Comments on: What Are the Halachot of Switching One’s Pronunciation of Hebrew?

By: Israel Geoffrey Hyman

Israel Geoffrey Hyman — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:31:54 +0000

There is also a Tesuvah on this subject from Dayan Weiss Z”l in his Minchat Yitzkach, vol 3 chap. 9, dated 5718 (1957).He forbids the changeover.
He deals with this topic as a response to the then Chief Rabbi of Britain, Israel Brodie who posed the question about changing the pronunciation from “Ashkenazis” to Israeli pronunciation. In fact, the background to the question was the pressure from certain circles within the United Synagogue who wanted to introduce the Israeli pronunciation in the synagogues and chedarim. Dayan Weiss quotes various sources, many quoted in your article, and in conclusion implores Chief Rabbi Brodie to remain steadfast to the pesak not to change from the tradition of our forefathers. However, in time many synagogues did change to the Israeli pronunciation and it became the policy of Board of Religious Education to impose on the chedarim to teach the Israeli pronunciation. Rabbi Dr.Alexander Carlebach, Rav of Belfast, N. Ireland, in the mid 1950’s already changed to the teaching of the Israeli pronunciation in the Cheder.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:05:52 +0000

obviously modern hebrew uses the ashkenazi cursive script. It’s silly to talk about the “ashkenazi script” and quote a sephardi rabbi that says it’s the hands of esav. The ashkenazi script used in torah scrolls is Bet Yosef. The sephardi velish script, it’s very very similar, and there are variations of it in different sephardi communities. Don’t call ashkenazi cursive “ashkenazi script”. As if the other script is Sephardi! Both ashkenazim and sephardim use the more block style letters.

Also.. Generaly most people, ashkenazi or sephardi, agree the yemenites have it best . And the ashkenazim pronounce the kamatz the same as the yemenites. OH , like the british pronunciation of bob,clock,dock. The ashkenazi cholam has many variations so clearly it is somewhat messed up. But perhaps O like BOAT. is the correct one. And i’m not sure but the yemenites might pronounce it like that too.

Ashkenazi Americans cannot pronounce the ashkenazi kamatz properly, because the sound does not exist in american english. But British ashkenazim can pronounce the ashkenazi kamatz. And it’s the same as the Yemenite one.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:12:01 +0000

To Shalom Spira..

I am not sure what you mean by saying ashkenazi hebrew has the syllable placed differently to sephardic hebrew. I don’t think you’re correct or can be correct.

Read the Torah. The accents put stress on the same syllables.

There is a yiddish way of saying hebrew words, but that is not the religious ashkenazi pronunciation eg the one used when they lain. For example, the yiddish style of ashkenazi pronunciation , a style not used for laining. Yaakuv, Suhkus. Accent on penultimate syllable.

But when laining, then you get the religious pronunciation, there are variations, but the accent is on the last syllable. for example yaaKove, sooKose.

There is a colloqial yiddish style of ashkenazi hebrew, distinct from the real one used in laining. But listen to an ashkenazi lain, and obviously, accents are used properly..

Accents are in exactly the same spots as the sephardim, because the accents are in the same place in our torahs.

