How The Left Kills Blacks

Posted on August 15, 2026 by jewamongyou

I reached an impasse in my translation of my late friend’s book on the pronunciation of Hebrew. Even though I’ve been lazy about posting here, I’ve been active on X. Follow me there if you’re so inclined: https://x.com/jewamongyou

Here’s a recent tweet I posted about the apparent suicide of Jason Arday:

I didn’t know him personally, but it looks like he believed the leftist propaganda about him. When he caught a whiff of the truth, it was too much for him. The Left, as usual, has blood on its hands. We can’t blame low-IQ individuals for basking in unearned accolades, promotions etc., when they don’t know any better. How does the Left murder black people?

1. Defunding the police caused many blacks to do, either as a result of violent crime or in traffic accidents (as Steve Sailer wrote about extensively).

2. Poorly qualified black doctors “serve” their own communities and sometimes kill patients (the doctor who benefited in the famous Bakke Case is a good example of this). The Left increases the body count by encouraging blacks to seek out doctors who “look like them.”

3. Promoting abortion causes the murder of black babies more than others. This has already been discussed extensively.

4. Though the black suicide rate is naturally lower than that of Whites or Asians, placing low-IQ blacks in elite schools increases it; they either fail in school or get placed in jobs they can’t handle. The more conscientious blacks take their own lives, leaving the psychopaths behind.

5. Promoting the use of illicit drugs causes unnecessary deaths among all races, and this includes blacks.

6. The massive propaganda campaign to get black men to date and marry White women leads to financial ruin, broken households and dysfunctional children. This propaganda hurts both races because it encourages bad dating choices and bad matching.

I’m not saying that Arday was a good man. He might have been a useful simpleton for the Left. I don’t know. I do know that there are decent people who are black, and some of them try to make a difference:

Posted in Africa and blacks, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Truth of True Speech Part 10

Posted on July 1, 2026 by jewamongyou

The Hard and Soft Taw (ת, תּ)

The letter Taw (ת, תּ) is among the letters בגדכפ”ת, which have both hard and soft versions. The hard version is just like a T and the soft version is like English TH (as in the word “Thumb”).

The hard version is well-known in all Jewish communities and there is no disagreement about it. One should, however, be careful to avoid stressing it when it comes directly before a Teth (ט) or Sadi (צ), for then it would sound just like a Teth (ט). For the only difference between the hard Taw (תּ) and the Teth (ט) is in the strength of the Teth (ט) in contrast to the weakness of the Taw (תּ).* Therefore, one must be careful specifically with the reading of the Taw (תּ) when it is adjacent to a Teth (ט) or a Sadi (צ), and sometimes adjacent to a Resh (ר). Most of the time, it turns into a Teth (ט) inadvertently. For example, in the words Yatus, Watitasu, Natita, Tite, Ra’ata, Wetera (יתוּץ, ותתצוּ, נטית, תטה, ראתה, ותרא) and similar examples. Generally, this Taw (תּ) ends up sounding exactly like a Teth (ט) due to the influence of the Teth (ט), Sadi (צ), or Resh (ר) that’s next to it.

The pronunciation of the soft Taw (ת) was forgotten by most Jewish communities. Among the Sephardim, there is no difference at all between the soft and hard Taw (ת, תּ). Among the Ashkenazim, on the other hand, there is a clear distinction. However, they forgot the correct distinction, and they turned the soft version literally into a Semakh (ס). The correct pronunciation is like the English TH, which is similar to the Semakh (ס) but with the tongue protruding a bit between the teeth. This was only maintained among the Jews of Iraq and Yemen.

It’s known that it’s very important to distinguish between the hard and soft Taw (ת, תּ), aside from the fact that it’s technically correct to do so, it also aids in avoiding pronouncing it the same as a Teth (ט). For example: Lo Thate, Natitha, Natas, Hatath (לא תטה, נטית, נתץ, חטאת) and so on. If we pronounce it as a hard Taw (תּ), then it will necessarily be transformed into a Teth (ט) because of its proximity to the Teth (ט) or Sadi (צ), However, if we pronounce it as a soft Taw (ת), then it does not transform into a Teth (ט) and it remains a soft Taw (ת). However, it is necessary to emphasize that one must know how to pronounce the soft Taw (ת) correctly, and not as if it were a Semakh (ס) as the Ashkenazim do. In that case, it would be better to pronounce it as a hard Taw (תּ). At least that way the meaning is not changed, for there is no difference in meaning between Titen and Thiten (תּתּן, תתּן) or between Torah and Thorah (תּוֺרה, תוֺרה). This is not the case if we pronounce the soft Taw (ת) as a Semakh (ס), for in that case, the meaning is altered. For example, Pethah (פתח opening) becomes Pesah (פסח Passover). Methim (מתים dead) becomes Misim (מסים taxes). Torah (תוֺרה Torah) becomes Surah (סוּרה turning away). Avoth (אבוֺת fathers) becomes Avus (אבוּס trough). Therefore, it’s preferable to pronounce the soft Taw (ת) as a hard Taw (תּ) rather than as a completely different letter. This is the case with all of the double letters (בגדכפ”ת), that if somebody has trouble pronouncing one of them so that it comes out as a different letter, he’s better off pronouncing it in its other form. for example, there are those who have trouble pronouncing the hard Peh (פּ) so that it comes out as a hard Beth (בּ), it’s preferable for them to pronounce it as a soft Peh (פ) rather than as a hard Beth (בּ). So it is with the other letters, that it’s better to replace the hard form with the soft form, or the other way around, than to replace it with an altogether different letter. After all, the meaning doesn’t change between the hard and soft forms of the double letters בגדכפ”ת. May the Lord help us overcome all difficulties, and let the verse be fulfilled with us, as it says, “the tongue of the defective of speech will quickly speak smoothly.” Amen.

