Suff Noogies

On Shabbos, I learn maseches Megilla with a chabura, and so I’ve once again encountered this gemara, so that is a good enough reason to write this, about the halachic legitimacy of the Ashkenazic pronunciation for tefillah and krias haTorah.

There are folks out there, people or movements, who criticize Ashkenazic pronunciation, legitimately pointing out sources in Talmud, Rishonim, and Acharonim about problems stemming from mispronouncing ayins as alefs, and that such pronouncers are unwitting blasphemers.

Let’s examine one such source, Megillah 24b.

מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדָיו מוּמִין לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף מִי שֶׁהָיוּ יָדָיו צְבוּעוֹת סְטֵיס לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעָם מִסְתַּכְּלִין בּוֹ.

MISHNA: A priest who has blemishes on his hands may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction. Because of his blemish, people will look at his hands, and it is prohibited to look at the hands of the priests during the Priestly Benediction. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one whose hands were colored with satis, a blue dye, may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction because the congregation will look at him.

Pretty distracting, no?

The Mishnah discussing disqualifying blemishes for a kohen for duchening, specifically because of people’s reaction, that it calls attention.

The gemara follows this with a list of other distinguishing features which invalidate, because it attracts attention:

1. A brayta that it is specifically visible blemishes on exposed face, hands and feet

2. Rabbi Yehohua ben Levi: spotted hands, curved or bent hands

Then, what may continue or, according to Rashi, an entire diversion from the pattern.

3. Rav Asi: One from Haifa or Beit She’an cannot duchen

4. A supporting brayta: We don’t allow those from Beit She’an, or Tiv’onin to daven for the amud because they pronounce ayin as alef and aleph as ayin.

That brayta explains what is unique about people from those places.

Rashi explains 3 + 4 as an issue of the mispronounced aleph, as ayin, turning the blessing into a curse, יער השם. I’d explain 3 (+4) as continuing the global idea that, for residents of other areas who do distinguish, someone mixing up their consonants is distracting. We’ll explore the merits of each later.

5. A related digression related to alephs and ayins, or speech blemishes.
   

   1. Rabbi Chiyya to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s son Shimon: Were you a Levi, you’d be disqualified from singing on the platform because of your thick voice.
      

   2. Shimon tattles to his father. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Go retort to him:
      ii. When you reach “veChikiti laHashem” (I will wait upon Hashem), don’t you blaspheme? (Because vehikiti = I will hit”.)

According to Rav Steinsaltz’s comment, it was because Rabbi Chiyya was from Bavel that he didn’t distinguish these words. Interestingly, his name was Chiyyah, which he must have pronounced with a leading Heh.

Extremely locally, this supports Rashi’s reading that the issue is accidental blaspheming, and so this is what likely prompted Rashi’s explanation. Global to the sugya, the issue is distraction.

The sugya continues:

6. Rav Huna (btw really Rav Chuna — see Talmud Yerushalmi): one whose eyes drip shouldn’t duchen

   1. an eye-drippy kohen in Rav Huna’s neighborhood nevertheless duchened. This was because people were used to it, so it wasn’t distracting.

7. Rabbi Yochanan: one blind in one eye shouldn’t duchen

   1. a one-eyed kohen in Rabbi Yochanan’s neighborhood nevertheless duchened. This was because people were used to it, so it wasn’t distracting.

8. The Mishnah had cited Rabbi Yehuda that one with stained hands shouldn’t duchen. A brayta written to comment on the Mishnah (תָּנָא) adds that if all the townspeople are also engaged in dying as an occupation, then he can duchen. Presumably because it is no longer distracting.

---

That completes the sugya. Now, a few points.

Firstly, the overarching idea in the sugya is that these blemishes are distracting. As I said before, the reading that makes more sense to me is that the concern about ayin / aleph invalidating for duchening is the concern behind every other “blemish” listed, that it is distracting.

That one from Chaifa or Beit She’an shouldn’t duchen is a law targeted to normal folks of other areas, who do make a distinction. Whether it will be merely distracting, or whether they will hear something that sounds to them like blaspheming and it will then be distracting.

The story digression just went to illustrate the idea of such pronunciation being regarded as bad, equivalent to a mum of a thick voice, such that it was a great rejoinder.

