I'm interested in a siddur with good markings..

1st priority is it should have metegs..
2nd priority is it should have kamatz katon marked.

and preferably also, markings for dagesh chazak, shva na, chirik gadol.

At the moment the best I have is a sacks singers, at least it marks out the kamatz katan, but it doesn't have metegs (and I have on good authority that it mixed up traditions regarding the shva, an example being in the shema). But even one that mixes up traditions is better than nothing.

So for Kiddush (veshamuhru vnai yisrael et hashabbat) i'd like the siddur to show that there is a meteg on the shin.

  • AFAIK "chirik gadol" means the same as "chirik male", viz a chirik with a yod following, which is of course marked (by the yod). Do you mean something else by that term? – msh210 Sep 1 '15 at 16:28
  • @msh210 Sometimes (at least in biblical orthography) the Yud is missing but the vowel is still long (eg. ויראו). Same with Kubbutz/Shuruk (eg. ובני דן חשים). – Double AA Sep 1 '15 at 17:07
  • @msh210 I think chirik in an open syllable even without a yud, is long like chirik yud -ee? thus a chirik chazak. So a chirik male would be always chazak. A chirik chaser can sometimes long ee and sometimes short ih(chirik katan, I think it's called). So I think male and chaser refer to how it's written male-full, with yud. chaser-shorthand/defective, without yud. Whereas chazak and I think katan, refers to the sound. ee vs ih. – barlop Sep 1 '15 at 17:30
  • @barlop I've never seen that terminology used. I always see the long vowel called Malei even when written Chaser. – Double AA Sep 1 '15 at 17:45
  • @DoubleAA I don't know, maybe I got my terminology wrong. Or maybe there's no good terminology distinguishing between how it looks and how it sounds. But i've seen the term chirik gadol in a book called "how the hebrew language grew" by edward horowitz, and I think he's referring to the sound. It's how it sounds that i'm interested in. Though my first and second priorities aren't chirik related. – barlop Sep 1 '15 at 18:01

All of the people here who have answered don't realize that Ashkenazi siddurim (and tikkunim) in general lack many metegs. I've also noticed that Ashkenazim in general don't even realize their siddurs and tikkuns lack metegs.

This would explain why there are a few answers here who state that the Koren Siddur has the correct metegs, even though it doesn't. I would point out just one of many examples in which Koren siddur lacks an important meteg. The Koren siddur lacks a meteg under the ַה in הַלְלוּיָה that is present in not only many Sephardic and Yemenite siddurim but also the Aleppo Codex. I've attached a picture comparing a page from a Koren Ashkenazi Siddur and a page from my favorite Sephardic Siddur, the Livorno.

enter image description here

As you can see, the Sephardic siddur not only has more metegs but also te'amim for Psalms to give you more precision since there are many Sephardic Jews who know how to chant Psalms with the te'amim. I chose this particular lack of meteg example to highlight that the lack of metegs causes Ashkenazi Jews to incorrectly say HalleLUyah instead of HAlleluYAH as the author of Psalms intended. Oddly enough this same Ashkenazi mispronunciation is also common amongst Christians.

This same Livorno siddur has a meteg under the shin for Kiddush that you requested as well. enter image description here

If you are wanting a siddur with metegs because you want more pronunciation accuracy then I suggest that you switch to a Sephardic or Yemenite Siddur and abandon Ashkenazi siddurim and tikkunim. In general Sepharadi siddurim will have more metegs than Ashkenazi siddurim, and will often have the te'amim for the most amount of accuracy possible. Yemenite siddurim lack te'amim in general (even for Shema'), but have metegs in equal measure as their Sephardic counterparts.

For a clear and easy to read Sephardic siddur I recommend a reprinting of the Livorno Siddur. For a clear and easy to read Yemenite siddur I recommend the Siah Yerushalayim.

| improve this answer | |
  • A meteg with trop is different from a meteg when no cantillation is printed. With trop, it signifies a secondary stress, whereas without, it takes the place of the trop. – Noach MiFrankfurt Mar 11 '19 at 2:42
  • @NoachMiFrankfurt Maybe for Ashkenazi standards. But I have seen Sephardic siddurim that have meteg with no te'amim for secondary emphasis. Usually on long words. But for example I have seen siddurim that put a meteg on the name Ya'aqov so that way you put secondary emphasis on The Ya, and less emphasis on the gutteral ayin – Aaron Mar 11 '19 at 2:44
  • This is excellent , it shows that koren(not koren sacks, and I see from a comment, not old edition koren) has metegs, but lacks some, including even on a word we know has one. And that the sephardi ones have more metegs and generally care more about these things.. And good mention of a yemenite one too. Doesn't cover kamatz katan and chirik katan/gadol, and dagesh chazak/katan. – barlop Mar 11 '19 at 4:18
  • i'im deliberating whether to make this the accepted answer.. I will 'cos it's the best so far and by a long shot. It covers metegs well (which is key). Though it still doesn't cover gadol/katan re chirik, kamatz and dagesh. – barlop Mar 11 '19 at 4:20
  • it may be adam's answer is in a sense better as he mentions a siddur siman from feldheim , missing ashkenazi one(who knows whether that's lack of demand or over demand, maybe the former!), but has sefard and eidot mizrach. – barlop Mar 11 '19 at 4:23

I think the Simanim Siddur from Feldheim has all you ask for.

| improve this answer | |
  • I asked a Feldheim representative about their siddur simanim, since some places online suggested it had been discontinued. A Feldheim representative said in response to that "we have pocket sefard and eidot mizrach. We are out of the ashkenaz and do not know when it will come back" – barlop Sep 3 '15 at 21:13
  • 1
    @barlop Well, at least you can get the prayers for Shabbes by buying the Simanim Chumash; it has Shabbes siddur in the back. – Adám Sep 4 '15 at 8:00
  • 1
    Furthermore, the simanim series by feldheim don't have chirik gadol in there. so it's not correct that it has all I ask for – barlop Sep 13 '15 at 14:04
  • @barlop What kind of marking would you like for chirik gadol? Isn't it clear enough that there is a yud/no yud? Have you ever seen a text that distinguished some other way? – Adám Sep 16 '15 at 2:09
  • A bold dot like with the dagesh. And you can have a chirik gadol without a yud. A chirik in an open syllable. Gen 47:7 vayaamidaynu (is chirik gadol, the chirik is in an open syllable). Compare with dibber(a dagesh chazak in the daled makes the chirik in a closed syllable, so chirik katan). – barlop Sep 16 '15 at 3:25

All Koren siddurim have all of those markings except for dagesh chazak vs. kal and chirik gadol vs. katan (where the gadol isn't marked by a yud anyway).

| improve this answer | |
  • I don't see it. I thought I checked a koren sacks in the book store and I didn't see it, and looking at the PDF at your link korenpub.com/koren/intusd/productattachments/index/… scrolling down to the bottom of the pdf I took a screenshot, I see a long vowel(chirik yud) then a shwa, the shwa should be vocal, so shouldn't it be in bold? i.imgur.com/bOGfw2d.png – barlop Sep 1 '15 at 20:22
  • though in this pic the shwa look marked. judaism.com/gif-bk/36399p.gif But i'm most interested in the metegs. If you have a copy of the Koren Sacks, can you please verify that it has a Meteg? (Ideally with a photograph if shabbat morning/afternoon kiddush, veshamuroo vnei yisrael et hashabbat – barlop Sep 1 '15 at 20:26
  • @barlop If that shva (in שכינתיה) was vocal than the tav after would be rafeh. Aramaic is just different sometimes. – Double AA Sep 3 '15 at 2:40
  • @DoubleAA ah that was aramaic, and that rule you mention is only for hebrew i guess. So in hebrew, after vocal shva you can't have a dagesh? do you know of any english book or online source that mentions that? otherwise, a hebrew source? – barlop Sep 3 '15 at 3:38
  • @barlop The rule of BGDKPT says that a tav gets a dagesh kal only after a quiescent shva. As for why there can't be a dagesh chazak after a vocal shva, that would mean there's be a syllable opened by a shva and closed by a pseudo-shva (the beginning of the gemination) but without anything in between, and every syllable needs a main sound. – Double AA Sep 3 '15 at 3:49

ArtScroll marks the meteg and shva na. Unfortunately it doesn't have the other symbols.

example text including these features

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    That's not a meteg... (or it's like the usual symbol for a meteg but being used to indicate primary stress on non-ulitmately stressed words) – Double AA Aug 1 '16 at 20:25
  • 2
    Note the OP's request: "So for Kiddush (veshamuhru vnai yisrael et hashabbat) i'd like the siddur to show that there is a meteg on the shin." – Double AA Aug 1 '16 at 20:26
  • In Hebrew the accent is generally on the last syllable. Otherwise, we indicate the syllable with a messeg, a vertical line below the letter: שִֽירוּ. A שְׁוָא נָא [sh'va na] is shown by a line above the letter: בָּרְֿכוּ, except for the first letter of a word, which is always a sh'va na. In identifying a sh'va na, we follow the Vilna Gaon and Rabbi Yaakov Emden. (From the preface of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, First Edition.) So it looks like ArtScroll uses the meteg for something completely different than what it's intended for. – ezra Feb 21 '17 at 22:28
  • @DoubleAA - There is definitely no meteg under the ש in any of the ArtScroll siddurim. – ezra Feb 21 '17 at 22:30

The Koren siddur is the best out there in my opinion. I have found mistakes in Simanim and trust the Koren more. BTW, a Chirik Gadol is almost always a Chirik followed by a Yud (otherwise it will have a dagesh with a meteg next to the Chirik). I have never seen any siddur with markings for this.

| improve this answer | |
  • For an answer that is a no you're not aware of one, then it's better to just comment, and as for what you state about the identification of chirik gadol vs chirik katan. You say there is involvement of meteg, do you have a source for that? I think I recall I might've heard that a dagesh chazak alone is sufficient to make any chirik under it a chirik gadol. Consider these two cases of chirik without yud. – barlop Mar 11 '19 at 0:12
  • A chirik in an open syllable. Gen 47:7 vayaamidaynu (is chirik gadol, the chirik is in an open syllable). Compare with dibber( from what I recall, a dagesh chazak in the daled makes the chirik in a closed syllable, so chirik katan). In those cases there's no meteg. What'd you say the chirik is for each of those? – barlop Mar 11 '19 at 0:12
  • is there even a tanach simanim tha backs up the rule you state. and do you have any example verses of chirik without a yud that is chirik gadol.. i'm thinking even my feldheim tanach simanim might not mark chirik gadol so it's hard to even verify what the rule is.. even putting aside what siddur has it – barlop Mar 11 '19 at 0:15
  • If you are on the same journey as I am, I would sincerely encourage you to read Siman Zayin in Dikdukai Shai. (page קפז) See the word וַיִּֽרְא֣וּ (Yehoshua 4:14) – Shmuel Goldstein Mar 11 '19 at 2:18
  • thanks, but I don't really trust these rules that much unless I have a tanach that marks in when it's chazak vs katan, to verify it. My hebrew isn't at a level for me to read a source that is all in hebrew without a translation, but thanks for the source. – barlop Mar 11 '19 at 4:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .