Yes, the placement at the end of a sentence or at any major stop changes the vowelization of every word that has a "Segol" ("Eh") on an earlier syllable to a "Kamatz" ("Ah"), such as "Eretz" and "Aretz," "Yefes" and "Yafes," and a myriad of other examples, as you will see on almost every page of the Chumash. This change is due to (like many other grammatical rules) the ease of pronounciation. The soft vowel (Tenu'ah Ketanah) is harder to pronounce when the emphasis is on that syllable and it is at a major stop, and thus it changes to a hard vowl (Tenu'ah Gedolah).

Y. Shaw

See our Insights to Ta'anis 3:3 (copied below) on this topic.

===========================================================

3) HALACHAH: "GESHEM" OR "GASHEM"?

QUESTION: In the wintertime, we mention the praise of Hashem who brings rain -- "Morid ha'Geshem" -- in the blessing of Gevuros ("Atah Gibor..."). The custom among Sefardic Jews (the Edot ha'Mizrach), as well as those who Daven according to Nusach Sefard (such as those of Chasidic descent) is to mention in the summertime "Morid ha'Tal" in the blessing of Gevuros (see previous Insight). This is also the practice in Eretz Yisrael, based on the common practice of the Vilna Ga'on and the Ba'al ha'Tanya. Most other Ashkenazic communities (those outside of Eretz Yisrael) do not make this addition to the Shemoneh Esreh in the summertime.

Our Sidurim vowelize the word "Morid ha'*Geshem*" with a Segol (the "eh" sound), and not with a Kamatz (the "aw" or "ah" sound). This is grammatically proper, because it is only at the end of a sentence or at an Esnachta semi-sentence break that the Segol under the Gimel is replaced with a Kamatz. Morid ha'Geshem appears in the middle of a sentence and thus it should keep its Segol. That the word "ha'Geshem" is not at an Esnachta break in the blessing is evident from the TUR (OC 114), who says that the reason we recite "Morid ha'Geshem" right before the words "Mechalkel Chayim" (at not at another point in the Berachah) is because rain is also a form of Kalkalah (sustenance) and Parnasah. Hence our mention of rain, Geshem, is part of the prayer for Kalkalah.

However, there is an apparent inconsistency in this respect. In *all* Sidurim which include the text "Morid ha'Tal" (for the summertime), the word "Tal" is spelled with a *Kamatz* (pronounced "ha'Tawl" in the Ashkenazic pronounciation) and not with a Patach ("ha'Tahl"). According to the rules of grammar, it should have a Patach and not a Kamatz. The word "Tal" as it appears in the Torah usually has a Patach under the letter "Tes," which is changed to a Kamatz only when it is at the end of a sentence or at an Esnachta pause (see, for example, Shemos 11:9; Devarim 32:2). Since "Morid ha'Tal" is recited in place of "Morid ha'Geshem" and is in the middle of a sentence, why do the Sidurim write "Tal" with a Kamatz? It should have a Patach! And if those Sidurim consider "Morid ha'Tal" (with a Kamatz") to be the end of the sentence, then they should spell "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz as well!

ANSWERS:

(a) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (IGROS MOSHE OC 4:40) writes that the Kamatz of "Tal" is correct, because this phrase is indeed at the end of the sentence, as we see in most Sidurim which place a period after "Morid ha'Tal." Likewise, it is proper to say "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz as well, contrary to almost all commonly used Sidurim. Such an opinion is cited by the LIKUTEI MAHARICH, and this is the way the word is punctuated ("ha'Gashem") in the authoritative Redelheim Sidur.

(b) Others, however, point out that the text of "ha'Geshem" (with a Segol) appears in *all* early Sidurim, of all the Edot, as well as almost all current Sidurim (except for those Sidurim based on the Redelheim Sidur). Furthermore, as mentioned above, the logical flow of the sentence makes it clear that "Morid ha'Geshem" is *not* the end of the sentence (regardless of whether or not the printer placed dots there). According to SEFER MECHALKEL CHAYIM, Rav Moshe Feinstein himself changed his mind. Why, then, do all of the Sidurim spell "Morid ha'Tal" with a Kamatz and not a Patach?

SEFER SHA'AR HA'KOLEL, printed in the back of the SHULCHAN ARUCH HA'RAV (who explains the Nusach of the Sidur of the Ba'al ha'Tanya) suggests that we say "Tal" with a Kamatz because it is not part of the regular text of the Shemoneh Esreh as established by the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah (as we find that Ashkenazic communities do not say it, and the Gemara says that it is not obligatory). Rather, it was added by the Mekubalim. As such, it is a separate insertion that stands by itself and does not continue into the next sentence, and therefore it has a Kamatz and not a Patach.

(c) RAV YAKOV KAMINETZKY (IYUNIM B'MIKRA, p. 26) suggests that "Morid ha'Geshem" is part of the sentence which continues with "Mechalkel Chayim," as the TUR says, because rain brings Kalkalah and Parnasah. When "Morid ha'Tal" is recited, though, it is not mentioned because of the Parnasah-aspects of Tal, but rather it refers to the Tal of Techiyas ha'Mesim, the Tal which will resurrect the dead. It is mentioned at this point because it follows the phrase *Mechayeh Mesim* Atah Rav l'Hoshi'a. As such, it is actually a continuation of the previous sentence and it does not flow into the following sentence. Therefore, there should be an Esnachta semi-sentence pause after "Morid ha'Tal" before the phrase "Mechalkel Chayim," which is discussing a different topic. "Morid ha'Tal" is the end of the *previous* sentence which discusses Techiyas ha'Mesim, while "Morid ha'Geshem" flows into the *following* sentence which discusses Parnasah! (Even though the verse in Tehilim 68:10 refers to *Geshem* Techiyah -- see Targum there -- that is not the Geshem that we intend to mention in the Shemoneh Esreh.)

(d) Grammarians point out that this might not be an inconsistency at all. Although the Segol of "Geshem" becomes a Kamatz only when the word is at a full stop in a verse (either at the end of a verse, or at an "Esnachta"), the Patach of "Tal" is different. It becomes a Kamatz even at a "semi-stop," such as when the word "Tal" has the cantillation "Zakef-Katan" (see, for example, Shemos 16:13 and Devarim 33:13 -- it is easier to turn a Patach into a Kamatz than a Segol into a Kamatz). Since the point in the Berachah at which "Morid ha'Tal" is recited is followed by a slight pause (a "comma"), even though it is not a full stop, the word "Tal" acquires a Kamatz.

(It is also possible that the Rabbinic pronunciation of the word may differ from the biblical pronunciation slightly. Perhaps in Mishnaic times the word "Tal" was commonly pronounced with a Kamatz, like "Par" or "Har," unless it was associated with the word that followed it, such as "Tal ha'Shamayim" or "Tal Techiyah.")

You are correct. "Morid ha'Geshem" (if pronounced that way) is the beginning of the passage that continues "Mechalkel Chayim...," and not the end of the passage, "Mechayeh Mesim Atah Rav l'Hoshi'a." Chazanim who are very exacting in their pronounciation indeed do as you write (although on Shabbos and Yom Tov, this sometimes conflicts with the tune).

Y. Shaw

Indeed, although all of the early manuscript Sidurim have the word vowelized as "ha'Gefen," as is preserved today in the Sefardi Sidurim, Rav Shabsai Sofer (in the late 1500's) changed it to "ha'Gafen" in his Sidur for the reason you stated. This influenced all of the Ashkenazi Sidurim printed afterwards.

Rav Yitzchak Satz of Yerushalayim, an authority on the history of the text of the Sidur, who recently printed an annotated version of Rav Shabsai Sofer's Sidur, told me that Rav Aharon Tzuker (of Bnei Brak) suggested that perhaps the rules of pronunciation that apply to the text of the Torah did not apply to normal spoken Hebrew.

My own suggestion is that the reason it was "ha'Gefen" is because the "Amen" which others pronounce following the Berachah is considered to be part of the Berachah itself. This is evident from the Gemara in Berachos 47a (that the one who blesses ha'Motzi cannot eat before everyone answers Amen) and the Rema in OC 167:2 (that one who makes a Berachah should have in mind to be Yotzei the Amen that people answer to his Berachah).

Of course, according to this they should also have said "ha'Motzi Lechem min ha'Eretz"! However, in truth "Aretz" is an exception to the standard rules, since when the word "Eretz" is preceded by a "Heh ha'Yedi'ah," it *always* is pronounced "ha'Aretz" (and not "ha'Eretz"), even in middle of a sentence -- as is evidenced by the second verse in the Torah and many others.

Rav Satz told me that he also considered such an option, and had trouble with the Berachah in Birchas ha'Mazon which ends "Bonei b'Rachamav Yerushalayim (Kamatz), Amen." The word Yerushalayim seems to be the end of a phrase even when the person who *made* the Berachah follows it with Amen! However, he noted that in some old Sidurim, Yerushalayim indeed appears with a Patach, consistent with my suggestion.

He also pointed out a potential problem with my suggestion from Birchos ha'Shachar, which always end with the pronunciation appropriate for the end of a phrase (e.g. Laylah and ha'Mayim and Aved all with "Kamatz") in our Sidurim. (Some old Sidurim have them without a Kamatz, though.)

Perhaps there is a difference between Birchos ha'Shevach (praising and thanking Hashem for what he is or has done), in which Amen is not part of the Berachah, and Birchos ha'Nehenin (thanking Hashem before eating); the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch I cited above were said in reference to Birchos ha'Nehenim, in which Amen is part of the Berachah. Praises are a reflection of personal astonishment which comes from within, so Amen is not necessary for the Berachah. Birchos ha'Nehenim, which are in a sense requests to be allowed to partake of the wonders Hashem created, are announcements of submission to Hashem that one makes to the world. Therefore, the Amen which is echoed by those who hear the Berachah is also part of the Berachah. (This might pertain to the question from Bonei Yerushalayim as well.)

(This might pertain to the question from Bonei Yerushalayim as well, which is not a Birchos ha'Nehenim but is recited when one is already full, and thankful to Hashem, after he has eaten.)

I hope this helps,

Mordecai Kornfeld

That is a good point. It may true, as you say, that the pause causes the Kamatz of Yerushalayim. However, that also proves that the Amen is not *supposed* to be part of the Berachah -- why else should there be a pause before the Amen?

My thoughts on this point are as follows: First, what I wrote at the end of the other mailing, differentiating between Birchas ha'Nehenim and other Berachos, would explain why Amen does not have to part of the Berachah in Bonei Yerushalayim.

Second, I took it for granted (in the previous mailing) that if the Amen one recites after his *own* Berachah is not to be considered the end of the Berachah, then certainly the Amen that others answer to one's Berachah cannot to be considered the end of the Berachah (with regard to the Segol of ha'Gefen). However, upon reconsideration the opposite might be true.

When one answers Amen after his own Berachah, clearly confirming the Berachah, it is not necessary to remind the person that the Berachah must be confirmed with an Amen. However, when others answer Amen and the one who recites the Berachah is simply supposed to wait to *hear* their Amen, he might forget to include their Amen as part of his Berachah (i.e. he might not wait to hear the Amen). Therefore Chazal remind him to do so by making it clear that something is supposed to follow the Berachah and by not ending the Berachah on a concluding note (such as ha'Gafen) but rather as if it is still in middle of a sentence (i.e. ha'Gefen).

(Presumably, the intonation used at the end of other Berachos was also chosen in a manner that reflected that the Berachah was not yet ended, even in cases where the vowelization was not affected.)

Mordecai Kornfeld

1. The comma-semi-stop is strong enough to change vowels sometimes, as you mention.

However, in every place it appears the word is pronounced "ha'Aretz," even when it appears without any form of semi-stop, such as Bereishis 10:11. The word *never* is pronounced as "ha'Eretz."

2. Yasher Ko'ach for that explanation.

M. Kornfeld