* Linguists, and I, will disagree with the author here; the Teth (ט) is voiced while the Taw (תּ) is not voiced. It has little to do with “strength” or “weakness.” It is possible that this is what the author meant.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Truth of True Speech Part 9

Posted on June 28, 2026 by jewamongyou

The Letter Resh (ר)

The pronunciation of the letter Resh (ר) is known to be like the letter R, but the letter Resh (ר) itself varies from place to place just like the letter R. In each place, the Jews pronounce it however the R is pronounced in that place. There is not necessarily any disagreement between Sephardim and Ashkenazim in its pronunciation. Rather, the Ashkenazim disagree among themselves. It’s clear that it’s impossible to pronounce the Resh (ר) the way it’s pronounced in central Europe, as a soft Gimal (ג), because that would make it the same as another letter, and we don’t pronounce two letters the same way. Furthermore, the Resh (ר) has its origin in the teeth with the help of the tongue, not from the back of the pallet or the throat.

We can also bring proof, again, from the words of R. Dunash ben Tamim (10th century Tunisia) who listed the letters that Arabic has and we lack. He did not count the Ra (ر) among them. This implies that our Resh (ר) is the same as the Arabic Ra (ر). Also, the geonim wrote in Arabic with Hebrew letters, and they used our Resh (ר) to correspond to the Arabic Ra (ر). This implies that they have the same pronunciation. Furthermore, most Ashkenazim would pronounce the Resh (ר) not like the soft Gimal (ג), and to this day, the Jews of Russia, Romania, Hungary are the same.

Therefore, we find the author of Ohel Moshe (chief rabbi of Lviv in 1765) writing about those who pronounce the Resh (ר) as if it were a Heth (ח) (that is to say, like a soft Kaf כ, which is similar to a soft Gimal ג, which is the French and German Resh ר). He referred to them as “those of cut tongue”. This implies that in his time, not many Jews were pronouncing the Resh (ר) as similar to the Kaf (כ) or soft Gimal (ג). This is why he referred to them as a small minority that pervert the pronunciation of the Resh (ר), and that they are “those of cut tongue.” Had there been entire communities doing so, he would not have referred to them this way.

Note from the translator: This chapter was a bit disappointing for me. The author and I had a long-standing debate regarding the letter Resh. The issue was that the Book of Yesirah (of uncertain origin but probably composed between the 2nd and 7th centuries AD) lists the letter Resh among the double letters (בגדכפר”ת). We know about the other double letters; they are defined by the absence or presence of a Light Dagesh (Dagesh Qal), which makes them hard or soft. The Resh is different; in all of scripture, it only has a Degesh a handful of times. One of them is in The Song of Songs (5:2), which Yemenite Jews read in synagogue every Friday night. “שׁרּאשׁי נמלא־טל.” Yemenites emphasize that Resh, lengthening it so that it’s trilled much as the double R is trilled in Spanish. To the best of my knowledge, no other Jewish community has any tradition on how to pronounce this hard Resh differently than any other Resh. Also, the fact that the Resh is counted, in the Book of Yesirah among the letters of the teeth (זשׁסר”ץ). The author insisted that the Dagesh form of the Resh would have been from the back of the pallet, as central Europeans pronounce the R, and as a few Babylonians pronounce it. In his opinion, this double Resh was not based on whether or not there was a Dagesh; rather it would have been according to a long-lost set of rules. Based on what he wrote here, it looks like he eventually agreed with me, but he should have addressed the issue of the double Resh.

