1.
A Case Of Identity
The Hebrew alphabet is considered to consist
of 22 letters. This number is taken for granted by Sefer Yetzira, Midrashim,
and the sages of the Talmud.
Not included in this number are the “sofit”
or end-letters ם ן ץ ף ך which are substituted
for מ נ צ פ כ when the letters come at the end of a word. These are not additional letters but
rather alternate forms of the same letter; they neither change the
pronunciation of the letter nor the meaning of the word.
There are also the letters בּ\ב גּ\ג דּ\ד כּ\כ פּ\פ תּ\ת which are pronounced slightly differently when
they appear with a dagesh, or
dot. These letters are not even different forms of the same letter. The dot is
a pronunciation tip, no different from the nikud, or vowelization marks.
To consider the בּ and
ב
different letters is like considering בָ and בֻ different letters. In
fact, unlike vowels, an erroneous insertion or deletion of a dagesh in
these letters will not change the meaning of a word.[1]
One letter seems to be an anomaly, and that is
the letter ש,
which has two flavors, the shin (שׁ) and the sin (שׂ). Not only are these letters pronounced
differently, but the substitution of one of these letters for the other will
create nonsense or a totally different word. שׁם, for example, means there,
while שׂם
means put.
It would seem, then, that the sin and shin
are two different letters. If so, however, we seem to have 23 letters, and not
22, in the Hebrew alphabet. How can we resolve this discrepancy?
It has been suggested that there are in fact
23 letters, but only 22 symbols. Thus the ש symbol serves both the sin
and shin, with reliance on context, tradition, or the right/left dot to
determine which one is represented by a particular ש.
This idea raises as many questions as it
answers. If our count of 22 reflects the number of symbols, why should we not
count the ם
ן ץ ף ך as well, for a total of 27?
Additionally, the chapters of Tanach
which feature alphabetical acrostics[2] have
a single entry for the ש,
sometimes using shin and sometimes sin. They never receive two
spots in the acrostic, as one would expect if they were in fact two different
letters.
The same is true of the expositions on the
Hebrew alphabet in Shabbos 104a, which only count ש once.
And why should two letters have to share a
symbol in the first place?
Some have suggested that the premise of the
question, the assumption that shin and sin must be two different
letters, is incorrect. Maybe a single letter, ש, has two possible
pronunciations, and if the two pronunciations can give a word different
meanings - so what? Who said that this
makes us count them as two letters?
Perhaps they are correct.
2.
Double-Teamed Phoneme?
Further clouding the issue of the sin’s
identity is the question of its pronunciation.
It seems a reasonable assumption that each
letter in the Hebrew alphabet should represent a single sound[3], and
that each sound should be represented by a single letter. Although many Jewish
communities pronounce the א and
ע the
same way, it is due to erosion and not correct. Ditto for ט/תּ, ק/כּ, ב/ו, and כ/ח. The Yemenite and
Ethiopian Jews still retain a distinction between these letter pairs.
One would expect a similar result when one
considers the שׂ and
ס,
which seem to be homophones. Surprisingly, a distinction is nowhere to be found[4]. In
the words of one student of the subject, “Going back at least one bazillion
years, we haven’t found any tradition of distinction between the sin and
the samach.”
Several clues point to the possibility that
the שׂ and
ס are
in fact pronounced exactly the same.
One is the fact that paytanim often use a שׂ in place of ס in alphabetically
acrostic piyutim.[5]
For example, in Shacharis for Shabbos, we have:
הנוי והנצח לחי עולמים
הסיגוי והשׂגב לחי עולמים
העוז והענוה לחי עולמים
And again:
מְלֵאִים זִיו וּמְפִיקִים נֹגַהּ
נָאֶה זִיוָם בְּכָל הָעוֹלָם
שְׂמֵחִים בְּצֵאתָם ושָׂשִׂים
בְּבוֹאָם
עוֹשִׂים בְּאֵימָה רְצוֹן קוֹנָם
There are also several words which are spelled
with a ס in
Talmudic literature, but in their original Biblical form appear exclusively
with a שׂ.
Some examples are חרשׂ
(pottery), יחושׂ
(lineage) and עשׂק
(dealing). These words appear jarring to many people who are accustomed to the
Talmudic spelling חרס, יחוס, עסק.[6] At
any rate, one assumes that if the letters שׂ and ס were pronounced
differently, this substitution would not occur.
We shall adduce further support for this idea
in the coming section.
3.
Desperation
I
have found two attempts at understanding the nature of sin. Neither
holds up, but they are worth mentioning if only to show the desperation of the
problem, which can be seen from the wildness of the attempted solutions.
1) A fragment from the Cairo Genizah[7]
features a letter from an unnamed Gaon, possibly R' Hai,
responding to a writer who made an astounding assertion. We don't have the text
of the question, but it is clear from the response that the writer wished to
claim that there is in fact no letter sin!! The ש has only one identity,
and that is the shin. Every
instance of sin in the Torah, the claim went, is no more than a kri/ksiv,
just as the tens of other places in Tanach where tradition tells us to
pronounce a word differently that it is written. So too, for example, the
Hebrew word for "ten", is pronounced עסר, "esser,"
but written עשר,
"esher."
The Gaon dismisses this claim, arguing
that if all words with sin were indeed kri/ksiv, then the words
should be spelled with a ס in
casual writing and in fact in all other places beside for the specific
Scriptural verses in which they appear. The word for "ten" should be עסר in the Hebrew language.
Rather, he writes, "The ש
simply serves the function of two letters; normally it is a shin but it
can also serve the function of samach where the scribes of the language
are accustomed to doing so… this was taught to Moshe at Sinai…"[8] The
fragment ends here and the rest of this letter has not been found.
It is interesting to note that the first
writer seemed to have tried to support his position from a Midrashic work
called פרק חסרות ויתרות.
This Midrash can be found today, and in fact does seem to question the use of sin
in the Torah and come up with explanations for its use in specific words
instead of samach. For example, in Parshas Toldos: “Why is Eisav
written עשו
with a שׂ
(and not עסו)?
Because in the future he will be as if moth-eaten (עש).” In Tetzaveh: “כבשׂים
(sheep) are always written with ש
because they suppress (כובשׁים )
the sins of Israel (in the form of sacrifices). There
are many more expositions of this type there. The writer understood from these
Midrashim that the שׂ has no identity of its own and is only a kri/ksiv. R’ Hai dismisses this based on several
points; the פרק
חסרות ויתרות is not necessarily authoritative (במשניות החיצוניות); it has not been accurately
preserved (there are many textual variations among the manuscripts of this
Midrash), and furthermore, the expositions therein are Aggadic and not the
simple meaning of the text.
What does seem clear from the פרק חסרות ויתרות, is that the שׂ and ס
do in fact share an identical pronunciation. If there were a difference between
the sound of שׂ and ס
then it would make no sense to ask why Eisav is written with a שׂ - just as no one would ask why Eisav isn’t written עמו! His name was Eisav and any other spelling
would be a different word – unless עשו
and עסו are pronounced the same in which case the
question is sensible.
2)
A relatively more recent stab at this question appears in the very cleverly
named “Midbar Sin” by Aryeh Leib Feinstein of Brisk[9].
He claims that the sin was not one of
the "original" letters of the Hebrew language but rather a concession
to popular changes in vocabulary and pronunciation. Words written with shin
began to be mispronounced by people as if spelled with samach (he
invokes the famous Ephraimite pronunciation of “sibboleth” in Judges 12 as an
example), and later authorities (he fingers Ezra) gave these mispronounced shins
official recognition by instituting the sin. He draws support for this idea
from the Talmudic maxim "the Torah speaks the language of the people"
(דברה
תורה כלשון בני אדם). Then he backpedals a bit says that some
words were originally spelled with sin in anticipation of future changes in the
language. He then goes further and claims that once the sin was
established, words derived from roots containing samach came to be
spelled with sin as well, such as בושׂם (perfume) from סם (spice).
Feinstein’s theory seems to this author to be untenable.
First of all is the very haphazardness of his theory, which seems to waver
between the dogmatically distasteful idea that the Torah was changed from its
original form and the practically
problematic suggestion that this was all in the plans from the outset. Moreover,
the episode in Judges 12 indicates that the Ephraimite mispronunciation was an
anomalous minority, which contradicts his claim that it was sufficiently
popular to warrant official adoption by Ezra. Furthermore, his claim that the
Torah should change in response to mispronunciation is a misuse of דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם.
Chazal invoke this dictum in reference to logical figures of speech and the
like, but not suggest that the Torah canonizes errors. His theory also fails to
address why some shins retained their identity and others would change.
If, as he claims, the sin was a created by a lisp of the tongue, why
didn’t all shins change into sins? Why would some shins get bruised while
others retained their correct form?
To be continued....
[1] The grinches who browbeat
hapless Bar Mitzvah boys, roaring “VA-bayis! Not BA-bayis!”
should stop wasting the congregation’s time…
[2] They are: Megillas Eicha,
Tehillim 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, and 145, and the end of Mishlei
31.
[3] It is told that someone asked
the Satmar Rebbe why we need ס, שׂ, and ת, to which he replied, "וכסילים מתי תשׂכילו". It would seem that the questioner was
harassing the Rebbe, and the Rebbe was fulfilling the Solomonic dictum ענה כסיל כאולתו.
[4] Shiyarei Knesses Hagdolah,
O.C. 50, asserts that "there is no difference in pronunciation between
the sin and the samach." This was over 370 years ago. (However,
R Yosef Porat z"l of Cleveland did write just 50 years ago that were it up
to him he would reintroduce all of the Yemenite pronunciations including
"the distinction between the ס and שׂ." If only we knew what exactly he meant.)
[5]
The reverse does not occur;
we do not find piyutim with the pattern ק-ר-ס-ת. The reason for this requires study.
Perhaps the shin is the primary identity of the ש form and thus the sin, while
tolerated as a stand-in for shin, may not introduce a stand-in of its
own. אין אורח מכניס אורח.
[6] There
are many more, including מאורשׂה (betrothed)
and שיד (plaster). Even more surprising is the
Aramaic word שׂהדותא (testimony),
spoken by Lavan in Genesis 31:47 and identified in Midrash Rabbah there
as an example of an Aramaic word appearing in the Pentateuch. In Aramaic
sources such as Targum and the Talmud the root סהד for "witness" or "testimony" is spelled
exclusively with ס: סהדי, סהדותא. Yet in Scripture a שׂ is used. This word reappears in Job 16:19, again with a שׂ.
[7] Now at Cambridge University. Published in Ginzei
Schechter Vol II p. 88. JTS, New York 1929
[8] The text reads: אלא שין משמש שתי אותות כדרכו הוא שין ויש בו לשמש סמך במקום שנהגו סופרי
הלשון הזה [נהגו] כתיקו(?) לכתב כן וכן הא אמר רבי יצחק מקרא סופרים עיטור סופרים
מה כג[ון] ארץ שמים שמ[י]ם הרי קאמ' שכל אלו המדות ששמ[רו]ם הסופרים ולימדום
לישראל ה[לכה למ]שה מסיני הם מקרא סופרים כגון אֶרֶץ אָרֶץ שָׁמַיִם שָׁמָיִם...
[9] In his book “Elef Hamagen” p.
41, Warsaw 1900.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה