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.
Meanwhile, my approach hete is my approach in many other sugyot, which is to look at statements based on context of who said it (thus, the PERSON and the page) in terms of who they were, where and when they lived, and the genre of the statement.
This has led to many different readings of gemaras, often against the traditional understanding, posted on my various blogs and articles. It isn't an ex post facto attempt to justify myself, but I am lying to myself and secretly disagree with Chazal. That is frankly insulting.
No, I won't. This doesn't seem like a productive conversation.
(I am not expressing lack of knowledge, that i should look things up. e.g. Shadal argues that the nikkud orthography was post talmudic. If yerushalmi was redacted around 400 CE and masoretes began around 500 CE, that is 100 years. )
My point is that there may well be rejoinder, so don't be so smugly sure of yourself.
Again, you summary of what I am saying prior to your attack is woefully inaccurate. For instance, rhetoric is rhetoric (look at the genre). I didn't say inconsistent statements are rhetoric.
If you can't understand what I am saying, what's the point in continuing?
"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."
And yet, the Yerushalmi quotes the issur of allowing people from Haifa, Bet Shean, and Tivon from being the Shatz, with no indication that it has anything to do with being distracting or accidental blasphemy or anything like that. And, of course, Teveyra became the centre of the Ba'alei Mesorah who were closely tied to the Yeshiva of Teverya (though things got ropey when the Karaites turned up) and went to very great lengths to stop erosion of guttural letters.
You are very sensitive to rhetoric, so you should appreciate that, rhetoric aside, no-one actually thinks Ashkenazim can't duchan or be the Shatz or are blasphemers or anything like that. What (some) people think is that we shouldn't just not pronounce one third of the Hebrew letters in the alphabet, and they can point to a consistent pattern of evidence from the 2nd temple, Hazal, and Rishonim that this was considered important. What is more, the entire Tiberian vocalisation system that we all profess to use simply makes no sense if you don't pronounce the gutturals. So people should try their best and educate their children accordingly, and, realistically, this won't happen unless you stigmatise people who aren't pronouncing properly.
Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: “He Who forms light and creates darkness”; one should not say: “He Who forms light and creates radiance.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: “There they sang for You”, one should not say: “There they praised You”. Rebbi Levi, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Levi bar Sisi: one has to pronounce tizkeru voiced. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: one has to pronounce ki lĕ‘ôlām ḥasdȏ voiced. It was stated: One does not take as reader anyone from Haifa, Beth Sheän or Tiv‘on since they read ח like ה and ע like א. If his pronunciation was orderly, it would be permitted."
Indeed, it may be difficult to surmise from the Yerushalmi sugya.
Also noteworthy is that this Yerushalmi is only about davening, and doesn't address duchening. There may be different motivations for different subjects / contexts. In Bavli Megillah, the point of duchening is raised, and seems to match best (IMHO) to the mum of distraction, even though they then cite the brayta about davening.
"And yet, the Yerushalmi quotes the issur of allowing people from Haifa, Bet Shean, and Tivon from being the Shatz, with no indication that it has anything to do with being distracting or accidental blasphemy or anything like that."
We can consider the Yerushalmi separately, in its own context (if there is any). In Bavli, this is the clear implication based on context, though we might consider what it is. But good point about Tiberian Masoretes.
I definitely have encountered some who took the rhetoric seriously, and don't say that a nazir psilos would certainly be a nazir. And stigmatization based on falsehood doesn't speak to me. I understand the Tiberian vocalization system based on impact on text, not necessarily a particular pronunciation system.
Also, I recognize that this "correct" pronunciation may be a good, but one to be balanced against other goods. So for instance, if there is serious impact on kavana, because your entire focus is on (an unnatural) havara, then overall it is not good. If there is a poretz geder, perhaps this benefit doesn't outweigh it. If the community winces at your leining and cannot focus on the meaning, perhaps the good of "proper" pronunciation doesn't outweigh it. If it accompanies a general neo-Karaitic approach to halacha and undermines halacha as it developed, promoting e.g. Torat Eretz Yisrael over that of the galut... well, maybe that is good or maybe it is bad. Is stigmatization really worth it?
I also think that this "properly" was fixed at a precise and arbitrary point in time. And no one today distinguishes between the two ayins. And most aren't pronouncing the bhet in the original way. Or pronounces the original "sin".
OK, let me retract and rephrase, no doubt some people do take their rhetoric seriously, but some people always take rhetoric seriously. You can't have it both ways and say all the stuff from Hazalic sources is just rhetoric, and that it's bad for people today to use rhetoric.
I myself have put quite a lot effort into pronunciation and it is tied to a TEY approach. Over the years, I have got more moderate, but I haven't found it's a problem when I daven from the amud or that it undermines cavanah. Most of all, though, I just think children should be taught in school, just as children in Zionist schools are/were taught a particular havara regardless of what their parents do/did and children in Chassidic schools are/were taught a particular havarah regardless of their parents do/did. In all these cases there's a always a bit of social coercion involved. That's life. I don't think that those who are trying to promote a more correct pronunciation need to be the only people with scruples about this.
"I understand the Tiberian vocalization system based on impact on text, not necessarily a particular pronunciation system."
But historically that's wrong, it's really all about what they considered proper pronunciation, and that's why it spread because Jews accepted that this was the most elite or "correct" pronunciation. You should read Geoffrey Khan's book.
It doesn't really matter to me what *they* thought as they formulated it. It is useful for me to understand the syntax and semantics, as well as why we get to how we pronounce it today (e.g. sav vs. tav due to gemination or beget kefet rules, pronouncing the chataf patach because gutturals cannot get a plain sheva na). I don't really care because I have a mix of descriptivism and prescriptivism in terms of what to practically do, in this natural human language which developed over time.
Early on, I also put a lot of effort into matching historic pronunciation, but I've moved past that point, especially as I've seen impact on myself and those around me. (For one example among many, someone viscerally shuddering during every ayin I pronounce in bentching. Should I be machmir on at their expense?)
Also, I am unsure about the TEY approach. While some may consider me and my halachic positions occasionally radical, I have my disagreements and see a bit of Neo-Karaism in it. I certainly don't think that just because it came from Eretz Yisrael, it is historically and legally correct / binding. (And yes, I'm familiar with sources which promote this, which are rhetoric from one side of an argument.) For myself, might distance myself from it. Just as matzeiva was originally a good thing and then developed negative associations, or other positive practices which became sectarian.
Again, the fact is that the Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation is *not* a natural human language that evolved over time, it was a highly contrived pronunciation system designed to stop natural processes of letter loss and consonant elision. The fact that Tiberian pronunciation became almost universally accepted by Jewish communities tells us that the 'mesorah' is to be pedantic and particular about pronunciation.
I don't think this is terribly complicated. In English, many people drop their 'h's. I don't go and shout at them in the street, but by the same token, I expect the news to be read by someone who pronounces an 'h', and not only me, but most people think that way *including most people who drop their 'h's*. All I'm saying is show Hebrew at least the same respect you show English. That's historically what religious Jews have tried to do, and it really only fell apart in the last 1,000 years because of the contingent historical situation. Fixing this situation isn't no. 1 priority, but it is desirable, and to get there you have to indulge in a bit of rhetoric, just like Hazal did.
As for the ayin. I live in Israel and no-one cares. In fact, it's somewhat common for intelligent normies to pray with a Zionist havarah, but make an effort for the ayin. I think this is generally a good approach: encourage people to make relatively easy changes and don't insist on all or nothing (especially since the ideal of a perfect pronunciation is both impossible and incoherent).
"chataf patach because gutturals cannot get a plain sheva na"
This is false. A plain sheva na according to the Tiberian system is pronounced as a short patah, that is to say it is identical to a hataf patah. The reason a hataf patah mark is used for gutturals is because gutturals often take a sheva na where elsewhere you would expect a sheva nach (in order to ensure the guttural is pronounced), and the hataf patah is used as disambiguation. Eventually, the practice came to be to always use a hataf patah whenever the sheva under a guttural is voiced. In some manuscripts this practice is extended to all letters, and probably we would be better off had that become standard because it's less liable to misunderstanding.
" All I'm saying is show Hebrew at least the same respect you show English."
I don't pronounce knight as קניכט, nor do you, even though that was how it was originally pronounced, leading to its spelling. Is this a lack of respect? And I follow American rather than British pronunciation, where vowels are different and stress patterns are different. Within the accepted pronunciation of standard American English, news anchors in America are generally consistent. Just as I am a prescriptivist within Ashkenazi pronunciation, I am descriptivist about the broad dialectic changes across communities.
