Talk:Matzo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matzo falls within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a project to improve all articles related to Jewish culture. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to:

Category:WikiProject Jewish culture articles
Project Jewish culture To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Judaism Portal
Matzo is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Name

Bartlby's list "Matzo" as the official spelling [1] and "Matzoh" as the alternate spelling.

"Matzo" also generates almost twice as many google hits. - Hephaestos 19:03, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Help, I tried to rename "Matzo" to "Matza" so I could rename "Matzoh" to "Matzo", but that didn't delete "Matzo". So we now have "Matza" and "Matzo" pointing to "Matzoh". What I want is "Matzoh" moved to "Matzo" and "Matza" and "Matzoh" pointing to "Matzo". Does an adminstrator need to do this?Samw 02:40, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Heh. That took a steady eye, but I think it's fixed now.  :) - Hephaestos 02:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't try this again!  :-) Samw 02:51, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hey I wouldn't sweat it. If it would help to have the ability to delete redirect pages, you might consider asking for admin status. I'd support it, I've seen you do good work here. - Hephaestos 02:53, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By the way, not sure what happened here, but this should almost certainly be "Matza" or "Matzah", because that is the neutral Hebrew term -- "Matzoh" reflects an Ashkenazi dialect which is not neutral. Sort of like a POV article name -- what must be done to get it changed? I don't know how to do this. 132.216.227.226 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Matza(h) would definitely be the appropriate form, as this corresponds to Israeli Hebrew, Sephardi Hebrew and even American pronunciation of Yiddish matse. The form Matzo(h), albeit used by some major US corporations, is an exclusively Ashkenazi form. -- Olve 17:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is the Ashkenazi pronunciation "not neutral", but a Sephardi or Israeli one "neutral"? The vast majority of native English Jewish speakers, are, in fact, Ashkenazi. I note as well that the Britannica article is at "Matzo", as is that of the "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000" and "The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002" (Encarta calls it "Matzoh"). Anyway, "Matzo" gets 808,000 Google hits, versus 711,000 for "Matzah", 420,000 for "Matza" and 376,000 for "Matzoh". "Matzo" does seem to be the single most commonly used English spelling, and naming this article would comply with the WP:NAME policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
And how many Ashkenazim say Matzoh? Most Ashkenazim I know in the US say Matzah (with the main stress on the first syllable), and this form is the one they have from the spoken Yiddish of recent generations. Thus, the form Matzah is absolutely defensible from an Ashkenazi perspective. Let me be a bit clearer:
  • Matzah is, in its various pronunciations, Ashkenazi (Yiddish), Sephardi (Sephardi Hebrew) and Israeli.
  • Matzoh is only Ashkenazi Hebrew, and is pronounced with an -o/-aw sound only by VERY few.
Thus, the form Matzah is perfectly Ashkenazi as well as Sephardi and Israeli. Both Matza(h) and Matzo(h) are clearly used in English. The form Matzah would be a reasonable compromise representing both the Ashkenazi MATza, the Sephardi Ma(t(sSA and the Israeli Hebrew MaTZA. -- Olve 21:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW: I noted that you (JayJG) threw the numbers at me as "proof" for the Ashkenaziss form being the most appropriate. Let us look a bit closer at the numbers. Adding up the Google hits on Matza(h), we get a total of 1,131,000 hits for Matza(h) and 1,184,000 hits for Matzo(h) — a pretty minor difference (1.047/1.000 in "favour" of Matzo(h)) which suggests that these forms are numerically similar and that other factors, such as finding the culturally most inclusive form, are more relevant. Note that in a case like kosher vs. kasher, the Ashkenazi/Yiddish form kosher is clearly the established form. I am not asking for any sort of Sephardi hegemony here — just for a little bit of Ashkenazi sensitivity. -- Olve 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mean to get into a tussle here. I was just pointing out that "Matzo" is the most popular English spelling (regardless of how Israelis pronounce it in Hebrew, or even how Ashkenazis pronounce it in English), and that spelling is used by a number of encyclopedias/dictionaries. I have personally heard many Ashkenazim saying "matzoh", but I haven't done any formal surveys. Regarding "hegemonies", I note that almost all articles on Jewish topics use the modern Israeli/"sorta Sephardi" pronunciation. Whether it's Shabbat (not Shabbos or Shabbes), or Sukkot (not Sukkos or Sikkes), or Simchat Torah (not Simches Toireh) or Brit Milah (not Bris Milah), or Tzeniut (not Tznius), or Daf Yomi (not Daf Yoimi), or Tallit (not Tallis) or Tzitzit (not Tzitzis) or Kippah (not Yarmulke) etc. In fact, this is one of the few, if not the only, article which follows an Ashkenazi pronunciation. Given that it also conforms to the naming policy, I don't see the harm in leaving it here. Jayjg (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, tallit is neither Ashkenazi (talles, tallis) nor Sephardi (tallét, taléd, taléth); brit milah is neither Ashkenazi (bris mile / bris miloh / briss) nor Sephardi (berit milá / berith milá). These forms are exellent examples of modern, widespread "compromise" forms established by modern, mainly Ashkenazi Jews. I am not suggesting that we should make sectarian Sephardi forms be the norm, just like I would prefer that we also avoid sectarian Ashkenazi forms like the one in question. Therefore, we should select the compromise forms: tallit (not tallis or tallét), brit milah (not Sephardi "berit milá" or Ashkenazi "bris(-miloh)"), tzedakah (not Ashkenazi "tzdokoh" or Sephardi "sedacá") and matzah (not Sephardi "massá" or or Ashkenazi "matzoh"). Concerning WP:NAME, it is not quite as usable as an argument for the "matzoh" form as you try to make it — as this policy page could just as easily be used to defend the other forms in question. -- Olve 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
All the spellings are essentially "Israeli"; I assert that fewer Sephardim use the traditional Sephardi pronunciations than Ashkenazim who use the traditional Ashkenazi pronunciations. Other than that, I don't particularly agree with changing the name, for the reasons listed, but don't feel overwhelmingly strongly about it either. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I just moved Chometz to Chametz. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
i think that dictionaries still dont have one standard, with a majority probably writing Matsa or Matza, reflected the near-universal pronunciation. only religious ashkenazi yiddish-speaking jews say 'matso', and it doesnt make sense to have a fringe pronunciation. i would never have thought to type 'matso' to find this article and it is highly misleading for someone unfamiliar, since they will think to pronounce it as it looks. i suggest changing it to Matsa. dgl 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
My feeling: Who cares about dictionaries? The important thing, as dgl wrote, is which spelling people will tend to think of. For that, either do a survey of how it is spelled on the boxes, or just Google it. But even that isn't so important, if we would just add some redirect pages. So, just to keep dgl happy, I will now add one for matsa, and everyone else can add whatever they like too. --Keeves 11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This page should be moved to matzah for the reasons stated above. Epson291 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In Hebrew, which is the original source for this word, many matzha are "Matzoth"(מצות) and not "Matzo"(מצו)there is no such a word as מצו in Hebrew-and that's should be the rule, its not matter how people in the diaspora use to prenounce it, as the matzoth are a customary food for the entire Jewish people, and as the word didn't came from Yiddish.--Gilisa 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another vote for MATZAH (or MATZA)!! Where the "o" comes from is beyond my comprehension.--Gilabrand 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quartanzans?

I thought somebody here might know: An article on quartanzans was just created. Apparently, it's a cracker-like bread similar to matza, which is also eaten on Jewish holidays. But the term gets 0 Google hits, so I'm wondering if it's real, or a joke? Thanks. 68.81.231.127 10:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as blatant nonsense. Amongst many things, Yom Kippur is a fast day, so there really can't be a special cracker eaten on that day. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the double check. I sometimes wonder how much stealth vandalism we miss. 68.81.231.127 22:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] matzo meal

Can anyone tell me what matzo meal is made from? Thanks.


Matzo meal is simply matzo that has been ground up into crumbs. It is often used as a replacement for bread crumbs, such as when breading a cutlet. It can also be used for making a batter for frying pancakes and other foods. If the matzo is ground even further, to flour-like fineness, it is called "matzo cake meal" or just "cake meal", and can be used in making cakes. Because it has already been wet and baked, it no longer has many of the chemical proprties of regular flour. This is why it can be used on Passover, and for the same reason it cannot replace flour in recipes without some adjustment to the recipe; for example, cakes would have more egg to help it fluff better, but breads usually don't come out good at all. --Keeves 3 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Child

Excuse me? Blood of a Christian child? I thought that myth was over with since the beginning of the 20th century! It should be removed! (unsigned)

No Myth F-tard!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/08/wjews08.xml (unsigned)

There are processes in Wikipedia to deal with repeated vandalism. I strongly suggest you work this out in therapy, rather than making a fool of yourself in public. FiveRings 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure who posted the Telegraph article, but they should know that it's complete and utter nonsense. Amongst other glaring factual inaccuracies, the claim that Pesach is the Jewish Easter is idiotic. Since Easter commemorates Jesus's resurrection and Pesach commemorates the Israelites' escape from Egypt, this akin to calling Chanukah the Jewish Christmas, since they both concern events that happened in the same month. The fact that thousands of years (in the first case) or hundreds (in the second) is obviously a minor concern.--Elmorell 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been rumors, investigation, and intrigue into this matter for near a thousand years. Although I have seen no evidence that has refuted the blood case, which is very strange and unique. I think that it should be added in this article, perhaps as a side-note in the ingredients, that such claims were made.

206.172.193.136 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to mention it in the article, since it is nothing but nonsense. All of the so-called "evidence" is based on confessions under the most extreme forms of torture. They would have confessed to being a baked potato had the inquisitors wanted them to. And considering that consuming any blood, let alone consuming human blood, is against Jewish dietary laws, there is just no reason to even give this the slightest credibility. You can't prove that I didn't go to Mars, are you going to give that serious credibility. It's amazing to think that people are so ignorant and/or vile to keep trying to push this garbage.--RLent (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Having no evidence by the claimants is not an argument against notability of the claim. To the contrary, around here (Poland), blood libel is nearly synonymous with using the blood of christian babies as an ingredient of matzot. While no one sane would agree with the claim, it nevertheless caused lots of prosecution and murders over the thousand years. KiloByte (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And this brings up an interesting point - the users of Wikipedia have changed, as the users of the Internet have changed. While documenting this as nonsense would have been a waste of time five years ago, now it may actually have value. (ensuing flame war notwithstanding). FiveRings (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Matzo → Matzah — Move per WP:COMMONNAME. It was controversial a few years ago to make this move, but the near-ubiquity of the spelling "Matzah" among both Jews and non-Jews preempts the traditional Ashkenazi pronunciation. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

[edit] Support

  1. Support - thanks for putting this up for discussion and formalization. I agree matzah is the more neutral spelling/prounciation and should be the one used. It is both common pronunciation, by both Jews and non-Jews. It makes up the standard Israeli and Sephardi pronunciation, some Ashkenazi pronunciation, and the pronunciation (in my experience) used by most Ashkenazim in the USA, regardless how it is spelled by some Matzah makers (and at the store a few weeks ago I saw at least 5 different spellings of it). The spelling Matzah (with or without the h) is certainly just as common and again, neutral, I don't see why to keep the spelling this with exlusively Ashkenazi (by some dilects) spelling. Epson291 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support matzah is the more common spelling. --Shuki 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. STRONG SUPPORT. This spelling is a more generalised one rather than the spelling of one ethnic subset only. -- Olve 13:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose Matzah may be a more accurate transliteration, but matzoh is the more common and intelligible form in English; can we compromise there? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Contrary to the incorrect claim (above) of a "near-ubiquity of the spelling "Matzah" among both Jews and non-Jews", dictionaries such as Random House and American Heritage give "Matzo" as the primary spelling, and "Matzo" gets 960,000 Google hits, by far the most for any single spelling; the next highest, "Matzah", gets only 660,000 Google hits. All the major Matzo manufacturers spell it "Matzo". Manischewitz spells it "Matzo".[2] Streit's spells it "Matzo".[3] Even the Israeli company Yehuda's spells it "Matzo".[4] "Matzo" is clearly the most common form in English. Jayjg (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed, but regardless matzah is still very common spelling. I got 1,131,000 versus 1,327,000 for matzah (including h or no h), that is pretty close. The ditionaries you posted site Yiddish at the etamology, coming from the Hebrew matzAh. Why is brit milah used, the Yiddish bris is far more common in the U.S. And don't Striets, and Manishevitz sell mostly Ashkenazi food, so they're using the Yiddish form. It's better to use the more neutral form, except for something with near unbiquity like kosher. (Never mind, I checked it goes to kashrut). But really, I don't think the Yiddish form shouldn't be used unless it's a landslide of difference. (Though Jayjg, if you know, I would like a explanation of why Bris isn't used then, if you know, since it's the much more popular version, espeically in the USA, I don't even think it compares to the differences between matzoh and matzah) Epson291 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Not sure what you're talking about. "Matzah" gets 660,000 hits; "Matzo" gets 960,000, 50% more hits than "Matzah". These are hits on the English form of the word not Yiddish; as the dictionary makes clear, the Yiddish word is matse. I have no idea what your other arguments mean either. This was supposed to be a discussion about what the common English term is, now you're talking about what a "neutral" term is instead. Well, the common, neutral, English form is "Matzo", which is not the Yiddish term Matse. Jayjg (talk) 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Jayjg , I know but if you look here [5], they show its etymology as "Yiddish matse, from Hebrew massah." This is what I brought up. My numbers included with and without the h, which I mentioned. Epson291 08:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry if my point wasn't clear, but the point I was trying to make was that they are both fairly popular spellings and the one that is the Israeli spelling should be used. (But I might be a bit biased as that's what I speak). Cheers Epson291 12:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I understand what you're saying, but it's still incorrect. Words in English have all sorts of different etymologies, but they're not relevant; what matters is that by far the single most common English spelling is "Matzo". As for "Israeli spelling", Israelis write in Hebrew; English spelling is what matters here. And finally, as I've already pointed out, even Israeli Matzo companies spell it "Matzo". Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Jayjg you are not correct. The matzah I bought for pesach, was from אסם‎ (Osem), a large Israeli matzah company and it was spelt "OSEM ISRAELI MATZAH" on the box, and at the store in Toronto, Canada where I am living right now, מצה was spelled in English in all the different ways by the matzah making companies. You're generalizing. Epson291 07:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Osem may spell it "Matzah", but as I pointed out Yehuda spells it "Matzo". Yehuda is an Israeli company. Aviv also spells it Matzo. It was you who generalized, claiming the "Israeli" way is "Matzah". Clearly some Israeli companies spell it "Matzo". Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well, now you've changed it to "some", from "all". That is the generalization I called you on. Clearly, matzah is a spelling that is used often, and the neutral one that is not to one specific sub ethnic group. And clearly matzah is the israeli spelling as it is not pronouced matzo in Modern Hebrew Epson291 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose As a ba'al kriyah and amateur devotee of the dikduk of lashon kodesh, I personally would prefer "Matzoh" due to the hey at the end of the word; however, I think that Jayjg has it correct in that the common spelling in English is now "Matzo" and not "Matzah". -- Avi 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose In the Hebrew wikipedia it should obviously be the Sephardic spelling. In the English Wikipedia the spelling should track common English usage. Google reports 939,000 hits for Matzo - vastly more than for any other spelling. Websters lists Matzo, with Matzoh as an alternate spelling. Wikipedia is for reflection of reality, not for new research, remember? FiveRings 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    It might be worth noting that a lot of of the Google hits for "matzo" aren't in English and that consensus has followed using Israeli term/spelling in Brit milah, Tallit, Kippah, Shabbat, Shavuot, Sukkot, Simchat Torah, Hamantash, Charoset and numerous others. Is there a valid WP:IAR claim for this particular article? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    What makes those the "Israeli" spelling, and what makes you think there's a "consensus"? As far as I can tell those articles are at the most common English spelling, as is this one. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    It might be more worthwhile to note that in the Hebrew wikipedia it should be spelled in Hebrew... For the record, "Unleavened bread" is probably more common in English than either "matzah" or "matzo"...if, for no other reason, than that that's how it's translated into English in, I believe, every non-Jewish English-language bible translation... Tomertalk 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    yes, in Hebrew it will be מצה no matter whether you're spelling it Sephardi or Ashkenazi or anything else. As for English, for some reason the proper spellings are Yemenite. Beth, S(h)abbath, Mitzvoth; these are all the formal English rendering of words most Jews do not pronounce that way. The plural for Matzah/Matzo will probably be Matzoth (in fact, Firefox didn't put the spelling-error redline under matzoth, nor matzot nor matzo. It did however declare matzah to be a misspelling...) --Valley2city₪‽ 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I don't wanna go too far off subject here...first and foremost tho, Firefox obviously isn't the arbiter of proper transliterations.  :-p The "English" isn't actually Yemenite, it's Greek, which has no "sh", but does have a "th". Mitzvoth is neither Greek, nor is it Yemenite—it's a minority Sefardic (and a few types of Mizrachi) pronunciation. (Teimani uses "miṣwoth", Greek, if anything, would use either "misoth" or "misvoth". English doesn't have a word for this tho, because in English it's always translated as "commandment".) It could be worse...as odd as Ashkenazi sounds to me (mostly because of a horrid reduction of consonants and, among English speakers, replacement of /r/ or /ɾ/ with /ɹ/ or the less alien sounding (found especially among those close to the "old country") /ʀ/ or /ʁ/ (although this sometimes confuses me, since I confuse it with ג)...and because of its many dialectal permutations of vowel sounds), there are some pronunciations of Hebrew, historically mainly, that were far more incomprehensible...the Hebrew of (especially pre-Haskala) southern France comes to mind, for example... Anyhoo, enough ramblage from me, methinks. Shabath shalom, Tomertalk 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Personally, I find Ashkenazi Hebrew to sound incredibly harsh, and, especially in its various American incarnations, completely incomprehensible...but to avoid wars between who spells what which way, and whom Wikipedia should pay attention to, I say leave it alone. I wish the same respect had prevailed with poseq, but I'm not vindictive, so I can't vote "support" just to get rid of Ashkenazi misspellings and mispronunciations... Tomertalk 08:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. as per what I said a few lines up (my signature is easily locatable). You're never going to make everyone happy with transliterated spellings, but Matzo wins the google-test so I think it should retain the article name with "alternatively: Matzah" in the first line of the article. --Valley2city₪‽ 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egg matzah

Since it was written as if all Ashk. don't eat egg matzah, I gathered aditional sources. Someone with some knoledge of the subject, please look at my edits. I cited Chabad. Anyways, I tried to provide some more background and reasoning into the subject. Epson291 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You should cite the side of the Manischewitz box... That would be an interesting halachic citation. I am actually serious about this as the company is quite reputable for their matzah-making. --Valley2city₪‽ 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it says anything the streits does, I believe it cites because of shulchan aruch. Epson291 21:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)