Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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. 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
BTW, I just moved Chometz to Chametz. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Who actually says "Matzo"?!... it sounds like some kind of commercial detergent for mats... The word is matza. A small minority of diaspora Yiddish speaking Haredim pronounce it "matzeh", and even that is not "matzo". That doesn't make the word "matz-oh" as "matzo" seems to designate. Absolutely nobody pronounces it that way. The only distinction is that Hebrew speakers put the accent on the second syllable whilst Yiddish and Ashkenazi-style non-Hebrew speakers put it on the first. In any case, it is a Hebrew word and obviously the correct usage is how it is said by 7 million modern Hebrew speakers, not by a few thousand people in Brooklyn and Flatbush. There is a "kamatz" vowel under the tzadik, not a "cholam"! Referring to the above discussion, there is no longer such a thing as "Sephardi" Hebrew, given that "Ashkenazi" Hebrew is not a spoken language but used solely in liturgy by an elderly ever-decreasing minority in the diaspora. "Sephardi Hebrew" is a term invented by non-Hebrew speaking Ashkenazim in the diaspora in order to expain to themselves their continued use of corrupted Eastern-European Hebrew in the synagogue. Monosig 10:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis speak Hebrew, not English. What matters on English Wikipedia is how English speakers spell the word. The Random House and American Heritage dictionaries give "Matzo" as the primary spelling. "Matzo" gets 1.34 million Google hits, whereas "Matza" gets 1.09 million Google hits. 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. If you want to move the page to "Matza", please do it properly; get consensus, and then go to WP:RFPM and ask that it be done. Don't do cut and pastes, which destroy page histories. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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. 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. 22:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

matzo meal[edit]

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)

Christian Child[edit]

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! (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)[reply]