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.
