Geshem or Gashem?! - updated 2020
As Sukkos drew to a close, Klal Yisrael geared up for the yearly minhag mêlée that is currently taking place as we speak in shuls wordwide; I’m referring to the Geshem / Gashem debate. This article sets out to address the who’s and the why’s behind this annual quarrel.
Atzeres, as per the Mishna’s instruction and codified by the Shulchan
Aruch,  world Jewry started reciting “Gevuros Geshamim B’Techiyas HaMeisim,” better known as the formulaic insert “Mashiv HaRuach U’Morid HaGashem,” in the second brachah of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of
As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (גשם) in this sentence?Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence.
Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, quoting a rule of grammar that is cited by several Rishonim, including Tosafos, the Ran, and the Rosh,  explains that most words containing a double “segol” (eh sound) which is located before a pause (esnachta) or period (sof pasuk) becomes modified by changing the first of the two segols to a “kamatz”(uh sound). The example given by the Rishonim is the word “eretz,” that when it is the last word in a sentence or right before a pause, changes to “aretz.” This, Rav Moshe reasoned, is the very same thing that happens to the word Ge shem in this formula, that since it is the end of the sentence, the proper reading is “Mashiv HaRuach U’Morid HaGa shem.”  An excellent precedent for this is the end of a Pasuk from Yom Tov Rishon of Sukkos’ Haftarah (Zecharya Ch. 14: 7), which concludes with “HaGa shem.”
Several other authorities, including the Vilna Gaon,  the Netziv,  and the Chofetz Chaim,  and more contemporarily, Rav Aharon Kotler,  Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv,  Rav Yisrael Yaakov Fischer,  and the Shaarim Metzuyanim B’Halacha,  agreed with / akin to Rav Moshe’s psak and held that the proper pronunciation is indeed “Ga shem.”This is also how it’s presented in certain editions / versions of the siddur of the Arizal, as well as the Tefillas Yisrael Siddur, with the Derech Hachaim’s (a.k.a. Nesivos HaMishpat and Chavas Daas) commentary and halachos. In fact, it is well known that in shuls where Rav Elyashiv’s talmidim serve as the rabbis, they are extremely makpid on this pronunciation.
Part and Parcel; Non-Stop
On the other hand, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky  was of the opinion that since this part of Shemoneh Esrei is called “Gevuros,” meaning strengths of
Though they did not expound on the reasoning behind their practice, several other contemporary authorities, including the Steipler Gaon,  Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach,  the Minchas Yitzchak,  Rav Chaim Kanievsky,  and Rav Moshe Sternbuch  ruled this way as well, that the correct pronunciation is “Mashiv HaRuach U’Morid HaGe shem.” Many Tzaddikim of previous generations, including the Chozeh m’Lublin and the Maggid of Koznitz were known to have said “Geshem” as well.  This is also how it appears in the famed siddur of Rav Shabsi Sofer of Premishlan.
Although some  opine that the pronouncing of the word as “Ga shem” was first introduced by Maskilim (ostensibly the “VaYe’etar Yitzchak” siddur by Yitzchak Satanov in 1784), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Yisrael Yaakov Fischer and Rav Moshe Sternbuch put this notion to rest, with Rav Fischer quoting earlier sources that also said “Ga shem.” Rav Fischer writes that he even refused to give a haskama to a sefer that claimed such.
While some posit that “Ge shem” should be correct based on the Sefardic pronunciation of the brachah on wine, “Borei Pri HaGe fen,” even though it is the end of the brachah, on the other hand, this comparison is not exact. In fact, Rav Ovadia Yosef wrote that Sefardim hold that the “Amen” is actually the end of the brachah, thus disproving any contrast. Although Sefardim generally do say “Ge shem,” the congregation immediately responds “l’vracha,” thereby making that the end of the sentence and not the word “Geshem.” 
The Levushei Mordechai had a different take on this debate. He stated simply that “Ge shem” seems proper, and even though it seems that there should be a pause after that word, nevertheless, he concluded that it seems unclear whether the pronunciation of tefillos were established beholden to the rules of dikduk.  This also bears out from Rav Yaakov Emden’s medakdek Siddur, as he cites “Ge shem” with a large esnachta underneath, strongly implying that this formula is not beholden to the regular rules of dikduk. In fact, his prime grammar contender, Rav Zalman Henna, in his critique of the dikduk of the basic Siddur of his day, “Shaarei Tefilla,” Ge shem vs. Ga shem is not listed, nor even discussed as one of his many amendments. 
There is another interesting explanation that this author has heard in the name of Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, as to why many Chassidim say “Ge shem,” even if not necessarily correct grammatically. The word “kamatz” is also the root for the Hebrew word for constraining or miserliness (as in a ‘kamtzan’). When praying for material livelihood (gashmius - related to Geshem) one wants to use a segol (eh sound) instead of a kamatz (uh sound), as the segol has openings to allow the shefa (overabundance) of gashmius to flow through, and not to put constraints on this brachah ofparnassa. 
This ‘dikduk debate’,  over which rule of grammar applies here, is a universal one,  which explains why one who walks into almost any shul in the world will find that there is no set rule; one chazzan might say Geshem and another might say Gashem. And even though there are shuls that follow the ruling of one set of poskim relating to this issue, another shul will follow the ruling of the others.Onedefinitely has what to rely upon no matter which version of the word one’s minhag is to recite. In the words of Rav Binyomin Zilber, regarding this machlokes we say “nahara u’nahara u’pashtei,” (‘each river follows its own path’) and one cannot refer to another’s minhag as incorrect. 
As an interesting side point, this author has heard numerous times that this debate, at least in frum America from the 1950s through the 1990s, used to follow along the Nusach Sefard/Nusach Ashkenaz divide: Nusach Sefard said “Ge shem” while Nusach Ashkenaz said “Ga shem”. It has been posited that the reason why many nowadays who daven Nusach Ashkenaz nonetheless say “Ge shem”, is due to the advent of the popularity of the “ArtScrollSiddur,” which has become the main Shul siddur in many Nusach Ashkenaz American congregations. As the ArtScroll Siddur prints “Ge shem” as standard, whereas “Ga shem” is cited exclusively in brackets or footnotes as a possible alternative in both their Hebrew and English editions, this certainly seems a distinct possibility.
Practically speaking, as advised by Rav Moshe Sternbuch, if one’s custom is to say “Ga shem,” then one preferably should ensure to immediately pause after saying it. Ergo, the converse is true as well. If one’s minhag is to say “Ge shem,” then one should not pause after reciting the phrase, rather reading it as part and parcel of the next line, “Mechalkel Chaim.” 
So, whichever minhag one’s shul follows, at least we may finally gain an appreciation for all those dikduk lessons in elementary school.
Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.  Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk’s importance,  unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:  “The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let’s do it!”
This article was written L’Iluy Nishmas Shoshana Leah bas R’ Yaakov Eliezer, R’ Chaim Baruch Yehuda ben Dovid Tzvi, L’Refuah Sheleimah for Rena Geulah bas Dreiza Liba as well as Rochel Miriam bas Dreiza Liba and Rafael Naftoli Moshe ben Rochel and l’zechus Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam v’chol yotzei chalatzeha for a yeshua sheleimah teikif u’miyad!
For any questions, comments or for the full Mareh Mekomos / sources, please email the author: email@example.com.
Rabbi Yehuda Spitz, author of M’Shulchan Yehuda on Inyanei Halacha, serves as the Sho’el U’Meishiv and Rosh Chabura of the Ohr Lagolah Halacha Kollel at Yeshivas Ohr Somayach in Yerushalayim. He also currently writes a contemporary halacha column for the Ohr Somayach website titled “Insights Into Halacha”. http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/.
