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.Thuswe 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 Sadi (צ). 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.