By: Shalom Spira

Shalom Spira — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:20:52 +0000

Thank you for the interesting reference, Bluebirds15.
R’ Dov Kaiser raises a formidable objection to R. Bleich’s linguistic position: what difference should it make that modern Israeli Hebrew was artificially engineered by Eliezer Ben Yehudah, if it has been spoken this way for a century already?
Indeed, to strenghten R’ Kaiser’s question, I will mention that when I studied in R. Bleich’s shi’ur during 5767, I found a book on floor 5A of the Gottesman library called Chalitzah Kehilchatah, published in 5763. (If someone presently situated at YU can verify the name of the book’s author, it would be much appreciated). There, the author quotes both R. Chaim Kanievsky and R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv as ruling that even if the lady and/or gentleman participating in chalitzah only know Israeli Hebrew, the chalitzah is kosher. [This ruling is particularly remarkable considering that R. Kanievsky is none other than the son of the author of the Kreina D'Iggreta referenced earlier in this forum.]
I approached R. Bleich with the question that – seemingly – the ruling of R. Kanievsky and R. Eliahiv is diametrically opposed to his linguistic thesis. R. Bleich responded that he challenges the validity of those rulings – since Israeli Hebrew is not halakhic Hebrew at all – and that I should write a letter to the author to this effect. Admittedly, I have not yet written the letter, but I suppose my present contribution to the pages of Tradition at least publicizes R. Bleich’s position, as he directed me.
I would speculate that the reason R. Bleich does not grant halakhic credence to the century of speech that Isralei Hebrew has achieved is because of “she’al avikha vi’yagedkha”, as R. Rothstein is emphasizing in this post. Namely, for a Hebrew dialect to be a halakhic “cheftza” of lishon hakodesh, it has to be a dialect that we have received in its pristine state from our ancestors, without a deliberate attempt to tamper with it for social or political reasons. Since we know as a matter of reality that Ben Yehudah artificially engineered the modern Israeli Hebrew language for social and political reasons, it is not to be regarded as the “cheftza” of lishon hakodesh. [By the way, this is not a condemnation of Ben Yehudah. Ben Yehudah may have been a tzaddik gammur. The only statement R. Bleich is making is that Ben Yehudah's creation has no halakhic standing as a legitimate dialect of Hebrew.]
Apparently, R. Bleich’s position is following in the epistemological footsteps of Shu”t Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah mo. 356 [which - as described in my analyis of the Ibn Ezra post elsewhere on this Tradition website - is also adopted by R. Shlomo Zvi Schueck in his Torah Shelemah]. The Chatam Sofer describes three parts to the Written Torah, all of which are true, two of which we know are true based on our own intuition (in addition to divine revelation), and one of which we know is true exclusively based on divine revelation. Namely, (1) all the events of Genesis are known to us to be intuitively true because there is a chazakah that whatever ancestors tell their descendants must be true. (2) And all the events of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (aside from Parashat Balak) are known to us to be intuitively true because they were all collectively witnessed by Klal Yisra’el. (3) Andm, finally, Parashat Balak, which was not witnessed by any Jew, is known to us to be true thanks to the divine revelation that Mosheh Rabbeinu received in instructing him to write the parashah. The Chatam Sofer continues that it would be ludicrous for any Jew to challenge any of the details of the Oral Torah (such as the morphology of tefillin). After all, Jews have been donning tefillin this way for centuries and millenia since Ma’amad Har Sinai: how can one even suggest that the cheftza of tefillin be different than the way we were taught by our ancestors?
Likewise, R. Bleich takes it as a chazakah that whatever language a community of Israel received as a tradition from its ancestors must be true and a legitimate “cheftza” of lishon hakodesh. But where we know that Eliezer Ben Yehudah intentionally decided to change the spoken dialect, this ceases to be categorized as the “cheftza” of lishon hakodesh.
I would further suggest that this is not incongruous with the compromise practice described in my previous posts that is allegedly attributed to the Chazon Ish (which I myself practice), viz. to synthesize Sefardic Hebrew with the Ashkenazic kamatz. There, I have a legitimate halakhic reason to decide that the kamatz should be pronounced the way Ashkenazim pronounce it, even if I am otherwise convinced that the Sefardic pronunciation is the most correct. By contradistinction, Eliezer Ben Yehudah was not working with a halakhic goal in mind: he simply wanted to create a new language that would be socially and politically successful for Jews immigrating to then-Palestine. In this he was greatly successful, and I do not think Ben Yehudah would make any halakhic claims about his achievement.
Of course, I am speculating a bit here, and so it would be preferable to see R. Bleich directly debate R. Eliashiv and R. Kanievsky, to better clarify what the Halakhah is.

By: bluebirds15

bluebirds15 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:16:21 +0000

I find it interesting that the Ari Zal’s statement wasn’t mentioned, that there are 12 gates in heaven corresponding to the 12 tribes, each enters only through his own version of prayer, except for the Sephardic Nusach which anyone can enter through.
Though He said it regarding Nusach, many, including Chacham Ovadia in the Teshuva mentioned, say it includes Havara, Pronounciation as well. If this is true, switching your pronounciation from Sephardic to Ashkenaz can leave your prayers banging on the gates.

By: bluebirds15

bluebirds15 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:12:31 +0000

I have heard that when it was decided in the holy land to use the Sephardic Pronounciation and the Ashkenazic script, Rav Uziel said
“הקול קול יעקב והידים ידי עשו”

By: Shalom Spira

Shalom Spira — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:22:20 +0000

Typographical correction to my previous post: seventh line should begin “compromise practice”. Thank you very much.

By: Shalom Spira

Shalom Spira — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:09:32 +0000

Shalom Aleikhem Rabbotai,
Thank you all for your kind insights.
I have carefully reviewed the Yabi’a Omer and have discovered – as best as I can understand the responsum – that there is no problem of tartei di’satrei to for a Jew to employ the Sefardic pronunciation with the Ashkenazic distinction between a patach and a kamatz. Indeed, in subsection no. 6, R. Ovadiah Yosef specifically attributes this compromise pracite to R. Benjamin Silber in the latter’s Shu”t Az Nidbiru III, p. 101, who in turn orally cites this approach in the name of the Chazon Ish.
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I must add that R. Yosef does not demand this compromise position, either. And, indeed, R. Silber himself asserts that Sefardim need not switch over to this compromise position, since “minhag avoteihem bi’yideihem”. But the point that may be appreciated is that both R. Yosef and R. Silber recognize the legitimacy of such a compromise approach, which is allegedly sourced in an oral ruling of the Chazon Ish.
As R’ Dov Kaiser correctly observes, in subsection no. 4, R. Yosef disputes the validity of the Ashkenazic practice of pronouncing the kamatz as an “owe” (as in ‘you OWE me a hundred dollars’) and the cholam an “oy” (as in ‘congratulations, it’s a BOY’). R. Yosef identifies such pronunciation as a massive distortion of the pristine Hebrew (-one which apparently evolved due to the accidental application of Yiddish pronunciation to Hebrew). But R. Yosef concedes that Rabbeinu Bachye certainly demands a distinction between the patach and the kamatz for purposes of halakhically articulating the Name of HaKadosh Barukh Hu. The distinction should be more mild, which – if I understand correctly – means that the patach will be an “ah” while the kamatz will be an “awe”. [And the cholam, which is completely different, will be an "owe".] Accordingly, the final syllable in the Name of HaKadosh Barukh Hu should be pronounced “naw-eye”, not *noy* (which is a linguistic distortion) and not “neye” (which – chas vichalilah – could be misconstrued as polytheism).
I believe this is what R’ Kaiser’s Persian Jew acquaintance meant by positing that one should slightly close one’s lips for the kamatz. When one slightly closes one’s lips, the “awe” sound is produced.
Accordingly, I would definitely urge all Ashkenazim who (like myself) have been educated to articulate Hebrew in the Sefardic manner that they be very careful to pronounce the Name of HaKadosh Barukh Hu with the final syllable of “naw-eye”.

By: David Tzohar

David Tzohar — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:06:57 +0000

R’Rothstein This question was a matter of dispute between two of the greats of Religeous Zionism. Over two generations.
Rav Kook ztzl was much in favor of retaining the various different pronunciations and other minhagim especially those related to prayer.He felt that this was analagous to the various practices of the tribes of Israel where it was said that there were twelve gates in heaven through which the prayers of each tribe entered [see the term shivtiyut as usd by
Rav Kook in Orot Yisrael]
Rav Shlomo Goren ztzl was for a unified order of prayer and pronunciation.He initiated the Unified IDF Siddur for usein theArmy when he was chief rabbi of the IDF but it was never accepted by the rabbinical establishment or the general public.
Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook paskened that all pronunciations are halachically legitimate except for the reading of parashat Zachor where everyone must read and listen in their traditional pronunciation.

By: Dov Kaiser

Dov Kaiser — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:49:39 +0000

The use of an Ashkenazi komatz by those using the Sephardic pronunciation is problematic, as it is tartei d’sasrei. It is either komatz or kamatz, not both. I do not have a copy of Kreina D’iggroso to hand, but I recall that there was a dispute about this practice in the Kerem b’Yavneh weekly Torah Sheet last year, where the claim was made (and opposed) that, although this practice is attributed to the Chazon Ish, nowhere in his writings does he endorse it. R. Ovadyah Yosef opposes this practice for Sephardim, and I have only heard to done by Ashkenazim who have switched to Sephardit, and no doubt feel some residual guilt (!).

Also, Rabbeinu Bachye simply said that one should distinguish between the kamatz and patach, not that the komatz should necessarily be pronounced as Ashkenazim pronounce it. A Persian Jew I spoke to who is quite knowledgeable in these matters assured me that Persian Jews do distinguish between komatz and patach by slightly closing the lips for the former – however, it is not the same as an Ashkenazi komatz. Therefore, it is not clear that those who use Sephardi pronunciation should pronounce the shem hashem as Ashkenazim do.

The oxytonic/paroxytonic distinction is a fair one, but I have little difficulty using an Ashkenazi pronunciation while maintaining the undoubtedly correct oxytonic emphasis. Indeed, this is the common practice amongst non-Chassidic Ashkenazi Charedim in Israel, and all non-Chassidic Ashkenazic baalei koreh I have heard use the paroxytonic model indicated by the taamei mikra without difficulty. More significant than this distinction is the sound assigned to the various phonemes. In this respect, Ashkenazi practice resembles the Teimani pronunciation in a number of respects, e.g. o for komatz. Indeed, many Teimanim pronounce their cholam as eh, which is not that different from the slightly longer Litvish eih.

With respect to R. Bleich’s view that the modern Hebrew pronunciation is illegitimate, I agree with him that it takes the worst of all pronunciations, but it is used by millions of people for many generations now. The only thing it lacks is a few hundred years behind it. Why should this disqualify it? Scholarship can prove that the traditional pronunciations have also changed over time. If it authenticity R. Bleich is after, he would need to recreate something long lost.