I was fortunate, while living in Israel, to get exposure to authentic Iraqi (Baghdadi) Hebrew – and I paid very close attention. This is good because it’s now virtually extinct; to the best of my knowledge, no young Israelis are well-versed in it, nobody asked the right questions, nobody took notes and nobody made an effort to pass it on to the next generation. Iraqi Jews did have two forms of the letter Resh: One pronounced as in Arabic/Spanish/Russian and the other was rhotic as in American English. It’s possible that this is the “double Resh” that the Book of Yesirah referred to.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Truth of True Speech Part 8

Posted on June 23, 2026 by jewamongyou

The Letter Qof (ק)

The letter Qof (ק) is pronounced, among the various Jewish communities, in five different ways. This is testimony to the fact that it’s very difficult to pronounce correctly. Therefore, each person pronounced it however was easiest for him and according to whatever vernacular was spoken in his area. Here are the five pronunciations: The Jews of Europe and America pronounce it exactly as if it were a hard Kaf (כּ). Most of the Jews of Yemen – as if it were our hard Gimal (גּ). Some of the Jews of Yemen*, along with the Jews of Persia and Georgia – as if it were a soft Gimal (ג). Some of the Jews of Morocco and Syria – as if it were an Aleph (א). Most of the Jews of Arab lands pronounce it like the Arabic Qaf (ق).

It just became known to me that the Jews of Malabar/Cochin in Southern India, pronounce the Qof (ק) exactly as if it were a soft Kaf (כ).** I discovered that in their language there is no equivalent to the Arabic Qaf (ق) or the soft Gimal (ג). It seems that this is the reason the Qof (ק) was not transformed into a soft Gimal (ג) among them, as happened with the Jews of Persia and Media, their neighbors (Sic) but it was transformed into a soft Kaf (כ), which is similar to the soft Gimal (ג). Therefore, there are SIX different ways of pronouncing the letter Qaf (ק). Had the Qof (ק) originally been like the Kaf (כ) or the Gimal (ג), then why would the other communities have changed the pronunciation of the Qof (ק) but they didn’t change the pronunciation of the letters Kaf (כ) and Gimal (ג)? Rather, it’s clear that the Qof (ק) is not similar to any of the above letters.

It’s clear, without any doubt, that only one of them pronounces it correctly while the others are mistaken. One need not be an expert linguist in order to know who is mistaken. We have a general rule that no two letters, in the Holy Tongue, are identical in pronunciation. If so, those who pronounce it as a soft Gimal (ג) , or as a soft or hard Kaf (כ), or as an Aleph (א) are clearly mistaken, for they are equating the letter Qof (ק) with another letter. It remains for us to clarify if the pronunciation of the Yemenites, which is the same as our hard Gimal (גּ), is correct, for they pronounce the hard Gimal (גּ) the same as the Arabic Jim (ج) so that their Qof (ק) is not the same as their hard Gimal (גּ). At first glance, their pronunciation is valid.

However, since we established above that the pronunciation of the hard Gimal (גּ) as Arabic Jim (ج) is not correct, if so, we conclude that the hard Gimal (גּ) must be like the letter (hard) G, and they pronounce the Qof (ק) like a (hard) G. It turns out that they pronounce the Qof (ק) as if it’s a hard Gimal (גּ). Therefore, we conclude that the Qof (ק) must be pronounced the same as the Arabic Qaf (ق), for it is not identical to any other letter in the Holy Tongue. This is the same as the pronunciation of most Jews of Arab lands and a respectable percentage of Yemenite Jews as well. We have already spent a lot of time on the evidence for this in my book The Language of Truth, and here I’ll cite them briefly.

In his commentary on the Book of Yesirah, R. Dunash ben Tamim (10th century Tunisia) wrote, Arabic has three letters that The Holy Tongue lacks, and they are Dhad (ض), Tha (ظ) (with diacritical marks) and Jim (ج). Hebrew also has three letters that Arabic lacks, and they are the soft Kaf (כ) and the hard Gimal (גּ) and Pe (פּ). If the pronunciation of the Qof (ק) were like the Sephardic hard Gimal (גּ) (G), then he would have written that Arabic has its Qaf (ق) that we don’t have, and we have our Qof (ק) that they don’t have, and it’s the same as the hard Gimal (גּ) (G). He would not have mentioned the Gimal (גּ) or the Jim (ج), for they are the same according to the Yemenites. Certainly, our Qof (ק) is the same as the Arabic Qaf (ق), and our hard Gimal (גּ) is not the same as the Arabic Jim (ج).

Similarly had the pronunciation of the Qof (ק) been the same as the hard or soft Kaf (כ), or the same as the Aleph (א) or the soft Gimal (ג), then he would have mentioned that we lack the Arabic Qaf (ق). Certainly the Qof (ק) isn’t like any of the above letters, but it is, without doubt, like that Arabic Qaf (ق).

Another proof of this is from the writing style of the Geonim and early rabbis in hundreds of books that they wrote in Hebrew using Arabic characters. They always wrote our Qof (ק) as the equivalent to the Arabic Qaf (ق), and they never used any other Hebrew letter to represent the Arabic Qaf (ق). This is very strong proof that all the hundreds of geonim and early rabbis, in all these generations, wrote this way. For all of them, it was obvious that our Qof (ק) is the equivalent to the Arabic Qaf (ق). If there were any difference between our Qof (ק) and the Arabic Qaf (ق), they would have at least added a diacritical mark to the Qof (ק) to indicate that it differs from the normal Arabic pronunciation – just as they did with every letter where there’s a doubt or deviation, even the smallest one, from the corresponding Arabic letter.

For example, this is what they did with the letter Gimal (ג) when used to represent the Arabic letter Jim (ج). It is always written with a dot to show that its pronunciation is not the same as Hebrew Gimal (ג), but like the Arabic letter Jim (ج). Similarly, with the Teth (ט) and Sadi (צ), which come with a dot when they represent the Arabic letters Tha (ظ) and Dhad (ض). When they represent the regular Arabic letters Ta (ط) and Sad (ص), they’re written without a dot. In that case, they’re the same as Arabic Ta (ط) and Sad (ص). Similarly, the letters Lam (ל), Mim (מ), Nun (נ), Semakh (ס) and ‘Ayin (ע) are always written without a dot, for they are always the same as their corresponding Arabic letters. Hence, any letter that has any sort of doubt about its pronunciation was written with a dot to show that its pronunciation deviates from the norm, or that its pronunciation is soft. However, a letter whose pronunciation is, without any doubt, equal to its Arabic equivalent was written without any diacritical marks. Therefore, the fact that the Qof (ק) never comes with any diacritical marks or dot is proof for the whole world that its pronunciation is the same as the Arabic letter Qaf (ق). This also is the tradition of most Jews who lived in Arab lands.***

*This is a mistake; none of the Yemenite Jewish communities pronounced it as a soft Gimal (ג). Some pronounced it like Arabic (Qaf (ق) and others pronounced it as a hard (non-Yemenite) Gimal (גּ).

**I’m the one who informed him of this. I’ll add that, except for the Yemenite dialect, all of the Middle Eastern/African dialects of Hebrew are close to being extinct in Israel; little to no effort was made to teach them to younger generations, and the younger generations are, generally speaking, completely ignorant of them. The Yemenite dialect, though great efforts were made to pass it on, is also compromised, with the younger generations having only partial knowledge of it.

***I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that even classical Arabic had some variation in the pronunciation of this letter. The standard, most common, pronunciation is described as a “voiceless uvular plosive [q]” and this would probably also apply to Hebrew. However, there were probably regional variations among all Semitic populations, including the Jews.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Truth of True Speech pt. 7

Posted on June 22, 2026 by jewamongyou

The Letter Sadi (צ)

The pronunciation of the letter Sadi (צ) is known, and it is similar to the letter Semakh (ס, S), but it’s stronger. The difference between it and the Semakh (ס) is the same as the difference between the Taw (תּ) and the Teth (ט). It is exactly the same as Arabic Sad (ص). It is the highest and strongest level of emphasis among the S sounds while the Semakh (ס) is intermediate and the Sin (שׂ) is the weakest as we explained in the chapter on the Sin (שׂ). The Sadi (צ) should absolutely not be pronounced as if it’s a combination of the two letters Taw (תּ) and Semakh (ס) or Teth (ט) and Semakh (ס): תּס־טס as is done by a majority of the population in the Land of Israel today, and by all the Ashkenazim. This is a serious perversion and has no basis in Jewish tradition, neither Sephardim or Ashkenazim. Only within the past two or three hundred years has the Ashkenazic pronunciation been corrupted under the influence of Yiddish and German. Among the Sephardim and Mizrahi communities it was never pronounced as the combination תּס־טס until very recently in our time when they learned it from the Ashkenazim in the Land of Isreal. However, outside of the Land of Israel, they continue to maintain the original pronunciation of the Sadi (צ) to this day.

There are over thirty proofs supporting the correct pronunciation of the letter Sadi (צ) and the magnitude of the perversion of adding a Taw (תּ) or Teth (ט) to the Sadi (צ). I listed them in my book The Language of Truth and they come from great rabbis both Ashkenazi and Sephardi. Among them are R. Sa’adya Gaon, R. Dawid Qimhi, R. Yehuda ben Quraish, R. Yehuda ben Janah, R. Yequtiel ben Yehuda haNaqdan, R. Nahman de Lunzano, Shalme Sibur, R. Shemuel Arkiwalti, R. Moshe Pardo, R.Abraham bin Ezra, R. Dunash ben Tamim, the disciples of R. Menahem ben Suruq, R. Eliyahu Bahur, the Tur, the Rosh, R. Moshe Reicher, the Noda’ biyehuda and more. From the words of the Noda’ biyehuda and the sages who consulted with him alone we cited about ten pieces of evidence that he, and his local contemporaries, and how much more so those who lived before him, were pronouncing the Sadi (צ) like the Semakh (ס) without adding a Teth (ט) at all.

We shall mention here a few of the above-mentioned proofs briefly.

1. R. Shemuel Archivolti (16th-17th century Italy) wrote in ‘Arugath haBosem (pg. 4) “The Holy One, blessed be He, was careful with the letters of the Holy Tongue that there would not be, in their pronunciation, a combination of two phonemes such as the Greek Khi or the Ji and the Ex among the Romans. They come out as mixed pronunciation.” We see explicitly that the Holy Tongue lacks any sound that’s composed of two phonemes such as the X, which is a Kaf (כּ) and a Semakh (ס) combined, or the soft G Arabic ج, which is a combination of a Dalet (דּ) and a soft Zayin (ז). Behold, the Tsadi is also composed of the two letters Teth (ט) and Semakh (ס) or Taw (תּ) and Semakh (ס) together. We are forced to admit that the true Sadi (צ) is not composed of two letters, for if it were a combination, such as טס, he would have mentioned that the Sadi (צ) is an exception from the rule for whatever reason.

2, It’s also known that the letter Sadi (צ) comes from the teeth, as it’s included in the letter group זשׁסר”ץ. If its pronunciation were TS (טס) then the ancients would not have counted it among the letters of the teeth but rather among the letters of the tongue דטלנ”ת, or at least among both of them. At least they would have mentioned that this letter is composed of two letters, one from the tongue and one from the teeth. We see that the Grammarian Shlomo Zalman (early 18th century Germany), who did pronounce the Sadi (צ) as TS (טס) noticed this and mentioned it in his book Binyan Shlomo (pg.4). However, before him, we don’t find anybody hinting at the existence of a pronunciation of the Sadi (צ) as two letters, Teth (ט) and Semakh (ס).

3. R. Dunash ben Tamim (10th century Tunisia) wrote in his commentary on the Book of Yesira (pg. 22), that Arabic has three letters that we lack, and Hebrew has three letters lacking in Arabic. This implies that all the other letters are equal in pronunciation between the Holy Tongue and Arabic. Had the Sadi (צ) been pronounced תס or טס, he would have written that we have the letter Sadi (צ) which Arabic lacks. Afterall, Arabic has no letter whose pronunciation is טס, and they have the letter Dhad (ض) that we have nothing similar to. We are forced to admit that our letter Sadi (צ) is exactly the same as the Arabic letter Sad (ص).

4.Thus, we also see in the literature of the geonim and early rabbis in hundreds of books and responsa that they wrote in Arabic using Hebrew script, that they always used our Sadi (צ) to represent the Arabic Sad (ص) and we never used, for example, Hebrew Semakh (ס) or Sin (שׂ) to represent Arabic Sad (ص). Clearly, this is because our Sadi (צ) is exactly the same as the Arabic Sad (ص). Had our Sadi (צ) been pronounced TS (טס), they would not have used it to represent the Arabic Sad (ص) because the Arabic Sad (ص) is like our Semakh (ס, S) only, and not like TS (טס). If it were, they would have had to represent the Arabic Sad (ص) as only a Semakh (ס) and not our Sadi (צ) – just as today, they write the Arabic words Naser, Saleh and Masri (ناصر، صالح، مصري) as נאסר, סאלח, מסרי instead of נאצר, צאלח, מצרי. Certainly, our Sadi (צ) is the exact equivalent to Arabic Sad (ص).

5. The author of the Tur (R. Ya’akov ben Asher, 13th-14th century Spain), in the name of his father (Yore De’a 84), the Rosh, “Beans and himsi, and the explanation of himsi is ‘beans’ in the Arabic language.” It’s clear that he meant legumes, which are called himas or hommes, and today it’s called humus, which is universally pronounced with only the letter S, which represents Arabic Sad (ص), also written as ס’. We never find it written with a German Z or with the Ashkenazic צ’, as “himtsi” or “homets.” This is proof that the Rosh and the author of the Tur, who wrote it חימצי with a Sadi (צ) and not חימסי with a Semakh (ס), that they pronounced the Sadi (צ) similar to the Semakh (ס), and not as the two letters TS (טס).

6.

Thusly we find similarly in tractate Yebamoth (pg. 63): Rav said to his wife, “Prepare lupines for me,” (רב אמר לדביתהו עבדי טלופחי וֺעבדא חימצי) but she prepared chickpeas for him. Rashi explains that it’s a type of legume, and it’s obvious that the intention is what we call today “humus, and the word is written with the letter Sadi (צ) and not with the letter Semakh (ס). Similarly, our ancestors and rabbis always wrote it with the letter Sadi (צ). From here we see that that letter Sadi (צ) was then, and always was, similar to the letter Semakh (ס), and not TS (טס) at any time or place except in recent generations.