 The very first Mishnah in Maseches Taanis, as well as the Mishnah in Maseches Brachos (33a).
 Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 114, 1).
 Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 5), based on the statement of Rabbi Chanina in Taanis 3b. However, those in Eretz Yisrael or those who daven Nusach Sefard and say “Morid HaTal” in the summer months (as opposed to the general minhag Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz), and did so instead of “Mashiv HaRuach,” are indeed yotzei and do not have to repeat Shemoneh Esrei. For a comprehensive halachic viewpoint on what the one should do by a mistake with this formula, see mv”r Rav Yosef Yitzchak Lerner’s award winning Shgiyos Mi Yavin (vol. 1, Ch. 12), at length.
 In their commentaries to Gemara Nedarim 37b, on the statement of Rabbi Yitzchak of an example of the rules of dikduk that were transmitted from Moshe Rabbeinu at Har Sinai. See also Shu”t Rav Pe’alim (from the Ben Ish Chai; vol. 1, Orach Chaim end 11, s.v. mihu) who emphasizes that this rule only applies by these two of the taamim (trop). However, as pointed out by R’ Yisroel Strauss, Rav Dovid Kimchi, the Rishon better known as the Radak, in his Sefer Michlol (pg. 150a; Shaar Dikduk Hasheimos) notes that there are exceptions to this rule, such as ‘melech’, ‘teven’, and ‘neder’, which remain unchanged, even when appearing at the end of a Pasuk.As pointed out by R’ Pesach Fontek, the Ibn Ezra (Shemos Ch. 5:7 s.v. lilbon) earlier made this same assessment, including ‘sefer’, ‘tzedek,’ and ‘teven,’ as exceptions to the rule. These words are not subject to any dikduk rules but we follow the Mesorah.
 Shu”t Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim vol. 4, 40, 15). Also cited in Shu”t Rivevos Efraim (vol. 3: 68). Interestingly, in the beginning of Kuntress Mechalkel Chaim B’Chessed (by Rav Chaim Krauss; printed 5741) it is written that after penning said teshuvah, Rav Moshe retracted his position, acceding that “Ge shem” is indeed correct after being informed of all the Tzaddikim and Gedolim who preferred “Ge shem”. Nevertheless, in this author’s estimation, this does not seem entirely accurate, as Rav Moshe wrote his original teshuvah in 5739 and the sefer Shu”t Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim vol. 4) was only published in Bnei Brak two years later, in 5741, and then republished in New York in 5742. Yet, as mentioned previously, Kuntress Mechalkel Chaim B’Chessed was printed in 5741. If Rav Moshe was indeed chozer lemaaseh, I am puzzled as to why he would still have had the teshuvah maintaining his original stance and reasoning published a year later, and certainly reprinted two years later. Additionally, in Shu”t Rivevos Efraim (ibid.; printed 5740) it cites a different teshuvah of Rav Moshe’s, where he acknowledges that many Tzaddikim prefer “Ge shem”, even explaining that they must be of the opinion that “Mashiv HaRuach U’Morid HaGeshem” is the middle of that paragraph and not the end of the sentence; and even so he maintained preference for “Ga shem”. Hence, it appears that Rav Moshe’s true shittah seems to be as he himself published. Indeed, his son, Rav Dovid Feinstein, was recently quoted (Shu”t Videbarta Bam vol. 2, 9 s.v. v’shama’ati) as stating that this was his father’s true shittah.
 Indeed, several Rishonim, including Tosafos (Bava Metzia 85b s.v. ki) and the Abudraham (Inyan Shacharis Shel Chol, pg. 95) maintain that rainfall is directly related to Techiyas Hameisim. Accordingly, an esnachta here would seem appropriate.
 Cited in Ashrei HaIsh (Orach Chaim vol. 1, Ch. 20, 30), quoting Kovetz Mevakshei Torah (vol. 43, pg. 57). This is also the way it appears in the “Siddur HaGaon M’Vilna” and “Siddur HaGr”a – Ishei Yisrael”. See also sefer Nichocha Shel Torah (pg. 19-20, par. Mesoras haTorah m’dor l’dor), who traces the minhag of Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro, Rosh Yeshivas Be’er Yaakov, of saying “Ga shem”, back to the Vilna Gaon. [Thanks are due to Rav Shmuel Brazil, Rosh Yeshivas Zeev HaTorah in Yerushalayim, for pointing out this source to me.] However, see Tefilla Kehilchasa (Ch. 12 footnote 61) who interestingly writes that there is a “kabbalah” from “Ziknei Yerushalayim” that the Gr”a actually said “Ge shem”. Although the editors of the “Aizor Eliyahu” siddur write that it is probable that the Gr”a said “Ge shem”, as “Ga shem” was ostensibly introduced by later maskilim as claimed by Kuntress Birchos Chaim, nevertheless this theory has since been debunked by no less than Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Yisrael Yaakov Fischer, and Rav Moshe Sternbuch of the Eidah Hachareidis. See footnote 24.
 Quoted in Shu”t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos (vol. 2, 58), in the brackets. Also cited in sefer Nichocha Shel Torah (ibid.). The Netziv adds a very compelling reason why the proper pronunciation should be “Ga shem”, adding that this should be true al pi halacha, based on where one must start over from if one erred in the recital of this formula.
 Cited in Ashrei HaIsh (Orach Chaim vol. 1, Ch. 20, 30), quoting Kovetz Mevakshei Torah (vol. 43, pg. 57), and in sefer Peninei Tefilla (pg. 146) quoting Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.
 Cited in HaMispallel Kahalacha (pg. 24, footnote 2), quoting Rav Aharon’s noted talmid, Rav Yechiel Perr, Rosh Yeshivas Derech Ayson in Far Rockaway.
 See Shu”t Yissa Yosef (from Rav Elyashiv’s talmid, Rav Yosef Efrati; vol. 4, Orach Chaim vol. 3, 26), also cited in Tefilla Kehilchasa (Ch.12, footnote 61), sefer Peninei Tefilla (from his talmid, Rav Ben Tzion Kook; pg. 145-146), also cited in Wake Up! (pg. 95, footnote 7), his talmid, Rav Nochum Eisenstein’s weekly Dvar Halacha (#150, Parashas Bereishis 5781), as well as in Ashrei HaIsh (Orach Chaim vol. 1, Ch. 20, 30), who states that this mesorah of Rav Elyashiv’s, comes from his grandfather, the Leshem Shevo V’Achlama, who held that “Ga shem” was correct. This ruling is also cited in the recent sefer Hanhagos Rabbeinu (pg. 103, 134 and footnote 136), who adds that although Rav Elyashiv almost never corrected anyone, nonetheless, if a Chazzan in his shul said “Ge shem,” Rav Elyashiv would correct him to say “Ga shem.” It is well known that in shuls where Rav Elyashiv’s talmidim are the rabbis, they are extremely makpid on this pronunciation.
 Shu”t Even Yisrael (vol. 8, 9), giving several compelling reasons.
 Quoted in Shu”t Rivevos Efraim (vol. 3, 68), maintaing that although many Tzaddikim including the Chozeh M’Lublin and the Maggid of Koznitz said “Ge shem,” nevertheless, al pi dikduk, the proper pronunciation should be“Ga shem.”
 Cited in Shu”t Rivevos Efraim (vol. 3, 68). Conversely, there are versions of the Arizal’s siddur (such as the Chabad “Tehillos Hashem”siddur ) where “Ge shem” is printed.
 Emes L’Yaakov al HaTorah (Bereishis Ch. 3, 19), and Emes L’Yaakov on Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 114, 1). [Interestingly, and in contrast to his position on Ge shem, Rav Yaakov maintained that regarding “Morid HaTa l”, a pause is mandated and should therefore be read as “Morid HaTu l” (with a kamatz and not a patach). He explains that since dew has connotations related to Techias HaMeisim, it should be considered part of the preceding paragraph, as opposed to“Morid HaGe shem“.] According to Rav Michel Shurkin (Mashgiach of Yeshivas Toras Moshe in Yerushalayim and author of Harerei Kedem; as heard from several talmidim), this was one of the times that Rav Yaakov was wont to remark that “Rav Moshe is a bigger Talmid Chacham than I, but I know dikduk better.” See also Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin’s Shu”t Gevuros Eliyahu (vol. 1 - Orach Chaim, 26) where, in a similar vein to Rav Yaakov’s explanation, elucidates why the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, in his siddur, places an esnachta after “Morid HaTu l,” but not after Ge shem.
 For example, see Tur (Orach Chaim 114) who states this in his explanation of the proper placement of this verse in the bracha.
 Cited in Shu”t Bais Avi (vol. 3, 45), as proof that “Ge shem” is correct. Astonishingly, in Rav Yaakov Emden’s original siddur, “Ge shem” is indeed printed - along with a large esnachta, which seems to strongly contradict the basic rule of dikduk discussed above. This implies he was of the opinion that the “Ge shem/Ga shem” debate is not dependent on dikduk. Others who maintain that “Ge shem” is correct include the Pri Tevuah (cited in sefer Derech HaYashar V’Hatov pg. 28), the Shemen Rokach (Shu”t Tlita’i Orach Chaim 32), and the Afraksta D’Anya (Shu”t vol. 2, Orach Chaim 18). The Rivevos Efraim (ibid.) cites that he heard that Rav Elazar Menachem Mann Shach and Rav Shmuel Halevi Wosner also maintained that “Ge shem” is correct.
 Orchos Rabbeinu (vol. 1, pg. 63, 213; new edition, vol. 1: pg. 121, 69). However, see Tefilla Kehilchasa (ibid.) who says that he heard that the Steipler Gaon said “Ga shem.”
 Halichos Shlomo (Tefilla, Ch. 8, 14), that after Rav Shlomo Zalman read Kuntress Birchos HaChaim (by Rav Chaim Krauss), who cites many proofs and opinions that “Ge shem” is correct, he changed his pronunciation to “Ge shem.”
 Quoted in Ishei Yisrael (Ch. 25, footnote 87).
 Teshuvos Rav Chaim Kanievsky (1500).
 Shu”t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos (vol. 1, 81 and vol. 2, 58).
 Cited in Shu”t Rivevos Efraim (vol. 3, 68).
 Although some (see Minhag Yisrael Torah vol. 1, 114, 1 and Kuntress Birchos HaChaim at length) opine that the pronouncing of the word as “Ga shem” was introduced by Maskilim (ostensibly the “VaYe’etar Yitzchak” siddur by Yitzchak Satanov in 1784), Rav Elyashiv (Peninei Tefilla ibid.), and Rav Sternbuch (ibid.) put this notion to rest, quoting other sources that also said “Ga shem” (although he personally prefers “Ge shem”). Similarly, Rav Yisrael Yaakov Fischer in his Shu”t Even Yisrael (ibid.) writes that he refused to give a haskama to the Kuntress Birchos Chaim since he felt it was misleading with the information presented, as the Kuntress Mashiv HaRuach found sources for saying “Ga shem” from siddurim printed five years before Satanov was born! In the same vein, this author has recently been told by Rav Elyashiv’s noted talmid, Rav Nochum Eisenstein, that Rav Elyashiv likewise refused to give a haskama to said Kuntress for the same reasons.Conversely, Rav Elyashiv did give a haskama to Rav Shalom Marzel’s Kuntress Mashiv HaRuach, which goes to great lengths to prove that “Ga shem” is and was the correct pronunciation throughout the generations. See also footnote 31.
 Chazon Ovadia (vol. 1, Haggada shel Pesach, Kadesh, pg. 128), who writes that Sefardim hold that the “Amen” is actually the end of the brachah; thus disproving any comparison. Although Sefardim generally do say “Ge shem”, the congregation immediately responds “l’vracha,” thereby making that the end of the sentence and not “Geshem”. Although Rav Ovadia himself (ad loc.) questions his own assessment, he nonetheless concludes that it is correct. It is interesting to note that most Yemenites say “HaGa fen” (or “HaJa fen”), although some explain that that is technically how Teimanim pronounce a ‘segol.’
 Shu”t Levushei Mordechai (vol. 4, Orach Chaim 213).
 There actually is much credence to this ‘non-dikduk’ theory. As recently related to this author by Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel, all ancient vocalized manuscripts (from the time of the Rishonim) whether Sefardi, Ashkenazi, Italian, or Teimani, have “Ge shem.” Ergo, in his words, “there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. This is no reflection on the Gedolim of previous generations, who did not have the manuscript evidence available to them. With all due respect for the many great Gedolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation.” In other words, from the times of the Rishonim, ‘Ge shem’ seems to have been the common pronunciation, regardless of whether or not this fits into our understanding of the rules of dikduk. Rabbi Dr. Mandel’s fascinating explanation follows: “A subject that most Talmidei Chachomim know about, but do not take into account all the time, is the fact that for hundreds of years now we rely on information in print. But once upon a time there was no print, and all books were copied by hand. All books that were written before movable type were transmitted by copyists, and all things copied by copyists contain mistakes, in many cases minor, but not always. And many copyists who thought well of themselves changed things if they did not understand what was written, or it did not agree with what they had been taught. Until quite recently most Rabbonim had no way of looking at the old manuscripts before printing was invented. When printing was invented, the printers, who were businessmen, hired people to go through manuscripts to prepare the material for press, and even after printing they hired proofreaders. Very, very few of these were Rabbonim. Many prided themselves on their knowledge of grammar, and so “corrected” things as they went along. The Satanover was just one of the most egregious and arrogant of them, so Rav Yaakov Emden felt he had to print an entire Kuntress (Luach Eres) decrying his changes. But many of the other changes went unremarked in written books. There were several of these “proofreaders” before the Satanover that knew grammar, and since משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם was printed on a separate line, they corrected it to ‘Ga shem.’ But that nusach did not exist to the best of my knowledge before printing.” However, Rabbi Dr. Mandel is quick to point out that “I consider it all fascinating, but I refrain from trying to tell people what is proper to do. I explain the facts, and then follow what the Rambam says in one of his teshuvos about payet, that one should avoid at all costs causing a machlokes.” Indeed, he concludes that “in my life, I have heard of only a few Talmidei Chachomim who have a mesorah not to use the printed text.” Another aspect of the question, as pointed out by R’ Micha Berger, is whether we daven in the Lashon Hakodesh of Tanach or in Mishnaic / Rabbinic Hebrew. In Mishnaic Hebrew, pausal forms are rarer than in Tanach. Hence, the word would be “Ge shem” either way, unless davening in actual Tanach Hebrew. Manuscript evidence (as detailed above) is that Ashkenazim used to daven in normal Rabbinic Hebrew, as the tefillos were written by the Anshei Keneses Hagedolah through the Gaonim. Until the change in Ashkenazic siddurim, Teimanim were the only ones who used actual Tanachi Hebrew, including “Borei Pri Haja fen.” Then we get to printed siddurim with nikud, which only starting being published around the 1500s. R’ (Binyomin) Zev Wolf Heidenheim’s siddur (Rodelheim Siddur; which states “Ga shem”) in particular had a lot of impact, as a number of his dikduk theories show up in Nusach Ari as well. But in any case, this was when Ashkenaz started changing. So, not one of the manuscripts of older Ashkenaz had “Ga shem.” But that does not necessary say whether we, who use Tanach dikduk, including the rules for pausal forms, should or should not alter our pronunciation, simply due to manuscripts written in Mishnaic Hebrew.
 Thanks are due to R’ Mordechai Fast for pointing this out.
 This author has also heard this rationale in the name of Rav Aryeh Kaplan, as well as Rav Chaim Halpern. In a related interesting and inspired bit of wordplay, Rav Chaim Krauss, in his Kuntress Mechalkel Chaim B’Chessed (pg. 8) opines that it is certainly preferable to be of the ‘Yechidei Segulah’ and not of the ‘Kamtzanim.’
 See also Shu”t Rivevos Efraim (vol, 3, 68), Shu”t Az Nidbaru (vol. 12, 26), Ishei Yisrael (ibid), Tefilla Kehilchasa (Ch. 12, 27, footnote 61), and Daily Halachah Discussion (pg. 21-22).
 Indeed, this seemingly simple debate over a single vowel triggered what became colloquially known as the “Kuntress Wars” around 40 years ago, with many Kuntressim written back and forth, each proving either “Ge shem” or “Ga shem” as the correct pronunciation and each citing proofs to their positions from Gedolim through the ages. Aside for the usual rhetoric, there were some very interesting and notable off-topic outcomes of this debate on both sides. I will present several: 1) Rav Fischer added a fascinating rationale in his teshuva on topic (Shu”t Even Yisrael ibid.), that in his opinion, even if it turns out that the recitation of “Ga shem”was actually introduced by a maskil, there is no problem with following it, if it proves correct from a dikduk perspective. As this debate has no halachic bearing, but rather simply about the more correct pronunciation, he asserts that it is irrelevant who first brought the issue to the public’s attention. 2) In the rebuttal Kuntress Mechalkel Chaim B’Chessed, Rav Krauss claims that the siddur that Rav Fischer cites as printing “Ga shem” prior to Satanov’s birth, ‘Yad Kol Bo,’ has outright Christian influences, especially in its commentary on Tehillim. 3) Rav Shalom Marzel, in his Kuntress Mashiv HaRuach, strongly advances the notion that Yitzchak Satanov was not the prominent maskil history has actually proven him to be, but rather a true talmid chacham and Yarei Shomayim, a writer and grammarian whose reputation he claims Rav Krauss was trying to besmirch. [Quite interestingly, Satanov’s “VaYe’etar Yitzchak” siddur and/or expertise is actually mentioned positiuvely by a number of Poskim, including the Pri Megadim (Pesichos to Orach Chaim, Igros, Igeress shekasav hamechaber l’echad m’melamdai zman, 3, end s.v. v’agav), the Mahari Assad (Shu”t Yehuda Yaaleh vol. 1, 21), and his contemporary, Rav Shlomo Haas (Kerem Shlomo 189).]
 Shu”t Az Nidberu (vol. 11, 48 s.v. siman 68).
 Shu”t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos (vol. 2, 58). This is also born out from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky’s explanation in Emes L’Yaakov (ibid.). An additional related rationale brought in the Belzer “Avodas Hashem” siddur citing the Ohr HaNer in the name of Rav Shlomo Chaim of Koidenov, is that reading the word as “Ge shem” and immediately following it by Mechalkel Chaim, and thus squarely placing the phrase as part of the Gevuros, ensures that the power of rain is used for ‘Gishmei Brachah’ and not Chas V’Shalom for ‘Gishmei Klalah,’ as we are mentioning that Hashem uses the rain as a means of supporting life. Accordingly, “Ga shem” preceding an esnachta may not have the same capability, as then we are reciting Hashem’s bringing rain as an entirely separate attribute than supporting life.
 See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman’s Pathways of the Prophets, “Rules of Dikduk” starting on pg. 312.
 For example see the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V’Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu”t Chavos Yair (124), Shu”t Sheilas Ya’avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yissaschar (Introduction to Igra D’Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter.
 Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325).