But what of the communities of Beit She’an, Chaifa, Tiv’onin, or just generally Bavel. Normal kohanim who speak in their manner cannot duchen there for others who similarly speak in that manner? If the issue is distraction, then I just don’t see it. It is no worse than a drippy-eyed kohen, or a kohen with stained hands in a locale where everyone is a dyer with stained hands.

Few meforshim explain on the daf. But Rashi explains:

מפני שקורין לאלפין עיינין ולעיינין אלפין - ואם היו עושין ברכת כהנים היו אומרים יאר יער ה' פניו ולשון קללה הוא כי יש פנים שיתפרשו לשון כעס כמו פני ילכו (שמות ל״ג:י״ד) את פני (ויקרא כ) ומתרגמינן ית רוגזי ומעי"ן עושין אלפי"ן ופוגמין תפלתן ודאמרינן (ברכות לב.) דבי ר"א קורין לאלפין עיינין ולעיינין אלפין ההוא בדרשה:

namely that for ברכת כהנים, turning aleph into ayin turns praise into curses, namely יאר השם with an ayin has negative implications. What motivates Rashi in this explanation is at least partly the immediately local context, where we will see mecharef umegadef come up for Rabbi Chiyyah. But that ignores the general point of the sugya, that these will undue attract attention and distract from the blessing, just like stained hands.

---

Secondly, it is important to understand genre. People are trading insults here. Your voice is so thick that you couldn’t be a Levite singer? Oh yeah? Well, you don’t distinguish your letters so you accidentally blaspheme! “Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

There are plenty of gemaras where residents of Israel have negative things to say about those in Bavel. Such expressions of partisanship shouldn’t always be taken as halachic pronouncements. That would be a category error.

---

Thirdly, let us enumerate some who did not distinguish these letters, despite being great talmidei chachamim who were religious.

Rabbi Chiyya couldn’t properly pronounce his own name. Yet, he was a frumme yid. He kept halacha, and put together the Tosefta. We have no evidence that after this retort, he took it to heart and trained himself linguistically to be able to pronounce the chet. And all these years prior, he consistently mispronounced Shema, in a way that would render it invalid?!

We can add him to a list of Tannaim and Amoraim who didn’t distinguish between certain guttural letters, despite being greats.

Atop the list is Shemaya and Avtalyon, the zug which preceded Hillel and Shammai. In Eduyot 1:3:

הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, מְלֹא הִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁאָדָם חַיָּב לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ. וְשַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנֵי גַרְדִּיִּים מִשַּׁעַר הָאַשְׁפּוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהֵעִידוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן, שְׁלֹשֶׁת לֻגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, וְקִיְּמוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם:

Hillel says: “A hin full of drawn water renders the mikweh unfit.” (However, man must speak in the language of his teacher.) And Shammai says: “Nine kavs.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one;” But when two weavers from the dung-gate which is in Jerusalem came and testified in the name of Shemaiah and Avtalion, “Three logs of drawn water render the mikweh unfit,” the Sages confirmed their statement.

On the idea that one must speak in the language of his teacher, Bartenura writes:

שחייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו. כלומר, הין אינו לשון משנה אלא לשון תורה, אלא כך שמע מרבותיו שמעיה ואבטליון. ורמב״ם קבל מאביו ז״ל שמפני שהיו שמעיה ואבטליון גרי צדק לא היו יכולין להוציא מפיהן מלת הין, והיו אומרים אין במקום הין, כדרך בני אדם עד היום שאינם יכולים לחתוך באותיות [אחה״ע], והיה הלל גם הוא אומר אין, כמו שהיו רבותיו שמעיה ואבטליון גרי צדק אומרים:

שחייב אדם לומר בשלון רבו – that is to say, the word "הין" /”hin” is not the language of the Mishnah, but rather is the language of the Torah, but that is what he heard from his teachers Shemaiah and Avtalion. And Maimonides received from his father, of blessed memory, that since Shemaiah and Avtalion were righteous converts, they were not able to pronounce from their mouths the word “Hin,” and they would say, “Een” instead of “Hin,” like people until today who are incapable of articulating the letters [Aleph, Khet, Hei and Ayin), and Hillel would also say, “Een”, like this teachers, the righteous converts Shemaiah and Avtalion would say.

and the Rambam writes:

שמעיה ואבטליון. הם רבותיהם של שמאי והלל כמו שמבואר באבות והיו גרים ונשאר בשפתם לעגי שפת העובדי כוכבים והיו אומרים אין במקום הין והלל היה אומר כן מלא אין כמו ששמע מהם והוא מה שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל חייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו ויש מי שקורא מלא הן מלא הין ואומר שהשינוי כאילו הוא בין הן להין והקריאה הראשונה הוא שלמדתי מאבא מורי ז"ל שלמד מפי רבו ורבו מפי רבו ז"ל וההין הוא שלשת קבין וזהו חצי סאה ולוג רובע הקב לפי שהקב ד' לוגין וכבר בארנו שם שעור הלוג במסכת פיאה:

Shemaya and Avtalion were the masters of Shamai and Hillel, as described in Mishna Avot. They were converts, and the accents of idol-worshippers stayed in their speech, so that they would say 'in' rather than 'hin'. Hillel would repeat exactly what he heard from them, so that he would also say "a complete 'in'", as he was taught. This is what our rabbis taught, that one is obligated to transmit traditions in the language of the master. There are those who have a different explanation, and say that it says 'hen' rather than 'hin'. But the first explanation is the one I learned from my father, may his memory be a blessing, and he learned it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher. And the hin is equivalent to three kab, which is half a se'ah, and a log is quarter of a kab. And we have explained these measurements in the commentary to the tractate of Pe'ah.

Thus, this is a longstanding tradition of the Rambam. Now, Shmaya and Avtalyon were an important link in the chain of tradition. And they were unable to pronounce a heh, pronouncing it as an aleph, being converts.

They were religious, and valued halacha. It is not that hard to learn how to pronounce the /h/ sound, and were it truly important, for e.g. leining or Shema, they would surely have forced themselves to learn this pronunciation.

We can also add the academy of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, in Berachot 32a, as mentioned by Rashi in Megillah.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מֹשֶׁה הֵטִיחַ דְּבָרִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳״ אַל תִּקְרֵי ״אֶל ה׳״, אֶלָּא ״עַל ה׳״.

And Rabbi Elazar said: Moses also spoke impertinently toward God on High, as it is stated in the verse following the sin of those who murmured against God in the desert: “And Moses prayed to the Lord and the fire subsided” (Numbers 11:2), and this verse is interpreted homiletically: Do not read to [el] the Lord, but rather onto [al] the Lord, which indicates that he spoke impertinently.

שֶׁכֵּן דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב קוֹרִין לָאַלְפִין עַיְינִין, וְלָעַיְינִין אַלְפִין.

The Gemara explains the basis for this interpretation: As the Sages of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov would indiscriminately read alef as ayin and ayin as alef and in this case transforming el into al.

Certainly Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (whose teaching is kav venaki, concise and precide, such that we rule like him) and those in his academy were religious and rigorous in their practice. Yet they would read these words indiscriminately, so much so that they would even make derashot based on switching one guttural for another!

If by doing so, they would be really mecharef umegadef, would they do so? Obviously not. Rather, since the pronunciation in their locale was such, it was not an issue. It didn’t stand out as distracting, and since everyone pronounced it the same way, it did not convey to the audience any blasphemous meaning.

Indeed, Talmud Yerushalmi is written in Galilean Aramaic. And, as I learned through regular study of Yerushalmi, and from Dr. Steiner in Revel in a Galilean Aramaic course, a regular feature of Galilean Aramaic is the relaxing of the guttural letters, ayins into alephs, sometimes letters entirely disappearing. This not just in the pronunciation but in the writing. (See here about relaxation of gutturals in Galilean Aramaic.) The Amoraim appearing in Talmud Yerushalmi, and its redactors, were all knowledgeable and religious, yet they weren’t careful in their pronunciation.

---

Fourthly, if I am correct in my understanding of this gemara (contra Rashi), there is a real problem for those who duchen (or daven for the amud, or lein the Torah), if they do make such distinctions, of ayin vs. aleph, chet vs. chaf, thav instead of sav, dhaled, stressing of the dagesh chazak, and so on.

If the issue is that the community will find these things (dyed hands, tear-flowing eyes, strange pronunciations) disconcerting, then it absolutely is disconcerting and distracts from the actual content. This should be a psul! Unless the community has grown accustomed to it. Davening in such shuls, even though I personally am capable of making the “correct” pronunciation, I can attest to the congregation still finding it jarring.