7. It is known that the Shewa that comes with the connecting Waw (that is to say, when the letter Waw is used for the word “and”) is a vocal Shewa (as opposed to one that acts as if it is not a vowel at all, but is silent). For example, ועתה, ונקי, וצדיק. If the connecting Waw comes before a word that begins with a Shewa, for example, שׁלמה, יהודה, we vocalize the Waw with a Shureq (וֻ) or a Hiraq (וִ). that is to say, the Shewa turns into a complete vowel. For example, Ushlomo (וּשׁלמה) and Weyudah (וִיהודה). We do not vocalize it Weshelomo with a Shewa, for example, שׁלמה, יהודה, we vocalize the Waw with a Shureq (וֻ) or a Hiraq (וִ). that is to say, the Shewa turns into a complete vowel. For example, Ushlomo (וּשׁלמה) and Weyudah (וִיהודה). We do not vocalize it Weshelomo (וֽשׁלמה) or Weyehudah (וְיהודה). This is because there is no such thing as a silent Shewa directly after a vocal Shewa and there are never two consecutive Shewas at the beginning of a word ever. If we were to pronounce the Sadi (צ) as TS (טס) then the first letter of a word beginning with that letter would always start with a silent Shewa necessarily. If so, we would be forced to vocalize every connecting Waw that comes before a Sadi (צ) with a Shureq and not with a Shewa. For example, וצדיק and וצאן would be vocalized וּצדיק and וּצאן so that two Shewas don’t appear consecutively at the beginning of a word: ו֧טְסדיק and וְטְסאן. Behold, we have seen in all of Scripture that the connecting Waw that comes before a Sadi (צ) is vocalized with a Shewa just like other Waws. Here we have evidence as clear as day that there is no letter that comes with a silent Shewa after a connecting Waw that precedes a Sadi (צ). That is to say that the Sadi (צ) is not read as TSadiq, but similar to Sadiq. Therefore, a Waw that comes before it is vocalized with a vocal Shewa just as it does when it precedes other letters.

Similarly, we can deduce from the other auxiliary letters, בכ”ל that come before the letter Sadi (צ). For example, בְציון, כׇציון, לְציון come with a vocal Shewa as is the rule. If ציון was supposed to be read TSiyon (טסיון) then it would have to be vocalized with a Hiraq as in בִשׁלמה and לִשׁלמה it would be בִציון and לִציון whose pronunciation would be בִטסיון and לִטסיון and not לִציון which would be like לֽטֽסיון – for we do not find two Shewas consecutively at the beginning of a word. From all the above we derive strong and clear evidence, from all three portions of scripture, that the pronunciation of the letter Sadi (צ) is not like the two letters TS (טס) together.

8. R. Eliyahu Bahur (15th and 16th century Italy) wrote, in the Book of Tishbi, order of Qeroves, the explanation of the word Qeroves (קרובץ) is “nearby.” That is to say, poems that are read next to each other. Since we, the Ashkenazim, are of French origins, and the French to not distinguish, in pronunciation, between the soft Taw (ת) and the Sadi (צ), when we heard them saying Qerovoth (קרובות, which they pronounced “krovos”), we thought they were saying Qeroves (קרובץ) and we wrote it with a Sadi (צ). From here it is clear that the Ashkenazim and the French, about 500 years ago, were pronouncing the Sadi (צ) similar to the Semakh (ס) or the soft Taw (ת), that is to say, like the letter S to the point where they wrote used the Sadi (צ) instead of the Semakh (ס).

I just saw a certain book* that cites hundreds of proper nouns from Scripture, and how they were transliterated in the Septuagint into Greek letters. I saw that the letter Sadi (צ) is consistently represented as an S, exactly as they represented the letters Semakh (ס) and Sin (שׂ). This is proof that Sadi (צ) was not TS (טס), for if it were, they would have represented it as TS.

*I still have this book in my collection, and I’m the one who showed it to him.

** Translator’s note: Contrary to the author’s claim, it’s actually not obvious how the ancients pronounced this letter. There is evidence that the Arabs used to pronounce it like the S sound in the word “Measure.” It could very well have been a voiced postalveolar fricative. As for Hebrew, we know what it sounded like for the past few hundred years, but we don’t know how it was pronounced in Biblical times. The Ethiopians pronounce it the same as the Ashkenazim, which may be coincidence or it may mean that it was pronounced that way by at least SOME Jews in distant antiquity. The grammatical rules that the author refers to were codified well after the Biblical period; they didn’t hold sway in Biblical times. This entire book refers to how Hebrew was pronounced in early Mishnaic times, and I will deal with this later.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language | Tagged , | Leave a comment

My First Viral Post

Posted on June 21, 2026 by jewamongyou

Congratulations are in order for yours truly. According to Google, a tweet from a small account on X can be considered “viral” if it gets 5,000 likes. My X account certainly qualifies as “small,” as it only has 700 plus followers. In fact, it’s microscopic. One of my recent tweets just got 5,000 likes and a bunch of retweets:

Is it a special, well thought-out, eloquent and insightful tweet? No. It’s just a simple comment on a news story from Japan. Some Muslims built a mosque without permits. The government refused to do anything about it, so a citizen burned it down. Anybody could have written my tweet.

Why did it go “viral?” I have no idea. Some Japanese latched onto it, retweeted it and liked it. I saw where this was going last night, and I had some wasabi sauce with dinner to honor them.

It seems to me that the more insightful, well-designed, tweets are less likely to go viral because fewer people can understand them or appreciate them. Simple, short, tweets reach a larger audience. Maybe it’s random.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Truth of True Speech pt. 6

Posted on June 17, 2026 by jewamongyou

The Letter ‘Ayin (ע)

The letter ‘Ayin (ע) is pronounced the same as the ‘Ayin in Arabic (ع) and there is nothing like it in any European language. Therefore, it was only maintained among the Jews of Arab lands. In other Jewish communities, it was transformed into an Aleph (א) or a Yod (י) or a soft Gimal (ג) or a Nun (נ) or both of them together like “NG.” Shema’ (שׁמע) became Shemang (שׁמנגּ). Jewish law has already been determined that one who reads his ‘Ayin (ע) as if it were an Aleph (א) is disqualified from reading Torah for the congregation, and he’s disqualified from performing the priestly blessings. If this was said regarding the switching of the ‘Ayin (ע) to Aleph (א), which are both guttural letters, how much more so with the other substitutions, which are not even guttural.

In our time, most of the world pronounces the ‘Ayin (ע) exactly as if it were an Aleph (א), This is a major perversion. Concerning people like them, Jewish law was disqualified them from reading the Torah for the congregation and from performing the Priestly Blessing. It’s especially important to be careful when reading the Torah, reciting the Shema’ and praying, to not turn the ‘Ayin (ע) into an Aleph (א) because in most cases this changes the meaning of the words entirely. Sometimes it even leads to blasphemy toward God, heaven forfend. For example ביעור (burning) can be read as ביאור (explanation), קריעה (tearing) can be read as קריאה (reading). נסע (he travelled) can be read as נסא (he married). עושׁר (wealth) can be read as אושׁר (luck). רעה (bad) can be read as ראה (he saw). עצר (he stopped) can be read as אצר (he stored). There are similar cases where the meaning changed entirely, and when they’re directed toward God, sometimes they can be blasphemous. For example: ועבדתם לעבוד (words for worship) turn into the root for “loss.” נשׁבע (sworn) turns into נשׁבא (taken captive). עין (eye) turns into אין (nothing). There are similar cases.

There are those who pronounce the ‘Ayin (ע) exactly as if it were a Yod (י). They’ll pronounce למעלה as if it’s למיילה and מעריב as if it’s מייריב. There are those who equate the Hebrew ‘Ayin (ע) to the English E. Therefore, they relate to it as if it has no pronunciation of its own, but serves to indicate a vowel, as we see sometimes with the letters אהו”י.. This is a huge error because the ‘Ayin (ע) absolutely has its own pronunciation consistently. Even when it comes at the end of a word with no vowel, it must be emphasized with our mouths. . There is no difference between the ‘Ayin (ע) and the Resh (ר) at the end of a word as far as being pronounced. For example, the Resh (ר) in the words דבר or שׁמר is the same as the ‘Ayin (ע) in the words שׁמע, ידע and פרע. Similarly, when it comes with a Shewa only, it’s pronunciation is manifested as a silent Shewa (in other words, the vowel is silent, but the consonant is pronounced). For example, in the words שׁמעתי, ידעתי and פרעתי. The ‘Ayin (ע) behaves exactly the same as the Resh (ר) in the word שׁמרתי or the Lamed (ל) in the word אכלתי. Therefore, one must learn to pronounce the ‘Ayin (ע) correctly so that it does not get lost when it comes with a silent Shewa.

Translator’s note: Early European Jews tried valiantly to preserve the pronunciation of the letter ‘Ayin (ע) even though it was absent from their colloquial languages. This is how the Yiddish version of Jacob (יעקב) ended up being “Yankif.” The added N is a vestige of the ‘Ayin (ע). Similarly, Sephardic Jews who fled to the Netherlands from the Inquisition ended up pronouncing the term “Arba’ Confoth” (ארבע כנפות. A reference to the “four corners” of a garment required tassels, such as a prayer shawl) as Arbang Kanfot.” The added NG is a vestige of the ‘Ayin (ע).

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Truth of True Speech pt. 5

Posted on June 14, 2026 by jewamongyou

The Letter Teth (ט)

We’ve already mentioned, in several places, that the Holy Tongue does not have two letters of identical pronunciation. Therefore, the letter Teth (ט) is not the same as the hard Taw (תּ), As the Radaq (R. Yosef Qimhi lived in 12th century Spain) wrote in his book Mikhlol (page 73) that one must be careful to distinguish between the Teth (ט) and the hard Taw (תּ), For its correct pronunciation is the same as Arabic Ta (ط). It’s similar to the hard Taw (תּ) but stronger. It comes from deep in the throat* and it’s well-known among Jews of Arabic lands.

Even though it’s possible to strengthen the pronunciation of each letter and make it different from the soft and intermediate forms, nevertheless, in the Hebrew alphabet there are only two letters that are unique in this regard. They are the Teth (ט) and the Sade (צ), which parallel the hard Taw (תּ) and the Semakh (ס). Therefore, we must be careful to pronounce them only in their soft and intermediate forms, because if we strengthen them, the Taw (תּ) will turn into a Teth (ט) and the Semakh (ס) will turn into a Sade (צ). The opposite is also true if we soften the pronunciation of the Teth (ט) and the Sade (צ), the Teth (ט) will turn into a Taw (תּ) (just as we see with most of the public today) and the Sade (צ) will turn into a Semakh (ס), as has happened with some of the Sephardic and Ashkenazic populations in the past. Only recently have the Ashkenazim added a T sound to the Sade (צ) and made it sound as if it’s TS sound (תּס or טס). We shall delve into this at length later on.

Therefore, it’s important to avoid pronouncing the words שׁופט and שׁוטר as if they’re שׁופת and שׁותר or the words מטה and חטה as if they’re מיתה and חיתה. Similarly with the word ישׂראל, one should be careful to pronounce the Sin (שׂ) softly for it it’s strengthened, it sounds like יצראל, and the same applies in all similar situations.

*I’m not sure why the author put it this way, since this letter is definitely not a guttural letter. The tip of the tongue is placed on the pallet just behind the upper teeth. The actual difference between the Teth (ט) and the Taw (תּ) is that the former is voiced and the latter is not.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Truth of True Speech pt. 4

Posted on June 6, 2026 by jewamongyou

The Letter Heth (ח)

The pronunciation of the letter Heth (ח) is difficult for most Jewish communities. Therefore, there is disagreement, and they pronounce it in three different ways. There are those who pronounce it the same as the letter He (ה H in English)*, there are those who pronounce it like a soft Khaf (כ خ), and there are those who pronounce it as the Mizrahi Heth (ح). It’s very obvious that its pronunciation cannot be the same as the soft Khaf (כ) or the same as the letter He (ה) because the Holy Tongue doesn’t have two identical letters. There is no doubt that its true pronunciation is as the Jews of Arab lands say it. It is identical to the Arabic ح and not like the soft Khaf (כ).

It is known that the reading of the Heth (ח) as a כ is a late perversion even among the Ashkenazim. Previously, the Ashkenazim pronounced it the same as the He (ה). We find Rabbi Yosef Ometz Ashkanezi (late 16th century Germany) writing (letter 21) that the Jewish inhabitants of Poland, who pronounce the Heth (ח) like a Khaf (כ) invented this practice out of thin air. Therefore, by his reckoning, the correct pronunciation of the Heth (ח) should be like the He (ה) as the Jews of Germany pronounced it. However, we know that pronouncing it exactly the same as the He (ה) is also not valid. The sages of the Talmud said that anybody who pronounces the Heth (ח) like a He (ה) cannot read publicly from the Torah and cannot perform the Priestly blessings. This opinion was codified into Jewish law. If so, it’s clear that the Heth (ח) is not the same as the He (ה), and it’s also not the same as the soft Khaf (כ). The first Ashkenazim themselves were pronouncing it the same as a He (ה) . From where did their current habit of pronouncing it as a Khaf (כ) come from? It must have come about from the East under the influence of the languages that were spoken there.

In my book “Sefath Emeth I proved this at length. I shall explain it briefly here. I already mentioned above, in several places, that Rav Sa’adya Gaon (10th century Egypt) and his contemporary, Rav Dunash ben Tamim, counted twenty-nine separate letters in Hebrew, and they wrote that we have three letters that Arabic lacks. They wrote that Arabic has that we lack. They did not include, in these lists, the letter Heth (ח). From this it’s implied that our letter Heth (ח) is identical to the Arabic equivalent.

Similarly, all the Geonim and early rabbis, who wrote hundreds of books in Arabic using Hebrew script, consistently used our letter Heth (ח) to represent the Arabic equivalent (ح). This implies that they are identical. Conversely, they never used the letter Heth (ח) to represent the letter Kha (خ) in Arabic; they only used the soft Khaf (כ). This is clear proof that the Hebrew letter Heth (ח) is the same as the Arabic letter Ha (ح), and it is not the same as Hebrew Khaf (כ) at all.

*I have personally heard Indian Jews (from Cochin, South India) reading the Heth (ח) exactly the same as the letter He (H in English). I’m certain that many new converts to Islam, and Indian/Indonesian Muslims pronounce Arabic ح the same way, since they’re unable to produce this characteristic Afro-Asiatic sound.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I’m Still Here, But Not Posting

Posted on May 20, 2026 by jewamongyou

Dear readers, due to eye issues, I’m taking a break from posting for a while. Hopefully, within a couple of months, the issues will be resolved and I’ll start posting again.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments