In קדיש תתקבל, most Ashkenazi siddurim I've seen say "תִּתְקַבַּל." ArtScroll, however, has "תִּתְקַבֵּל." Why did this difference arise?

  • My understanding is that there is a controversy on some words in the Kaddish regarding whether to use the Hebrew or Aramaic form of a word. You see this difference also regarding "yitgadel" or "yitgadal" and a few other words. I'll see what I can find on beureihatefilah on this topic. I think he discusses this issue, somewhat.
    – DanF
    Commented Aug 11, 2016 at 14:12
  • I'm trying to collude two sources - De Sola Pool's explanation of Kaddish - beureihatefila.com/files/Kaddish_De_Sola_Poole.pdf and what I can find on www.beureihatefilah.com . So far, the consensus is that Kaddish is a combo of Hebrew & English for various reasons. Prob. is that the divisions focus more on the divisions in the 1st half of the Kaddish. I haven't yet found something that focuses on "Titkabel" vs. "Titkabal". Personally, I am a bit skeptical about Art Scroll's rendition, here, as it seems to be minority, esp. since most of Kaddish is Aramaic. I'll keep researching.
    – DanF
    Commented Aug 11, 2016 at 16:14
  • @DanF Hebrew and Aramaic I presume you meant to write. I appreciate the effort I see so far!
    – Argon
    Commented Aug 11, 2016 at 19:14
  • 1
    @DanF Yitgadal and Yitgadeil are both Hebrew (like ואתנפל ויתאפק).
    – Double AA
    Commented Aug 11, 2016 at 19:40
  • 1
    This is an excellent article, which discusses this issue at length: seforim.blogspot.com.au/2007/01/…
    – Shimon bM
    Commented Dec 15, 2016 at 0:57

2 Answers 2


tiskabal is Aramaic, the language of the kaddish (except for certain words) and the sidur Aizer Eliyahu based upon piskei and minhagei HaGra writes that all sidurim had it as tiskabal till the early 18th century when the Raza(Rav Zalman Hena) changed it to tiskabel.

Rashi writes in sefer Likutei Hapardes Siman Vav, that the first two words are yisgadel v'yiskadesh, bec they are in Hebrew, and not yisgadal v'yiskadash. The Vilna Gaon paskens this way as stated in Maase Rav os 56. Rashi also writes that it is tiskabal bec it is in Aramaic and not tiskabel.

This is straight from RASHI!

  • 2
    How do you know Tiskabal is Aramaic? Is VaEschanan also Aramaic? The Hebrew would then be VaEschanein. (We should be sure to tell people before this Shabbos!) And is Tis'anag also Aramaic? Should we go correct Isaiah 58 14 mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1058.htm#14 to say Tis'aneig? It seems clear that having a Patach there is a valid Hebrew form.
    – Double AA
    Commented Aug 16, 2016 at 22:11
  • First of all, Sefer HaPardes is not "straight from Rashi"ץ Second of all, where does this work say this? Third, the OP asked about titkabal, not yitkadash.
    – mevaqesh
    Commented Oct 16, 2016 at 4:02
  • Well I found the referenced citation and am not sure that it is saying what you claim.
    – mevaqesh
    Commented Oct 16, 2016 at 4:07
  • 1
    יתגדל לשון הפסוק הוא דכתי' והתגדלתי והתקדשתי ונודעתי לעיני עמים רבים וידעו כי שמי ה' ובמלחמת גוג ומגוג הכתוב מדבר ולכך הוא מדבר בלשון עברי ולא בלשון ארמי דומיא דקרא שהוא לשון עברי. וכך משמעו יתגדל ויתקדש שמו של הקדו' ברוך הוא לעתיד לבוא שהו' שמו הגדול מגודל ומקודש כדכת' וידעו כי שמי ה' לפי שעכשיו לא כשהוא נכתב הוא נקרא כי הוא נקרא באל"ף דל"ת נו"ן יו"ד ונכתב ביו"ד ה"א וא"ו ה"א ולשון ארמי וקמוץ הוא כי הוא השם המיוחד לעבוד' וכינוייו הוא באלף דל"ת. לפי שהשם המיוחד הוא לשון ארמי ואין אנו רשאין להזכירו כדכתי' זה שמי לעולם לעלם כתי'. ולכך אנו אומרים שמיה רבה בל' ארמי.
    – mevaqesh
    Commented Oct 16, 2016 at 4:07
  • ובעולם הבא יקרא ככתבו כדכתי' ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד כמפורש למעל'. והואיל ומתחיל תחלה בלשון עברי אומ' הכל בלשון עברי יתגדל ויתקדש עד שמגיע לשמיה הנכת' בארמית הוא
    – mevaqesh
    Commented Oct 16, 2016 at 4:07

What I have found in De Sola Poole's explanation contradicts Mr. Schnur's answer.

See page 67 of this book. He says that Titkabel is the Aramaic version and it means, in this concept, "To listen to" or to "accept". It is the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew שמע. De Sola Poole supports his reasoning by referring to Targum Onkelos on Breishit 16:2.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .