֽישַׁדָּֽי
Numbers 8:13 לַֽיהוָֽה
Numbers 10:2 אֶת־הַֽמַּחֲנֽוֹת
Numbers 10:34 מִן־הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Numbers 11:1 הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Numbers 11:26 בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Numbers 11:27 בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Numbers 11:32 הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Numbers 14:44 הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Numbers 14:45 עַד־הַֽחָרְמָֽה
Numbers 15:8 לַֽיהוָֽה
Numbers 15:13 לַֽיהוָֽה
Numbers 15:35 לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Numbers 15:40 לֵֽאלֹהֵיכֶֽם
Numbers 18:17 לַֽיהוָֽה
Numbers 18:26 מִן־הַֽמַּעֲשֵֽׂר
Numbers 20:19 אֶֽעֱבֹֽרָה
Numbers 21:30 עַד־מֵֽידְבָֽא
Numbers 22:2 לָֽאֱמֹרִֽי
Numbers 23:26 אֶֽעֱשֶֽׂה
Numbers 25:2 לֵֽאלֹהֵיהֶֽן
Numbers 26:30 הַֽחֶלְקִֽי
Numbers 26:32 הַֽחֶפְרִֽי
Numbers 26:35 הַֽתַּחֲנִֽי
Numbers 26:40 הַֽנַּעֲמִֽי
Numbers 28:4 הָֽעַרְבָּֽיִם
Numbers 28:6 לַֽיהוָֽה
Numbers 28:12 הָֽאֶחָֽד
Numbers 30:9 יִֽסְלַֽח־לָֽהּ
Numbers 30:13 יִֽסְלַֽח־לָֽהּ
Numbers 31:13 לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Numbers 31:24 אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Deuteronomy 1:12 וְרִֽיבְכֶֽם
Deuteronomy 4:43 לַֽמְנַשִּֽׁי
Deuteronomy 5:33 תִּֽירָשֽׁוּן
Deuteronomy 8:15 הַֽחַלָּמִֽישׁ
Deuteronomy 9:5 וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב
Deuteronomy 12:11 לַֽיהוָֽה
Deuteronomy 12:31 לֵֽאלֹהֵיהֶֽם
Deuteronomy 13:3 וְנָֽעָבְדֵֽם
Deuteronomy 14:12 וְהָֽעָזְנִיָּֽה
Deuteronomy 15:2 לַֽיהוָֽה
Deuteronomy 23:5 לְקַֽלְלֶֽךָּ
Deuteronomy 23:11 הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Deuteronomy 29:7 הַֽמְנַשִּֽׁי
Deuteronomy 29:12 וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב
Deuteronomy 32:6 וַֽיְכֹנְנֶֽךָ
Joshua 3:2 הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Joshua 3:9 אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם
Joshua 4:10 וַֽיַּעֲבֹֽרוּ
Joshua 6:11 בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Joshua 7:12 מִֽקִּרְבְּכֶֽם
Joshua 7:13 מִֽקִּרְבְּכֶֽם
Joshua 12:6 הַֽמְנַשֶּֽׁה
Joshua 13:7 הַֽמְנַשֶּֽׁה
Joshua 17:6 הַנּֽוֹתָרִֽים
Joshua 18:3 אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶֽם
Judges 2:5 לַֽיהוָֽה
Judges 3:22 הַֽפַּרְשְׁדֹֽנָה
Judges 7:10 אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Judges 7:11 בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Judges 7:14 וְאֶת־כָּל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
Judges 8:7 וְאֶת־הַֽבַּרְקֳנִֽים
Judges 9:50 וַֽיִּלְכְּדָֽהּ
Judges 20:32 אֶל־הַֽמְסִלּֽוֹת
1 Samuel 4:4 וּפִֽינְחָֽס
1 Samuel 4:6 אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
1 Samuel 4:11 וּפִֽינְחָֽס
1 Samuel 6:15 לַֽיהוָֽה
1 Samuel 7:17 לַֽיהוָֽה
1 Samuel 10:5 מִֽתְנַבְּאִֽים
1 Samuel 14:35 לַֽיהוָֽה
1 Samuel 15:25 לַֽיהוָֽה
1 Samuel 15:31 לַֽיהוָֽה
1 Samuel 17:5 נְחֹֽשֶֽׁת
1 Samuel 23:28 הַֽמַּחְלְקֽוֹת
1 Samuel 27:3 הַֽכַּרְמְלִֽית
1 Samuel 30:5 הַֽכַּרְמְלִֽי
2 Samuel 2:2 הַֽכַּרְמְלִֽי
2 Samuel 2:23 וַֽיַּעֲמֹֽדוּ
2 Samuel 4:5 הַֽצָּהֳרָֽיִם
2 Samuel 6:5 וּֽבְצֶלְצֶלִֽים
2 Samuel 10:4 וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵֽם
2 Samuel 11:12 וּמִֽמָּחֳרָֽת
2 Samuel 12:29 וַֽיִּלְכְּדָֽהּ
2 Samuel 13:25 וַֽיְבָרֲכֵֽהוּ
2 Samuel 18:30 וַֽיַּעֲמֹֽד
2 Samuel 23:16 לַֽיהוָֽה
1 Kings 2:19 לִֽימִינֹֽו
1 Kings 8:50 וְרִֽחֲמֽוּם
1 Kings 13:6 כְּבָרִֽאשֹׁנָֽה
1 Kings 13:27 וַֽיַּחֲבֹֽשׁוּ
1 Kings 16:16 בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה
1 Kings 20:34 וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵֽהוּ
2 Kings 3:17 וּֽבְהֶמְתְּכֶֽם
2 Kings 6:15 נַֽעֲשֶֽׂה
2 Kings 9:33 וַֽיִּרְמְסֶֽנָּה
2 Kings 10:26 וַֽיִּשְׂרְפֽוּהָ
2 Kings 13:18 וַֽיַּעֲמֹֽד
2 Kings 18:13 וַֽיִּתְפְּשֵֽׂם
2 Kings 19:5 אֶל־יְשַֽׁעַיָֽהוּ
2 Kings 19:18 וַֽיְאַבְּדֽוּם
2 Kings 19:36 בְּנִֽינְוֵֽה
2 Kings 20:1 תִֽחְיֶֽה
Isaiah 3:19 וְהָֽרְעָלֽוֹת
Isaiah 7:6 בֶּן־טָֽבְאַֽל
Isaiah 7:7 תִֽהְיֶֽה
Isaiah 7:23 יִֽהְיֶֽה
Isaiah 8:13 מַֽעֲרִֽצְכֶֽם
Isaiah 12:1 וּֽתְנַחֲמֵֽנִי
Isaiah 12:2 לִֽישׁוּעָֽה
Isaiah 19:19 לַֽיהוָֽה
Isaiah 20:1 וַֽיִּלְכְּדָֽהּ
Isaiah 36:1 וַֽיִּתְפְּשֵֽׂם
Isaiah 36:7 תִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֽוּ
Isaiah 37:19 וַֽיְאַבְּדֽוּם
Isaiah 37:37 בְּנִֽינְוֵֽה
Isaiah 38:1 תִֽחְיֶֽה
Isaiah 39:1 וַֽיֶּחֱזָֽק
Isaiah 46:6 אַף־יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽוּ
Isaiah 58:10 כַּֽצָּהֳרָֽיִם
Isaiah 59:12 יְדַֽעֲנֽוּם
Isaiah 60:10 רִֽחַמְתִּֽיךְ
Jeremiah 5:27 וַֽיַּעֲשִֽׁירוּ
Jeremiah 8:2 יִֽהְיֽוּ
Jeremiah 10:3 בַּֽמַּעֲצָֽד
Jeremiah 13:18 תִּֽפְאַרְתְּכֶֽם
Jeremiah 16:5 וְאֶת־הָֽרַחֲמִֽים
Jeremiah 18:7 וּֽלְהַאֲבִֽיד
Jeremiah 23:22 מַֽעַלְלֵיהֶֽם
Jeremiah 25:33 יִֽהְיֽוּ
Jeremiah 27:4 אֶל־אֲדֹֽנֵיכֶֽם
Jeremiah 27:12 וִֽחְיֽוּ
Jeremiah 28:10 וַֽיִּשְׁבְּרֵֽהוּ
Jeremiah 30:3 וִֽירֵשֽׁוּהָ
Jeremiah 32:1 לִנְבֽוּכַדְרֶאצַּֽר
Jeremiah 33:7 כְּבָרִֽאשֹׁנָֽה
Jeremiah 40:5 וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵֽהוּ
Jeremiah 48:19 מַה־נִּֽהְיָֽתָה
Jeremiah 51:62 תִּֽהְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 6:3 בָּמֽוֹתֵיכֶֽם
Ezekiel 7:24 מְקַֽדְשֵׁיהֶֽם
Ezekiel 14:10 יִֽהְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 18:20 תִּֽהְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 18:22 יִֽחְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 18:32 וִֽחְיֽוּ
Ezekiel 20:42 לַאֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶֽם
Ezekiel 23:45 בִּֽידֵיהֶֽן
Ezekiel 30:3 יִֽהְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 30:7 תִּֽהְיֶֽינָה
Ezekiel 31:12 וַֽיִּטְּשֻֽׁהוּ
Ezekiel 33:4 יִֽהְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 33:10 נִֽחְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 33:16 יִֽחְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 33:19 יִֽחְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 34:26 יִֽהְיֽוּ
Ezekiel 36:31 תּוֹעֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶֽם
Ezekiel 37:9 וְיִֽחְיֽוּ
Ezekiel 38:21 תִּֽהְיֶֽה
Ezekiel 40:17 אֶל־הָרִֽצְפָֽה
Ezekiel 43:24 לַֽיהוָֽה
Ezekiel 44:11 לְשָֽׁרְתָֽם
Hosea 2:21 וּֽבְרַחֲמִֽים
Hosea 4:11 יִֽקַּֽח־לֵֽב
Hosea 4:17 הַֽנַּֽח־לוֹֽ
Hosea 10:9 עַֽלְוָֽה
Hosea 11:6 מִֽמֹּעֲצ֖וֹתֵיהֶֽם
Joel 1:2 אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶֽם
Amos 3:2 כָּל־עֲוֹנֹֽתֵיכֶֽם
Amos 3:10 בְּאַרְמְנֽוֹתֵיהֶֽם
Amos 4:4 מַעְשְׂרֹֽתֵיכֶֽם
Amos 5:4 וִֽחְיֽוּ
Amos 5:21 בְּעַצְּרֹֽתֵיכֶֽם
Micah 1:1 וִירֽוּשָׁלִָֽם
Micah 7:3 וַֽיְעַבְּתֽוּהָ
Micah 7:13 מַֽעַלְלֵיהֶֽם
Habakkuk 1:10 וַֽיִּלְכְּדָֽהּ
Zechariah 1:5 יִֽחְיֽוּ
Zechariah 8:5 בִּרְחֹֽבֹתֶֽיהָ
Zechariah 12:4 בַּֽעִוָּרֽוֹן
Zechariah 14:8 יִֽהְיֶֽה
Psalm 7:13 וַֽיְכוֹנְנֶֽהָ
Psalm 9:12 עֲלִֽילוֹתָֽיו
Psalm 10:16 מֵֽאַרְצֹֽו
Psalm 17:7 בִּֽימִינֶֽךָ
Psalm 18:5 יְבַֽעֲתֽוּנִי
Psalm 18:44 יַֽעַבְדֽוּנִי
Psalm 18:46 מִֽמִּסְגְּרֽוֹתֵיהֶֽם
Psalm 22:5 וַֽתְּפַלְּטֵֽמוֹ
Psalm 23:4 יְנַֽחֲמֻֽנִי
Psalm 27:10 יַֽאַסְפֵֽנִי
Psalm 31:4 וּֽתְנַהֲלֵֽנִי
Psalm 31:5 מָֽעוּזִּֽי
Psalm 33:9 וַֽיַּעֲמֹֽד
Psalm 34:8 וַֽיְחַלְּצֵֽם
Psalm 35:1 אֶת־לֹֽחֲמָֽי
Psalm 35:18 אֲהַֽלְלֶֽךָּ
Psalm 35:25 בִּֽלַּעֲנֽוּהוּ
Psalm 37:6 כַּֽצָּהֳרָֽיִם
Psalm 38:19 מֵֽחַטָּאתִֽי
Psalm 42:12 וֵֽאלֹהָֽי
Psalm 43:5 וֵֽאלֹהָֽי
Psalm 44:3 וַֽתְּשַׁלְּחֵֽם
Psalm 44:25 וְֽלַחֲצֵֽנוּ
Psalm 45:8 מֵֽחֲבֵרֶֽיךָ
Psalm 50:15 וּֽתְכַבְּדֵֽנִי
Psalm 56:14 הַֽחַיִּֽים
Psalm 58:3 תְּפַלֵּֽסֽוּן
Psalm 60:10 הִתְרֹעָֽעִֽי
Psalm 62:8 בֵּֽאלֹהִֽים
Psalm 62:13 כְּֽמַעֲשֵֽׂהוּ
Psalm 66:12 לָֽרְוָיָֽה
Psalm 68:10 כֽוֹנַנְתָּֽהּ
Psalm 70:2 חֽוּשָֽׁה
Psalm 71:21 תְּֽנַחֲמֵֽנִי
Psalm 72:11 יַֽעַבְדֽוּהוּ
Psalm 72:15 יְבָרֲכֶֽנְהֽוּ
Psalm 77:14 כֵּֽאלֹהִֽים
Psalm 78:22 בִּֽישׁוּעָתוֹֽ
Psalm 78:40 בִּֽישִׁימֽוֹן
Psalm 78:47 בַּֽחֲנָמַֽל
Psalm 80:12 יֽוֹנְקוֹתֶֽיהָ
Psalm 81:9 אִם־תִּֽשְׁמַֽע־לִֽי
Psalm 81:13 בְּֽמוֹעֲצוֹתֵיהֶֽם
Psalm 86:8 כְּֽמַעֲשֶֽׂיךָ
Psalm 89:1 הָֽאֶזְרָחִֽי
Psalm 91:15 וַֽאֲכַבְּדֵֽהוּ
Psalm 91:16 בִּֽישׁוּעָתִֽי
Psalm 99:2 עַל־כָּל־הָֽעַמִּֽים
Psalm 102:27 וְֽיַחֲלֹֽפוּ
Psalm 104:18 לַֽשְׁפַנִּֽים
Psalm 104:32 וְֽיֶעֱשָֽׁנוּ
Psalm 105:20 וַֽיְפַתְּחֵֽהוּ
Psalm 106:14 בִּֽישִׁימֽוֹן
Psalm 106:23 מֵֽהַשְׁחִֽית
Psalm 106:35 מַֽעֲשֵׂיהֶֽם
Psalm 106:39 בְּמַֽעַלְלֵיהֶֽם
Psalm 109:7 לַֽחֲטָאָֽה