[Mesorah] Hoshanot: Samech vs Sin

Sun Oct 20 13:02:23 PDT 2019

Fascinating! Thank you!
and Chag Sameach to all!
Akiva Miller

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 3:54 PM Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org> wrote:

> It is more complex than that.
> It is clear that at one stage in Semitic languages there were three
> distinct sounds. A major proof is that roots with samekh in the T’NaKh have
> an /s/ sound both in Hebrew and Arabic, whereas roots spelling with sin
> always have an /sh/ in Arabic, and roots spelled with shin always have an
> /s/ in Arabic.
> So there were three sounds (let’s call them A, B, and C), which collapsed
> into two in all known Semitic languages, but in different dialects and
> languages they collapsed in different ways.
> In standard Hebrew and Aramaic, B and C (the ones written by sin and
> samekh) became identical. In Arabic, the ones written by A and C became
> identical. In Phoenician and Northern Hebrew, the ones written by A and B
> became identical.
> Hebrewuses an alphabet developed in the north and Phoenicia, so we have
> the same letter for two different sounds, distinguished by the Massoretes
> by dots. And Biblical Hebrew uses the old spelling, even though it does not
> show the pronunciation.
> In later Hebrew and in Aramaic, view of George Bernard Shaw, that the
> spelling should reflect the pronunciation, not any history, won, and so
> they spelled sin with a samekh to reflect that in their Hebrew it had
> always been the same.
>
>
>
> ---
> Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer <https://whatisworkspaceone.com/boxer>
>
> On October 20, 2019 at 3:35:38 PM EDT, Akiva Miller via Mesorah <
> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> If I  understand RSM correctly, there were three [insert correct noun
> here]s:
>
> First, there was a letter he refers to as "original samekh". This is where
> the word was always spelled with a samekh, and still is.
>
> In other cases, the word was spelled with a "sin form". This letter is
> actually a samekh, but it looks like a sin and that's very confusing. So
> they (whoever "they" are) decided to draw it like a samekh. But in older
> texts, the original appearance is kept, despite the confusion.
>
> The third group has words that were always spelled with a sin, and still
> are.
>
> RSM, would it be fair to compare that middle category to the
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.m.wikipedia.org_wiki_Long-5Fs&d=DwMFaQ&c=VTwaeXjOsAHot2hQQ0nozrBJwyviuCtydNuGwYGfYiI&r=e6XbAQdGwcl_5FMtQ-t1eA&m=DDm5gz02RLGBRdyPWvLYYdouSW-f4JIb7OmHCcRXQpY&s=5onn6oIywoRHdbMqYxPfpH-EZKIhhnjZjkGSf-wWAkg&e=>
> in English? That letter is truly an s, but so many moderns confuse it with
> the f, and even ridicule it as such (as documented in that Wiki article).
> Similarly, these letters are truly samekh, but we mistakenly think it to be
> a misplaced sin when we see it between nun and ayin.
>
> Akiva Miller
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 2:42 PM Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org> wrote:
>
> It is not so much a change in spelling, but the abandonment of the sin
> form in writing:  if it is the same letter as samekh, better use the
> samekh, which prevents misreading.
> You will never find an original samekh written as a sin.  The change was
> one way only.
>
> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mesorah <mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org> on behalf of Sholom
> Simon via Mesorah <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 20, 2019 2:33 PM
> *To:* Akiva Miller <akivagmiller at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Mesorah AishDas List <Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] Hoshanot: Samech vs Sin
>
> And in Ha'aderes v'He'emuna, we have, at the place where a samech would
> be: siguy (with a samech) but segev (with a sin)
>
> Spelling did change over time . . . e.g., the word Sota -- in Torah with a
> sin (Bamidbar 5:12, 5:29), in Talmud with a samech, which is why Rambam is
> insistent on using a sin, but (most?) everybody else used a samech.
>
> But what I thought RHT was asking about was the *pattern* he saw, rather
> than simply a replacement of sin/samech.
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 1:58 PM Akiva Miller via Mesorah <
> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> Same thing in Kel Adon and lots of other places, like last week's Al Chet
> - Sikur ayin and Siach sifsoseinu. I  once make a list of them, but I'm not
> home right now. If you want a project for yomtov afternoon,  just grab a
> few machzorim (don't forget kinos and selichos!) and go on a treasure hunt.
>
> WHY and HOW this happened is far beyond me. These authors seem to have
> been geniuses at fancy Hebrew grammar -- I can't accept that these are
> rudimentary spelling errors. Maybe the "correct" spelling changed over time
> (like the yud that was added to David in Divrei Hayamim), but for such a
> great variety of words?
>
> I'm confident that Rabbi Mandell will come along and enlighten us, but
> YomTov will be here soon, so I wanted to post this just in case.
>
> Akiva Miller
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 1:37 PM Henry Topas via Mesorah <
> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> Moed Tov,
>
> One of my congregants has asked me why in the sequence of this morning's
> hoshanot, phrases in the position of samech have been replaced with
> phrases beginning with the letter sin in the last 4 of the 7 beginning
> paragraphs and again in many of the later "Hoshana Rabba only" paragraphs?
>
> Thank you and a Git Kvitel,
>
> HT
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.aishdas.org_listinfo.cgi_mesorah-2Daishdas.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=VTwaeXjOsAHot2hQQ0nozrBJwyviuCtydNuGwYGfYiI&r=e6XbAQdGwcl_5FMtQ-t1eA&m=J1Hjb6vq4Ks9tPPGoRq84XGb60j-VG_qdqGYGg9-8h4&s=bLyFj-Ul7Le2IOSwIgsOM1e84X2LzvwYd8Wtmz972Wk&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.aishdas.org_listinfo.cgi_mesorah-2Daishdas.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=VTwaeXjOsAHot2hQQ0nozrBJwyviuCtydNuGwYGfYiI&r=e6XbAQdGwcl_5FMtQ-t1eA&m=J1Hjb6vq4Ks9tPPGoRq84XGb60j-VG_qdqGYGg9-8h4&s=bLyFj-Ul7Le2IOSwIgsOM1e84X2LzvwYd8Wtmz972Wk&e=>
>
>
>
> Legal Disclaimer
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are intended solely for the
> addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
> information. You must not use or disclose them other than for the purposes
> for which they were supplied. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
> immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete or destroy all
> copies of this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or
> storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may
> be unlawful. Any privilege or confidentiality pertaining to this email and
> attachments is not waived by reason of mistaken delivery to you.
>
> <ATT00001.txt>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20191020/c12323b8/attachment-0002.htm>