What is the relationship between the letters samekh and sin? Did they ever have distinct sounds? Why do they exist as separate letters?

  • 2
    Not really an answer, but there is a story about someone who came to the Satmar Rebbe (R' Yoel Teitelbaum zt"l) and challenged the Ashkenazi pronunciation which does not differentiate between samach, sin, and tav-rafeh (ת). He shot back with the verse: וכסילים מתי תשכילו! (Read that with heavy chassidishe accent for best effect.)
    – Dave
    Commented Nov 30, 2010 at 5:50
  • 5
    I once saw a paper about this titled "Original Sin". I'll have to track it down again.
    – Double AA
    Commented Mar 28, 2012 at 12:41
  • @Dave judaism.stackexchange.com/q/56669.
    – Fred
    Commented Jan 3, 2016 at 4:26
  • They have clearly been pronounced the same for a very long time. Sotah in the torah is spelt with a sin and all over the gemara, it is a samech Commented Sep 11, 2017 at 14:27
  • See also gemara Yoma 75b sefaria.org/… "The word quail is written shlav, [with the letter shin], but we read it as slav, [with the letter samech]." Same on 76b there, "It is written: “And wine that makes glad [yishamaḥ] the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15) [with a shin], but we read it yisamaḥ [with a samech]." In other words, the actual word is just a shin. The reading is actually a different letter: samech.
    – MichoelR
    Commented Apr 28 at 14:34

4 Answers 4


"A sin is just a samech with three branches."

-- A contemporary American ראש ישיבה

The idea here is that in modern usage they are both actually interchangeable with samech.

For an illustration of this interchangeability see the 15th line of the alphabetical acrostic א-ל אדון, in which a sin appears where we would expect a samech, or the common root א.ר.ס used by חז"ל in place of the Torah's synonymous root א.ר.ש.

The difference in sound between the samech, a voiceless alveolar fricative ([s]) and sin, a putative voiceless lateral fricative ([ɬ]), is hypothesized to have been lost as early as Biblical Hebrew, with its remnants still evident in transliterations like "Chaldean" for "כשדי" and "balsam" for "בושם". In each case, the sin that we would conventionally pronounce as [s] was ostensibly closer to [ɬ], which is, in a way, halfway between /s/ and /l/.

There is a complicated diachronic explanation of exactly how and why this shift took place, which is summarized very briefly on page 73 of this paper, by Biblical Hebraicist Gary Rendsburg.

  • 2
    I'm not sure if I get what a "voiceless lateral fricative" sounds like. Is it like the common speech defect where the "sh" sound is produced through the sides of the tongue rather than at the apex?
    – Dave
    Commented Nov 30, 2010 at 5:36
  • 1
    Sort of, I think. It's also the sound represented by "tl" in words derived from the Aztec language, such as atlatl - and indeed it's somewhat like trying to pronounce a "t" and an "l" together.
    – Alex
    Commented Nov 30, 2010 at 5:57
  • 1
    @Dave, yes. Exactly.
    – WAF
    Commented Nov 30, 2010 at 13:03
  • 1
    @Alex No, Dave more acurrately describes what a lateral fricative (ɬ) sounds like. What you describe is actually a lateral affricate (tɬ). Commented May 16, 2011 at 4:22
  • 2
    @Dave that's a speech defect??! I didn't know there was any other way to say sh! I guess if I tried to cross the river under Yiftach I would be killed.
    – Heshy
    Commented Dec 16, 2016 at 11:20

I am not a speaker of modern Hebrew, but am a beginning level learner of Biblical Hebrew. However I did study about ancient Hebrew pronunciation, linguistics, and specifically phonetics quite a bit. I lean heavily in three areas, 1. "logical" phonetics, belief that original/Biblical Hebrew is designed and there should be logical rules to discover when pursuing such questions. 2. Phonotactics constrains languages and thus Semitic languages can be helpful with similar structures phonetically 3. Mizrahi Hebrew class of Hebrew pronunciation, as these are closest to the phonetic logic of the Hebrew Bible. Over the years of pursuing answers to Hebrew pronunciation questions, I came across an example of a variety of Yemenite Hebrew (lost at this time to myself) said to pronounce Schin with dot to the upper left as IPA ɕ, which is in the Polish language, for example, as ś. To me this is a logical progression of the tongue contact with the roof of the mouth front to back for each sibilant, instead of a "radical" departure for some sort of lateral. It sounds nice, is logical, flows easily in the mouth, but I sure would like to find examples in Mizrahi Hebrew/Semetic languages of IPA ɕ, beyond the reference I lost. For now I use it in my studying, and it makes a great distinction for disambiguating biblical/Hebrew words by sound.


Being able to read and speak Hebrew fluently,I can answer this question. Both Samekh and Sin make an 's' sound. You can tell what sound a Hebrew letter makes by the first sound you speak when pronouncing the it. For example, Bet makes a 'b' sound. However, this technique will not work for the Hebrew letters Alef, Ayin, Chet and chaf. Alef and Ayin being silent and there being no English equivalent for Chet and Chaf is the reason for this.

  • Welcome to Mi Yodeya Louis. Consider registering your account to best utilise the features of the site. Note that the question asked if they ever had distinct sounds, and why they appear as separate letters.
    – mevaqesh
    Commented Dec 16, 2016 at 3:13
  • 1
    Hi Louis. I am also able to read and speak Hebrew fluently, and I can tell you that an Ayin isn't silent. It's a guttural consonant which doesn't exist in English but does in Hebrew and other Semetic languages.
    – Double AA
    Commented Dec 16, 2016 at 4:21
  • Louis - I think your answer boils down to this: "Samekh and Sin do not have distinct sounds and I do not know why they exist as separate letters." Commented Dec 17, 2016 at 22:47
  • @DoubleAA Alef is also not silent, it is sometimes, but when it is voweled it is a glottal stop. ʔ Commented Oct 11, 2017 at 8:48

It was my understanding that Ugaritic had four "s" sounds, Modern Standard Arabic had only three, and Modern Hebrew only has 2 but originally Ancient Hebrew had three like Arabic.

One of these "s" sounds was the "sh" sound that appears in "shin" in both Arabic and Hebrew (Shin with the dot over the right of the letter).

Both Hebrew and Arabic lost one of the Ugaritic "S"'s by combining it with another "S" however Hebrew and Arabic did not combine the lost "s" with the same letter. Arabic combined it with Sin and Hebrew combined it with Shin (with the dot on the right). This is why peace is "salaam" in Arabic but "shalom" in Hebrew (as well as many other words that are common between the sister languages). Originally I read that this lost "s" was halfway between sin and shin in pronunciation with a slight "sh" sound but not as heavy as the sh in "sheep" in English.

Next, from what I've read on the subject, Arabic Saad (the heavy S sound similar to the "s" in "saw" in English) took the hard "S" sound from Ugaritic and the other Shin (with the dot on the left) in Hebrew adopted this pronunciation as well. The remaining light "s" sound as in English "see" was applied to Arabic's Sin and to Hebrew's Samech. However personally, this seems backwards to me as "Samech" seems to be better pronounced with the heavy "S "as in "saw" rather than the light "s" in "see".

Over time, long, long ago, the Hebrew language dropped the heavy "s" pronunciation and began pronouncing both letters the same (most probably due to the influence of foreigners who incorrectly pronounced the hard "s" sound which didn't exist in their languages and the Hebrew speakers were influenced by this change and ended up adopting it in practice (probably out of apathy from deciding it wasn't worth the hassle of correcting everyone all the time, much like English "often" is correctly pronounced "of-en" but has been mispronounced as "of-ten" so much that the incorrect "of-ten" pronunciation is now listed as a correct alternate pronunciation in Modern English dictionaries). However since written language is slower to change than verbal language, Hebrew still retains the archaic spellings from when the letters each had distinct sounds, even though today and even in latter Biblical times, the two letters represented the same sound in spoken language.

Other letters were adapted differently from Ugaritic and Akkadian, which is why 'ard in Arabic (spelled with the heavy D (daad) in Arabic at the end) is spelled with Tzaddi in Hebrew even though they were both descended from the same letter in Akkadian for the word meaning land/earth.

  • 1
    Welcome to Mi Yodeya and thank you for this first answer. Do you by any chance remember any of the sources where you've read about this? Including them would lend more authority to your answer.
    – Alex
    Commented May 2, 2019 at 2:50
  • Unfortunately I don't remember, it was over three years ago and I remember reading it, but I don't remember where it was off hand or who said it. Part of me is wanting to say it was on www.ancient-hebrew.org because I know I learned a lot of information about the topic from there, but that was not the only source I was reading at the time and I didn't see it when I quickly glanced through the site when I did my post for reference so it might not have been there. If I run across it again, I'll make a mental note to come back and reference it in a comment to this post. Commented May 3, 2019 at 3:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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