So, within any language you can always make these exact same arguments either way. It's natural for languages to change and develop, and it's also natural for people to insist on limits to those changes in line with what they think of as a dignified pronunciation. Once you achieve mass literacy and a sophisticated high culture, linguistic evolution slows right down. English changed more between 1400 and 1500 than it is did between 1500 and today.
In the case of Hebrew, we have clear evidence that for a period of at least 1,500 years the hachamim were very particular to ensure that letters did not become lost, and in particular the gutturals. At the same time, we see that they were flexible with regard to vocalisation, even endorsing revocalisations for the purpose of articulating weak letters, and especially gutturals and for other reasons (Ya'akov Avinu was originally Ya'kov Avinu). I think we should follow the hachamim just like we follow them about what a treifa is or how to get married. That's kind of what orthodox Judaism is about, but on this one issue suddenly it's not. Every single argument for not being pedantic about pronuncation can also be made for spelling. However, if you write a Torah scroll with one letter 'wrong' it's pasul, but if you pronounce every third letter of that Torah scroll wrong it's just fine.
P.S. In the common view there is also a hierarchy of dialects as well as standards with dialects. Almost all Americans accept that RP English is as good or better than SAE, and the reverse is not true in Britain. Of course, that's 'subjective', but lots of things in halacha are subjective, that's why you check what the hachamim think, and they say to pronounce Ayin.
"You want to say that it's fine to misinterpret gemaras because you have a new theory of selective language prescriptiveness"
This is the umpteenth time you have put words in my mouth that I explicitly did NOT say and then attacked that misunderstanding.
This is silly.
I said something very different.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-att-us-rvc3&sxsrf=APwXEdezGFe9xUZWvlTNPKaHjArwi_rE7Q:1680016620600&q=meme+so+what+you%27re+saying+is+jordan&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWyIzP9f79AhUBLFkFHSvEBqwQ0pQJegQIGxAB&biw=412&bih=709&dpr=2.63#imgrc=izVEc4B7RowIsM
Meanwhile, my approach hete is my approach in many other sugyot, which is to look at statements based on context of who said it (thus, the PERSON and the page) in terms of who they were, where and when they lived, and the genre of the statement.
This has led to many different readings of gemaras, often against the traditional understanding, posted on my various blogs and articles. It isn't an ex post facto attempt to justify myself, but I am lying to myself and secretly disagree with Chazal. That is frankly insulting.
No, I won't. This doesn't seem like a productive conversation.
(I am not expressing lack of knowledge, that i should look things up. e.g. Shadal argues that the nikkud orthography was post talmudic. If yerushalmi was redacted around 400 CE and masoretes began around 500 CE, that is 100 years. )
My point is that there may well be rejoinder, so don't be so smugly sure of yourself.
Again, you summary of what I am saying prior to your attack is woefully inaccurate. For instance, rhetoric is rhetoric (look at the genre). I didn't say inconsistent statements are rhetoric.
If you can't understand what I am saying, what's the point in continuing?
"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."
And yet, the Yerushalmi quotes the issur of allowing people from Haifa, Bet Shean, and Tivon from being the Shatz, with no indication that it has anything to do with being distracting or accidental blasphemy or anything like that. And, of course, Teveyra became the centre of the Ba'alei Mesorah who were closely tied to the Yeshiva of Teverya (though things got ropey when the Karaites turned up) and went to very great lengths to stop erosion of guttural letters.
You are very sensitive to rhetoric, so you should appreciate that, rhetoric aside, no-one actually thinks Ashkenazim can't duchan or be the Shatz or are blasphemers or anything like that. What (some) people think is that we shouldn't just not pronounce one third of the Hebrew letters in the alphabet, and they can point to a consistent pattern of evidence from the 2nd temple, Hazal, and Rishonim that this was considered important. What is more, the entire Tiberian vocalisation system that we all profess to use simply makes no sense if you don't pronounce the gutturals. So people should try their best and educate their children accordingly, and, realistically, this won't happen unless you stigmatise people who aren't pronouncing properly.
Here btw is the Yerushalmi, unless you mean somewhere else:
https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.2.4.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
"רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר חֲנִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חוֹשֶׁךְ. דְּלָא יֵימַר יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא נוֹגַהּ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא שָׁם שָׁרוּ לָךְ דְּלָא יֵימַר שָׁם הַלְלוּ לָךְ. רִבִּי לֵוִי רִבִּי אֶבְדִּימָא דְחֵיפָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לֵוִי בַּר סִיסִי צָרִיךְ לְהַתִּיז לְמַעַן תִּזְכְּרוּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא צָרִיךְ לְהַתִּיז כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ. תַּנִּי אֵין מַעֲבִירִין לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה לֹא חֵיפָנִין וְלֹא בֵּישָׁנִין וְלֹא טִיבְעוֹנִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין חֵיתִין הֵיהִין וְעַיְנִין אָאִין. אִם הָיָה לְשׁוֹנוֹ עָרוּךְ מוּתָּר.
Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: “He Who forms light and creates darkness”; one should not say: “He Who forms light and creates radiance.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: “There they sang for You”, one should not say: “There they praised You”. Rebbi Levi, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Levi bar Sisi: one has to pronounce tizkeru voiced. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: one has to pronounce ki lĕ‘ôlām ḥasdȏ voiced. It was stated: One does not take as reader anyone from Haifa, Beth Sheän or Tiv‘on since they read ח like ה and ע like א. If his pronunciation was orderly, it would be permitted."
Indeed, it may be difficult to surmise from the Yerushalmi sugya.
Also noteworthy is that this Yerushalmi is only about davening, and doesn't address duchening. There may be different motivations for different subjects / contexts. In Bavli Megillah, the point of duchening is raised, and seems to match best (IMHO) to the mum of distraction, even though they then cite the brayta about davening.
Yes, the theme of the 'sugya' (if you can really call it that) is just things people say that are correct or incorrect.
Thanks!
"And yet, the Yerushalmi quotes the issur of allowing people from Haifa, Bet Shean, and Tivon from being the Shatz, with no indication that it has anything to do with being distracting or accidental blasphemy or anything like that."
We can consider the Yerushalmi separately, in its own context (if there is any). In Bavli, this is the clear implication based on context, though we might consider what it is. But good point about Tiberian Masoretes.
I definitely have encountered some who took the rhetoric seriously, and don't say that a nazir psilos would certainly be a nazir. And stigmatization based on falsehood doesn't speak to me. I understand the Tiberian vocalization system based on impact on text, not necessarily a particular pronunciation system.
Also, I recognize that this "correct" pronunciation may be a good, but one to be balanced against other goods. So for instance, if there is serious impact on kavana, because your entire focus is on (an unnatural) havara, then overall it is not good. If there is a poretz geder, perhaps this benefit doesn't outweigh it. If the community winces at your leining and cannot focus on the meaning, perhaps the good of "proper" pronunciation doesn't outweigh it. If it accompanies a general neo-Karaitic approach to halacha and undermines halacha as it developed, promoting e.g. Torat Eretz Yisrael over that of the galut... well, maybe that is good or maybe it is bad. Is stigmatization really worth it?
I also think that this "properly" was fixed at a precise and arbitrary point in time. And no one today distinguishes between the two ayins. And most aren't pronouncing the bhet in the original way. Or pronounces the original "sin".
OK, let me retract and rephrase, no doubt some people do take their rhetoric seriously, but some people always take rhetoric seriously. You can't have it both ways and say all the stuff from Hazalic sources is just rhetoric, and that it's bad for people today to use rhetoric.
I myself have put quite a lot effort into pronunciation and it is tied to a TEY approach. Over the years, I have got more moderate, but I haven't found it's a problem when I daven from the amud or that it undermines cavanah. Most of all, though, I just think children should be taught in school, just as children in Zionist schools are/were taught a particular havara regardless of what their parents do/did and children in Chassidic schools are/were taught a particular havarah regardless of their parents do/did. In all these cases there's a always a bit of social coercion involved. That's life. I don't think that those who are trying to promote a more correct pronunciation need to be the only people with scruples about this.
"I understand the Tiberian vocalization system based on impact on text, not necessarily a particular pronunciation system."
But historically that's wrong, it's really all about what they considered proper pronunciation, and that's why it spread because Jews accepted that this was the most elite or "correct" pronunciation. You should read Geoffrey Khan's book.
It doesn't really matter to me what *they* thought as they formulated it. It is useful for me to understand the syntax and semantics, as well as why we get to how we pronounce it today (e.g. sav vs. tav due to gemination or beget kefet rules, pronouncing the chataf patach because gutturals cannot get a plain sheva na). I don't really care because I have a mix of descriptivism and prescriptivism in terms of what to practically do, in this natural human language which developed over time.
Early on, I also put a lot of effort into matching historic pronunciation, but I've moved past that point, especially as I've seen impact on myself and those around me. (For one example among many, someone viscerally shuddering during every ayin I pronounce in bentching. Should I be machmir on at their expense?)
Also, I am unsure about the TEY approach. While some may consider me and my halachic positions occasionally radical, I have my disagreements and see a bit of Neo-Karaism in it. I certainly don't think that just because it came from Eretz Yisrael, it is historically and legally correct / binding. (And yes, I'm familiar with sources which promote this, which are rhetoric from one side of an argument.) For myself, might distance myself from it. Just as matzeiva was originally a good thing and then developed negative associations, or other positive practices which became sectarian.
Again, the fact is that the Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation is *not* a natural human language that evolved over time, it was a highly contrived pronunciation system designed to stop natural processes of letter loss and consonant elision. The fact that Tiberian pronunciation became almost universally accepted by Jewish communities tells us that the 'mesorah' is to be pedantic and particular about pronunciation.
I don't think this is terribly complicated. In English, many people drop their 'h's. I don't go and shout at them in the street, but by the same token, I expect the news to be read by someone who pronounces an 'h', and not only me, but most people think that way *including most people who drop their 'h's*. All I'm saying is show Hebrew at least the same respect you show English. That's historically what religious Jews have tried to do, and it really only fell apart in the last 1,000 years because of the contingent historical situation. Fixing this situation isn't no. 1 priority, but it is desirable, and to get there you have to indulge in a bit of rhetoric, just like Hazal did.
As for the ayin. I live in Israel and no-one cares. In fact, it's somewhat common for intelligent normies to pray with a Zionist havarah, but make an effort for the ayin. I think this is generally a good approach: encourage people to make relatively easy changes and don't insist on all or nothing (especially since the ideal of a perfect pronunciation is both impossible and incoherent).
"chataf patach because gutturals cannot get a plain sheva na"
This is false. A plain sheva na according to the Tiberian system is pronounced as a short patah, that is to say it is identical to a hataf patah. The reason a hataf patah mark is used for gutturals is because gutturals often take a sheva na where elsewhere you would expect a sheva nach (in order to ensure the guttural is pronounced), and the hataf patah is used as disambiguation. Eventually, the practice came to be to always use a hataf patah whenever the sheva under a guttural is voiced. In some manuscripts this practice is extended to all letters, and probably we would be better off had that become standard because it's less liable to misunderstanding.
" All I'm saying is show Hebrew at least the same respect you show English."
I don't pronounce knight as קניכט, nor do you, even though that was how it was originally pronounced, leading to its spelling. Is this a lack of respect? And I follow American rather than British pronunciation, where vowels are different and stress patterns are different. Within the accepted pronunciation of standard American English, news anchors in America are generally consistent. Just as I am a prescriptivist within Ashkenazi pronunciation, I am descriptivist about the broad dialectic changes across communities.
So, within any language you can always make these exact same arguments either way. It's natural for languages to change and develop, and it's also natural for people to insist on limits to those changes in line with what they think of as a dignified pronunciation. Once you achieve mass literacy and a sophisticated high culture, linguistic evolution slows right down. English changed more between 1400 and 1500 than it is did between 1500 and today.
In the case of Hebrew, we have clear evidence that for a period of at least 1,500 years the hachamim were very particular to ensure that letters did not become lost, and in particular the gutturals. At the same time, we see that they were flexible with regard to vocalisation, even endorsing revocalisations for the purpose of articulating weak letters, and especially gutturals and for other reasons (Ya'akov Avinu was originally Ya'kov Avinu). I think we should follow the hachamim just like we follow them about what a treifa is or how to get married. That's kind of what orthodox Judaism is about, but on this one issue suddenly it's not. Every single argument for not being pedantic about pronuncation can also be made for spelling. However, if you write a Torah scroll with one letter 'wrong' it's pasul, but if you pronounce every third letter of that Torah scroll wrong it's just fine.
P.S. In the common view there is also a hierarchy of dialects as well as standards with dialects. Almost all Americans accept that RP English is as good or better than SAE, and the reverse is not true in Britain. Of course, that's 'subjective', but lots of things in halacha are subjective, that's why you check what the hachamim think, and they say to pronounce Ayin.