The idea that the Hebrew Sin (שׂ) was originally pronounced as a lateral fricative ([ɬ]) is based on evidence from multiple linguistic and historical sources, including comparative Semitic linguistics, ancient transcriptions, and phonological developments. Here's how scholars have reached this conclusion:

Comparative Semitic Linguistics

Hebrew is part of the larger Northwest Semitic language family, which includes languages such as:

  • Akkadian

  • Ugaritic

  • Aramaic

  • Phoenician

  • Arabic

In many of these languages, we find evidence for a three-way distinction between different "s" sounds, which often correspond to different articulations:

  • [s] (as in Hebrew Samekh, ס)

  • [ʃ] (as in Hebrew Shin, שׁ)

  • [ɬ] (a lateral fricative, which scholars associate with Sin, שׂ)

For example:

  • In Arabic, the letter ṣād (ص) originally represented a lateral fricative, later merging into an emphatic [sˁ]. Arabic retains separate sounds for س (samekh equivalent) and ش (shin equivalent).

  • Ugaritic, a Northwest Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, distinguishes three different sibilants, suggesting that the lateral fricative existed historically.

Phonological Evidence in Hebrew

The Hebrew alphabet originally distinguished between:

  • Samekh (ס): [s]

  • Shin (שׁ): [ʃ]

  • Sin (שׂ): [ɬ] or later merged into [s]

The Masoretic vocalization system (developed in the early medieval period) specifically marked the Sin and Shin with different dots, preserving the distinction that no longer existed in many dialects by that time.

Ancient Transcriptions into Other Languages

When Hebrew words containing Sin (שׂ) were transcribed into Greek and Latin, the sin was often represented by symbols that indicated a sound distinct from Samekh. Some notable examples:

  • The Greek language lacked a lateral fricative sound, so transcriptions sometimes substituted an "s" sound, but inconsistencies in these transcriptions indicate that speakers recognized a distinction.

  • In other cases, early translators struggled to represent Hebrew words containing Sin, suggesting that it did not fully align with their native sibilants.

Retention of Distinction in Some Dialects

Certain Jewish communities, particularly the Yemenite Jews, have retained a distinction between Sin and Samekh, pronouncing Sin with a slightly lateralized sibilant that is different from Samekh. This supports the theory that the ancient sound was a lateral fricative, even if it evolved over time.

Modern Linguistic Reconstruction

Modern linguistic scholars reconstruct the ancient pronunciation of Sin as a voiceless lateral fricative [ɬ] based on:

  • Cognates in other Semitic languages that retained the lateral fricative.

  • The structural balance within the phonetic system of Hebrew and other Semitic languages, which typically feature triplets of sibilants with distinct articulations.

The distinction between the Hebrew letters Sin (שׂ) and Samekh (ס) persisted in post-biblical writings, though evidence suggests that by the end of the Second Temple period (1st century CE), the pronunciation of Sin as a distinct lateral fricative ([ɬ]) was gradually disappearing, especially in spoken Hebrew. However, several post-biblical sources reflect an awareness of the original distinction, even if it was not consistently maintained in pronunciation. Here's the evidence:

Masoretic Tradition (6th–10th Centuries CE)

The Masoretes, the Jewish scholars responsible for preserving the pronunciation of the Hebrew Bible, were meticulous in distinguishing between:

  • Shin (שׁ): with a dot on the right, pronounced as [ʃ] ("sh" sound).

  • Sin (שׂ): with a dot on the left, pronounced the same as Samekh in most Jewish communities by this time, as [s], but understood as a distinct letter.

This distinction was preserved despite the fact that in many Jewish dialects, the actual pronunciation of Sin and Samekh had already merged. The preservation of the dot system shows that the Masoretes were aware of the historical difference and considered it important, even if the practical distinction was fading.

Why is this significant?
The Masoretes were preserving an ancient tradition that indicated Sin and Samekh were once distinct, even though they had merged for many speakers by the time of the Masoretes.

Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (3rd–6th Centuries CE)

Post-biblical rabbinic literature, including the Talmud and Midrash, occasionally comments on Hebrew letters and their pronunciations. While the primary focus is often on scriptural interpretation, there are cases where specific letters are discussed:

  • The Talmud (e.g., Sanhedrin 4b) mentions letters and sounds in relation to legal and ritual matters, but it does not explicitly say that Sin was pronounced differently from Samekh in a systematic way. However, the very fact that both letters were considered distinct in the Torah scroll indicates an ongoing recognition of their uniqueness.

  • Some Midrashic texts (e.g., Midrash Tehillim) play with the letters of words for homiletical purposes, implying that the audience understood the difference between Sin and Samekh in writing, if not always in speech.

Early Christian and Greco-Roman Sources

Some early Christian writers and Greco-Roman scholars who were familiar with Hebrew occasionally refer to the unique sounds of Hebrew letters. While they often had difficulty transcribing Hebrew sounds accurately, their struggles to represent certain sounds suggest they perceived a distinction between Sin and Samekh.

For example:

  • The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd–2nd centuries BCE) and later Vulgate (Latin translation by Jerome) sometimes show inconsistencies in how they render words containing Sin and Samekh, indicating that translators were aware of a phonetic difference, even if it was subtle.

Jewish Liturgical Traditions

In some Jewish liturgical traditions, especially among Yemenite Jews, the distinction between Sin and Samekh has been preserved orally. Yemenite Jews historically pronounced Sin with a more lateral or distinct "s" sound, separate from Samekh, long after it had merged in other communities.

This preservation is considered a remnant of the ancient pronunciation and provides a living example of how Sin may have sounded in antiquity.

Medieval Grammarians

Medieval Hebrew grammarians like:

  • Saadia Gaon (10th century)

  • Ibn Ezra (12th century)

  • David Kimhi (Radak) (13th century)

These scholars were aware of the merger of Sin and Samekh in many Jewish communities but still taught them as separate letters with distinct roles. Ibn Ezra wrote in his commentary to Psalms that the Sin was close in pronunciation to the Samech. From this we can infer that he did not see them as being identical. Some of their linguistic discussions suggest an awareness of the historical distinction, even if they no longer articulated it in everyday speech.

Did Everyone Consider Sin to Be the Same as Samekh?

  • No, not initially. The distinction between Sin and Samekh was well-known in biblical and early post-biblical times.

  • However, over time, especially by the early medieval period, many communities began to treat Sin and Samekh as identical in pronunciation (both pronounced [s]).

  • The distinction was retained in writing (e.g., Torah scrolls and Masoretic texts) and in the liturgical practices of certain Jewish communities, like the Yemenite tradition.

Summary

  1. Post-biblical sources (Talmud, Midrash, Masoretic texts) indicate a knowledge of the distinction between Sin (שׂ) and Samekh (ס), even if the pronunciation was merging.

  2. Liturgical and linguistic traditions in some Jewish communities preserved the distinction for centuries.

  3. The evidence suggests that while Sin was originally a lateral fricative ([ɬ]), many post-biblical communities gradually pronounced it the same as Samekh ([s]), leading to the eventual merger in most dialects of Hebrew.

The evidence for the lateral fricative [ɬ] for the Hebrew Sin (שׂ) comes from comparative Semitic linguistics, ancient transcriptions, phonological balance, and retention in some traditional Jewish dialects. While this sound has been lost in Modern Hebrew, historical linguistic research reconstructs it as a unique lateral fricative in ancient times.

Perhaps the true Sin is that the tongue is raised. It would make sense with the information given, and that the letter Shin is pronounced with the tongue raised to the roof of the mouth. Ben Tziyyon haKohen, a contemporary Jewish commentator known as an authority in the ancient Hebrew sounds, has mentioned how the Sin is the quietest S sound in Hebrew, and that Samech is a standard S, and the צ is an emphatic S. If one raises the tongue when pronouncing the sin, it indeed makes the s sound quieter.