Ashkenazic Pronounciation

Avodah
1

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 09:10:52PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan wrote to Areivim:

More seriously, I was surprised at the accent of the
ba'al tefillah repeating the amidah prior to birchat kohanim. I would
have thought that at this type of gathering at the Kotel, the ba'al
tefillah would have sounded like someone who lives in Israel in 2023
and not Europe of the previous century.

Micha Berger

Halachically, this is more correct, assuming most of the kohanim were
descendents of Jews who lived in Europe of the previous century.

Havarah Yisraelit (as opposed to real Sepharadi accents) is not a minhag.
How can you simply use it for tefillah, and to be yotzei a deOraisa,
no less!

When R Kook got the question about how to say Qeri'as Shema or read
the Torah, he insisted that if they can do so consistently they should
use their traditional East European havarah. As RAYK himself did. He
did grant that someone who is so used to Havarah Yisraelit that they
cannot be consistent if they tried to speak Ashknuzis are better off
using consistent Yisraelit. BUT, they should practice to try to be able
in the future.

An extreme example:
To Ashknazi mesorah, the way Israelis pronounce Sheim Adnus would
translate to "My Lords". The sheim itself has a qamatz under the nun,
and thus should not be pronounced the same as the plural.

(I do wonder about that first "echad", where lengthening the dalet isn't
possible in Ashknazis. Nor in Israeli, but I wonder if RAYK would prefer
Ashkenazis over the Rambam's "sound like a bee" with a long /dh/ as in
"this". Or, being careful to say "ul'avdo bekhol-levavkhem" with an ayin,
not an alef -- to serve Him, not to eradicate. But now we are deep in
Avodah territory.)

WADR, this is highly problematic.

RAYK was complaining about the change in minhag -- not that one was not
yotze. However, he was talking at a time when Havana yisraelit (abazit)
was just beginning, and most Ashkenazim, even who used Havana yisraelit,
grew up with Ashkenazis or at least with people who spoke Ashkenazis. When
today, most Israelis and Americans, grew up with Havana yisraelit, the
issues are very different -- and frequently represents more politics
(antizioni) flavored as Halacha.

I know of no one who argues, for example, that Sefardim are not yotze when
they say Shem adnus with a patach. Wrt changing pronounciation -- we know
rav Natan Adler (rv of hatam Sofer) changed to Havana sefaradi.

Furthermore, the historical assumption about Ashkenazic pronunciation, and
especially of the patch/kamatz distinction -- Micha's extreme example -- is
problematic. Indeed, while recent minhag Ashkenazi did distinguish between
patach and kamatz, ancient minhag Ashkenazi did not
Beside the piyutim of Ashkenaz, that routinely rhymed patach with kamatz, we
have clear evidence that gdole Ashkenaz did not distinguish

Eg, Rashi. About the echad in shma -- says (brachot 13b) uvildvad shelo
yacht ofbehet -- eg -- read it with a hataf patach. See also rashi breshit
14:14, that heh at the end is instead of a lamed at the beginning -- but not
instead of a lamed with a patach -- and the lamed infant is with with a
kamazt (lahar with two kamatzim)

See also ketubot 69:2 -- calling a patach when he means a kamatz

Rav Asher Milunil sefer haminhagot, in dsicudssing birchat hamotzi. And why
one says hamotzi rather than motzai -- says not to confuse with the mem of
haolam. And in discussing the difference between that and lechem min, calls
the kamatz in olam a patach, and sego under lechem a there.

Maharam mirotenburg did not distinguish -- eg, his known tshuva that in assert
meme tshuva we do not say zochrenu lachaim (with a patach) so it doesn't
sound la (with a kamaz) la haim. If he distinguished between kamatz and
patach -- not n issue.

Rash and Tur also did not distinguish.as well as rev Yehuda hahasid.

We have from 18th century Prague that they read a kamtz almost like a
patach, until hadashim mekarov ba'u and said a kamatz with a narrow mouth...
(One interesting source for much of this is sefat Emet by benzoin hacohen, a
Tunisian haredi, who goes through history of different Hebrew
pronunciations)
Therefore, while it is true that in recent times ashkenazim read a kamatz
one way, it is also true that it is an authentic minhag Ashkenaz to read a
hataf like a kamatz. Those who are trying to reestablish authentic minhag
Ashkenaz may want to consider it....

There is a tshuva by rev tzvi pesach frank who was asked if a litvak was
yotze kriat megilla by a Galizianer, and he answered shelo gara milashon
shebadu chachamim. Cute answer. However, I would suggest that, especially
when communities are close together, we should accept different
pronounciations -- even if we do not choose to use them. We need to widen
our tent....

Meir Shinnar

2

> Havarah Yisraelit (as opposed to real Sepharadi accents) is not a minhag.
> How can you simply use it for tefillah, and to be yotzei a deOraisa,
> no less!

This is an important paragraph, and I fear R Dr Shinnar missed it when
replying.

...

An extreme example:
To Ashknazi mesorah, the way Israelis pronounce Sheim Adnus would
translate to "My Lords". The sheim itself has a qamatz under the nun,
and thus should not be pronounced the same as the plural.

WADR, this is highly problematic.

RAYK was complaining about the change in minhag -- not that one was not
yotze. However, he was talking at a time when Havana yisraelit (abazit)
was just beginning...

I know of no one who argues, for example, that Sefardim are not yotze when
they say Shem adnus with a patach. Wrt changing pronounciation -- we know
rav Natan Adler (rv of hatam Sofer) changed to Havana sefaradi.

His objection was that it was invented, and is not a minhag. Age didn't
get mention in his teshuvah.

This is what makes it different than an Ashkenazi deciding that havarah
Sepharadi is more appropriate. As I said, "Havarah Yisraelit ... is not
a minhag."

My extreme example of a question is raised by changing havaros was ony to
point out that there are questions to be addressed. Not that one ACTUAL
minhag is better than another. Aside from the normal minhag issues -- does
your locale have a minhag hamaqom, do you need to be matir neder, etc...?

But again, a havarah invented by an Ashkenazi who went to the Mughrab
and was enthralled by the sound of their Hebrew because it sounds less
galuti to him isn't a minhag.

(Just as what the Maskilim did to Nusach Ashkenaz with their
hyper-corrections also shouldn't be considered minhag. No matter how
much they became the norm and enshrined in ArtScroll and Koren.)

Furthermore, the historical assumption about Ashkenazic pronunciation, and
especially of the patch/kamatz distinction -- Micha's extreme example -- is
problematic. Indeed, while recent minhag Ashkenazi did distinguish between
patach and kamatz, ancient minhag Ashkenazi did not
Beside the piyutim of Ashkenaz, that routinely rhymed patach with kamatz, we
have clear evidence that gdole Ashkenaz did not distinguish

Eg, Rashi...

R Dr Seth Mandel (PhD Semitic Languages) disagrees. E.g.
https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-culture/language/real-story-hebrew-pronunciation/
(because I can't understand the journals). He traces these differences
to the differences reflected by the different systems of vowel notation.
And thus the people who would become Ashkenazim were pronouncing a qamatz
differently than a patach before they even converged on Ashkenaz.

Unfortunately, aside from being in aveilus for a son, RMS himself isn't
in good health. He hasn't been answering emails. (Nor does he have hours
for nichum aveilim.) So, I can't ask.

Rashi talks about segol as a "patach qatan" and a tzeirei as a "qamatz
qatan". Again, the implication is that the source of his nomeclature
heard them as distinct vowel sounds.

And it shows that few of his vowel names match ours.

There is a tshuva by rev tzvi pesach frank who was asked if a litvak was
yotze kriat megilla by a Galizianer, and he answered shelo gara milashon
shebadu chachamim. Cute answer. However, I would suggest that, especially
when communities are close together, we should accept different
pronounciations -- even if we do not choose to use them. We need to widen
our tent....

Yes. When the alternatives are real shitos.

BTW, in the above-linked articles RSM repeats the claim that part
of the motive behind inventing Havarah Yisraelit isn't just that it's
"galuti", but that "They felt that the Ashkenazic pronunciation was tied
to European Judaism and religious tradition, which they, for the most
part, were rejecting."

Which is certainly not grounds for assuming the resulting practice
is valid for qiyum hamitzvos. But the same it true if we stick to my
observation that it's a pragmatic invention, and not the evolved living
expression of an observant community -- i.e. minhag.`

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

3

Does the questionable original lineage matter? If so, you should be arguing that (to cite an example from RSM’s article you cite) you should be objecting to yeshivish Hebrew too

It is not as if they invented new, unheard of sounds for either consonants or vowels. They combined aspects of both sefardic and ashkenazic pronunciations.

I would add that the article by RSM cites RYE Henkin zt”l. In contradistinction to RSM’s position on the validity of all three major traditions, Rav Henkin holds that the failure of Ashkenaz to distinguish some consonants means it is objectively wrong, and that one SHOULD change pronunciation from Ashkenazic to Sephardi pronunciation of consonants. He is not sure about vowels - so does not want to change vowels - but has no problem changing “minhag” of pronunciation - to a minhag that, while I understand the theoretical basis, TTBOMK, never existed….
- and does not require to be mattir neder about abandoning the minhag Avot.

So what is current Israeli pronunciation - it is standard sefardic pronunciation - except for lack of a separate het or ayin. It is the pronunciation of an Ashkenazi trying to pronounce sefardic….(and many Israelis do still make some distinction for het and yin). As you agree that there is no problem switching to sefardi pronunciation, there is now a problem because one can’tmake het and yin, which one never could???

Can you find any source predating zionism about any issues of people changing pronounciation? Notion that there is some minhag Avot about pronunciation?
Again, much of the response was problems with people changing pronounciation to fit in with a nonreligious community - not the intrinsic issue of using it. At the time of Eliezer Ben Yehudah and RAYK, using abazit was viewed as a firstvstep off the derech. Today, abazit is the minhag of many kehillot and ir v’em beyisrael - regardless of its history. (and for people who grew up speaking abazit in a community that speaks abazit- it is a far greater change in minhag to change to standard ashkenazi…than to keep their giros dyankuta)). Trying to refight the fights of the early 20th century does nothing for ahavat hashem, yirat hashem,or avodat hashem

WRT historical Ashkenaz
.

I would defer t oRSM. However, the issue is not merely the use of different terminology for the vowels - - but that the piyutim that rhyme patachand kamatz (and halachic tshuvot - eg, not saying zochrenu lachayim on yomim noraim) clearly imply that they viewed patach and kamatz as, even if not fully identical, they were far closer than current Ashkenazi. Furthermore, there is evidence that they did distinguish het and ayin in rashes time.

…..
Meir Shinnar

4

'Can you find any source predating zionism about any issues of people changing pronounciation?'

There is good evidence that Rav Noson Adler, the Rebbe of the Chasam Sofer, used Sephardi pronounciation. It is mentioned in a teshuva around the beginning of Reform in Germany, when that was one of the few initial changes they wanted to make circa 1820.
So we learned in R Yaakov Haber's Shabbos afternoon shiur last week.

5

Does the questionable original lineage matter? If so, you should be
arguing that (to cite an example from RSM's article you cite) you should
be objecting to yeshivish Hebrew too

I am saying that motive matters.

I like the way this conversation forced me to frame how I percieve a
"real" minhag: It has to be the natural expression of a community in
pursuit of avodas Hashem.

The Yeshivish evollution of the Poilisher accent would qualify.

The Hebraists' invention of a simplified and stylized Mughrabi accent
does not.

Another example that I brought up, before articulating that idea of what
a minhag are the current incarnations of Nusach Ashkenaz (including its
Chassidic offshoots). They all, except perhaps for the Eizor Eliyahu
version of Nusach haGra, are rife with Haskalisher hyper-corrections.

For example: Is there a pause after "umorid hageshem" to warrant turning
the word to "hagashem"? The question doesn't begin in original Ashkenaz,
where Shemoneh Esrei was much more consistently in Leshon Chazal, and
therefore the word would be "hageshem" regardless. (And indeed this is
what one consistently finds in the manuscripts.)

And so, it is kind of tangential whether Rashi's Hebrew had a separate
qamatz sound or not. (Although I would want to know who in Ashkenaz
discovered a sound so close to the Teimani qamatz, as many of us do.)
Or whether he had a cholam, a choilam, a choelem (which is also common
in much of Teiman), a chaulam.... Because I am not insisting havarah
be static. Just that change be an internal evolution among community
of Shomerei Torah uMitzvah, not someone else's invention.

So let's look at minhagim like milchigs on Shavuos or Purim costumes.
Both seem to have non-Jewish origins. The first communities to make
a point of having milchigs on Shavuos were among non-Jews that had a
dairy festival (Wittesmontag) around the same time of year. The new grass
came in, spring is calving time, so the milk is of a better quality and
more abundant, and a source of joy. And Purim costumes come from Italy,
where Carnival is celebrated right before Lent with costumes. Also hard
to say is coincidental.

And I think that had things stayed that way, just practices we picked up,
they wouldn't have become True Minhagim. (True Scottsmen?) Any more than,
say, wearing a tie on Shabbos. But we absorbed them via rabbis who
attached meaning in various ways.

But I find it hard to argue we similarly "absorbed" Havarah Yisraelit,
finding lessons to take from its idiosyncracies.

The rest of your post doesn't reflect the distinction I am making, but
rebutting other potential distinctions.

It is not as if they invented new, unheard of sounds for either
consonants or vowels. They combined aspects of both sefardic and
ashkenazic pronunciations.

Unfortunately, in a least-common-denominator way. All of the ambiguity
of the Ashkenazi alef and ayin, with all the ambiguity of the Sepharadi
tzeirei and segol. (To avoid your comment about qamatz for the moment.)

I would add that the article by RSM cites RYE Henkin zt"l. In
contradistinction to RSM's position on the validity of all three major
traditions, Rav Henkin holds that the failure of Ashkenaz to distinguish
some consonants means it is objectively wrong, and that one SHOULD change
pronunciation from Ashkenazic to Sephardi pronunciation of consonants..

Because "minhag oqeir halakhah" doesn't apply in most cases. That doesn't
mean he doesn't believe it's a matter of halakhah.

And I believe it's only in the two cases I mentioned RSM convinced the
teenager I once was to change: alef vs ayin and ches vs khaf. Both of
which are singled out in Hil' Qerias Shema.

So what is current Israeli pronunciation -- it is standard sefardic
pronunciation -- except for lack of a separate het or ayin..

And aspiration, leaving dalet and dhalet as well as tav and thav
aambiguous. And an Ashkenazi veis and vav, both the same sound, instead
of bheis and waw.

This is why I called it more Mughrabi than "standard Sepharadic", but
that too is only partial. It's a few changes that add ambiuity not R
Henkin's goal of restoring distinctions we've lost.

But again, this is tangential if we are thinking in terms of halakahah
vs minhag vs picked-up practices.

RMB was arguing not merely that an Israeli pronunciation ("abazit")
should not be allowed in an Ashekenazic Shul, but that for certain thinks,
he himself is not yotze.

I actually made a much smaller claim than that.

First, I noted that RAYKook only permitted Havarah Yisraelit when
the alternative was inconsistency. So, he didn't treat it equal to
traditional havarot.

Then I pointed out cases where there are halachic issues to be
raised. Such as an Ashkenazi pronouncing Sheim Adnus in a way that in our
ancestors' mouths would mean "my lords", with a patach-yud. I was not
suggesting the answer to those question. (Which appears to be the way you
understood me.) Just that it is, as I put it, "problematic".

Which makes me lean toward RAYK's position and having people avoid the
havarah if they can. I cannot say this was his motivation; his seems to
be more about the mechanics of minhag altogether. But I can see reasons
to avoid these questions.

Obviously saying Sheim Adnus with a patach-yud is far more of a
misstatement if one sometimes does use a different sound for qamatz.
So perhaps that would explain giving in for those who cannot consistently
be traditional.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

6

Then I pointed out cases where there are halachic issues to be

raised. Such as an Ashkenazi pronouncing Sheim Adnus in a way that in our
ancestors' mouths would mean "my lords", with a patach-yud. I was not
suggesting the answer to those question. (Which appears to be the way you
understood me.) Just that it is, as I put it, "problematic".

I have heard this concern mentioned many times, but I have never heard
anyone complain that the patach-for-segol substitution of much of Polish
Jewry would be just as problematic, for example in the first Beracha of the
Amidah - Elokei Avraham being pronounced as Elokay Avraham. This would be
an Ashkenazi pronouncing "the Lord of" in a way that in our ancestors'
mouths would mean "Avraham, my Lord" c"v.

Sometimes halachic objections are found for political reasons...

7

Then I pointed out cases where there are halachic issues to be

> raised. Such as an Ashkenazi pronouncing Sheim Adnus in a way that in our
> ancestors' mouths would mean "my lords", with a patach-yud...

I have heard this concern mentioned many times, but I have never heard
anyone complain that the patach-for-segol substitution of much of Polish
Jewry would be just as problematic, for example in the first Beracha of the
Amidah - Elokei Avraham being pronounced as Elokay Avraham. This would be
an Ashkenazi pronouncing "the Lord of" in a way that in our ancestors'
mouths would mean "Avraham, my Lord" c"v.

Not really... Their anscestors pronounced tzeirei identically.

This is akin to a Sepharadi saying shaim adnus with something a Teimani,
not just us Ashkenazim, with a patach.

Sometimes halachic objections are found for political reasons...

As, at times, are halachic defenses.

I am just defending my statement that I understood and appreciated R
Kook's position. Are you arguing that R Kook delegated Havarah Yisraelit
to a "only when you can't do it right" status because of his politics???

RAYK has a general pattern of defending minhag over innovation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

8

This discussion is problematic

To summarize points of agreement and contention:

1) Classic Ashkenaz (at least of last several hundred years) is different from modern Israeli Hebrew (abazit -rashe tevot ivrit bat zmanenu)
Agreed

2) rabbanim may, in their own communities, insist on certain pronounciations just as they can insist on a certain nusach and minhage tefilla and kriat hatorah - agreed

3) Abazit has fewer distinctions between consonants and vowels than other standard versions of Hebrew (eg, all differentt ashkenazi flavors, all different sefardi /mughrab flavors, and teimani) - agreed

4) RAYKook only permitted Havarah Yisraelit when the alternative was inconsistency.
Agreed. However, interpretation and relevance of that for today is unclear. Remember, he did permit it….

Next, points of contention:

1) Motivation for abazit by Eliezer ben yehudah was that
"They felt that the Ashkenazic pronunciation was tied to European Judaism and religious tradition, which they, for the most part, were rejecting”
While Eliezer ben Yehudah was no fan of religious tradition, I would like to see better documentation of this claim - not just by people who hated Eliezer ben Yehuda and the zionists. I think a far more plausible claim is that if Hebrew was to become the lingua franca in Israel - which it had not been in Europe or anywhere else, people had to have a common accent. As you and rSM noted, Russian and Polish jewry developed a common Hebrew - based on the work of the yiddishists. In Israel, not only Russian and Polish Jews needed to speak to each other - but everyone - including sefardim, teimanim, and all sorts of ashkenazim - and abazit allowed it to happen, and this is a far more plausible claim. One can argue that different choices could have been made - but choosing options with the least difference makes a great deal of sense for this aim.

2) Motivation matters.
Again, I would like to see better evidence of motivation than brought. But, even assuming one finds good evidence for that - why does it matter now? You are treating this like hukkat ha’akum. You have to bring good evidence why motive matters for minhag (except for real avodah Zara) once it has been accepted by major communities. We don’t in other matters. The yeshivish community adopted Pronunciation developed by the secular Yiddishists - but that was OK because they are the yeshiva community. The RZ community adopted abazit - (and I think a major part of the motivation was exactly what I stated - for uniformity and intelligibility across populations) - but that is not OK???

3) Rav Kook. Rav Kook was dealing with abazit in its infancy, with few native speakers- most of his audience came fromEuroope with a different Hebrew, and speaking abazit was different. However, as you say, he did permit it when the alternative was inconsistency - eg, when that was the native, natural Hebrew of the speaker. This means that he did not see a real Halachic issue with it. Today, in Israel, most Israelis would have a tough time learning to distinguish patach from kamatz.

4) Common practice. I have been in many RZ shuls in Israel, and rarely heard an Ashkenazi pronunciation (sefardi yes, teimani yes, but ashkenazi in RZ - rarely heard, and primarily from old timers and visitors.

5) Halachic norm. Claim is made that there is today a halachic issue in people using abazit in davening (not in using it in a Shul that insists on ashkenozis, but just davening by themselves or in a Shul using it). Let me ask people who went to an Israeli hesder yeshiva. For example Gush - Rav Aharon Lichtenstein zt”l and Rav Amital zt”l grew up speaking different flavors of Ashkenozis. Did they insist that the ba’ale tefilla and ba’ale kris distinguish between patach and kamatz? Even for Shem adnut, did they require it???what about other header yeshiva (or even merkaz - I have heard Merkaz trained rabbanim daven in abazit, and Merkaz Harav does follow rav kook…). Rav Kook’s tshuva was never meant to apply to a case where the community adopted this pronunciation

6) If a person who grandparents were ashkenazi says Shem adnut with a patach, his grandparents would misunderstand it. SO??? He is not davening to his grandparents. If he were to switch to a Havana sefaradit - same issue - but that is ok, but not abazit. ??? Again, a Shul or community may want the pronunciation in the Shul to follow its nusach - but for the individual or for a different community this is a problem???

Unfortunately, what seems to be the underlying motivation here is pure, unadulterated sinai Hinam. There is refusal to allow recognition to all the Dati RZ Jews, communities and rabbanim as representing an autherntic kehilla and minhag, and being mozis la’az on entire communities as not being truly halachic. Especially during Sefira and before Shavuot, where we accepted the torah as one, we need to condemn this

Meir Shinnar
(Who does try to distinguish much more.in pronounciation,…)