Interactive Learning Module

Vowels

• This unit will explore the development of the vocalization system, attempting to answer the following questions:
• Why and when were vowels and other diacritic marks introduced into the writing of Hebrew?
• In English, certain letters function as vowels rather than as consonants, while in Hebrew vowels are generally marked by dots, lines and the like. Nonetheless, in Hebrew too, there are four letters (אהו"י) which can function not only as consonants but also as vowels. Why is there a need for both "vowel-letters" and vowel markings?
• Though today Hebrew vocalization marks have become somewhat standardized (though pronunciation might still differ in different locales) we will see that there used to be three distinct systems of vocalization, the Tiberian, Eretz Yisrael and Babylonian systems.These systems are named after their place of development. How do these compare to each other and to the system used today?
• How did each vowel get its name? Medieval commentators do not always use the names we use today; how do their names compare?

• The Hebrew alphabet is a purely consonantal alphabet, containing no vowels. Alongside it, however, there exists a distinct system of diacritic marks (vowels and other signs) which aid in vocalization. [See here for a summary table of the vowel system as organized and used today.]
• Over the years, there has been much controversy regarding when these vowel signs were established. Were they Divinely given from Sinai (or even beforehand), or are they a later human invention?As it is somewhat theologically difficult to suggest that the Torah was not given accompanied by a tradition of vocalization which would disambiguate homographs, most traditional sources agree that there was always some oral tradition of vocalization, and differ only with regards to when the actual signs were established or how "fixed" that oral tradition was.
• Early Dating: The Zohar – Probably the most well-known source which advocates for Divine origins of the vowel markings is the Zohar.
• The work often speaks of the various vowels by name, seeing in the marks mystical secrets. It views them as an indispensable counterpart to the letters of the alphabet See Zohar Bereshit 15b: "the letters are the body and the vowel-points the soul". both of which were created in the beginning of time and were themselves instrumental in the creation of man.See Zohar Chadash Shir HaShirim: "בְּשַׁעֲתָא דְאִתְבְּרֵי אָדָם, אַתְוָון כָּלְהוֹ אִתְבְּרִיאוּ, אִתְגְּלִימוּ, וְאִצְטַיְירוּ. בְּשַׁעֲתָא דְּאִתְנְשֵׁיב בֵּיהּ רוּחָא, נָפְקוּ נְקוּדֵי וְאִתְיַישְׁבוּ בְּאַתְוָון"
• The author explicitly rejects the possibility that the signs are an invention of later scribes, writing, "וְאִם תֹּאמַר, נְקוּדֵי תִּיקּוּן סוֹפְרִים הוּא. חַס וְשָׁלוֹם. דְּאֲפִילּוּ כָּל נְבִיאֵי דְּעָלְמָא יְהוֹן כְּמשֶׁה, דְּקַבֵּיל אוֹרַיְיתָא מִטוּרָא דְסִינַי, לֵית לוֹן רְשׁוּ לְחַדְתָּא אֲפִילּוּ חָדָא נְקוּדָה זְעֵירָא בְּאָת חַד, אֲפִילּוּ אָת זְעֵירָא דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא" (Zohar Chadash Shir HaShirim).
• As the work is attributed to R. Shimon b. Yochai, those who take this attribution at face value see in it unmistakable evidence that the vowel signs were known already in the second century and could not have been introduced later.
• However, many assume that the Zohar's real author is the 13th century Kabbalist Moshe de Leon, or, at the least, that the book contains many later additions, in which case nothing can be proven from the fact that vowels are named in the work.For discussion of Rabbinic positions regarding the authorship of the Zohar, see M. Shapiro "האם יש חיוב להאמין שהזוהר נכתב על ידי רבי שמעון בן יוחאי".
• Nonetheless, due in part to the reverence held by many for the Zohar, many follow its lead in viewing the written vowel system as early and Divinely given, perhaps already during Creation itself.

• A second approach to our question suggests that the vowel signs and accent marks were transmitted at Sinai.
• In Bavli Nedarim 37b, R. Yitzchak states that " מקרא סופרים ועיטור סופרים וקריין ולא כתיבן וכתיבן ולא קריין" were all transmitted from Moshe at Sinai.
• This would appear to suggest that "מקרא סופרים", correct vocalization,Both the term and the context of the Gemara imply that this refers to a system of reading/pronunciation. See Tosefot, Tosefot Rid and others that the Gemara's examples, "מקרא סופרים – ארץ שמים מצרים", refer to differentiating between the regular and pausal forms of these words. and hence the vowel points, were Divinely given at Sinai.
• Alternatively, though, R. Yitzchak might refer only to an oral tradition of pronunciation, not to the graphic system of vowel points.See the many medieval commentators in the coming slides who read the Gemara in this manner.
• Levi b. Yosef, author of Sefer HeSemadar,This work is cited by R. Eliyahu HaBachur in his Masoret HaMasoret, third preface. The author and work are unknown, but see J. Howard , "Two Bibliographical Riddles in Levita’s Masoret ha-masoret" Zutot, 21(1), 125-135 for discussion of possible identifications and a similar position found elsewhere. points to Devarim 27:8, "וְכָתַבְתָּ עַל הָאֲבָנִים אֶת כׇּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב" as proof of the Divine origins of the vowels.
• He asserts that the phrase "בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב" (explained well) must refer to a system of vowels and accents, without which the meaning of words can be ambiguous.R. Eliyahu HaBachur cites the book as follows, "ואם יאמר האומר מאין נדע כי מפי הגבורה נאמר הנקוד והטעמים, ישיב המשיב המקרא מקרא מלא הוא דכתיב וכתבת על האבנים את כל דברי התורה הזאת באר היטב, ואילולי הנקוד והטעמים שמבארין התיבות אין אדם יכול להבין ביאורם, כגון שֶׁלָמָה שַׁלְמָה, שְׁלֹמֹה, שַׂלְמָה, שְׁלֵמָה"
• As the verse speaks of writing, he must be of the opinion that already at Sinai, there was not only an oral tradition but also some written system of signs.

• A third approach to our question suggests that the vowel signs and accent marks were man-made, established (or at least "renewed") by Ezra.
• Bavli Nedarim 37b expounds Nechemyah 8:8 which speaks of Ezra's public Torah reading, deriving: "וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל אֵלּוּ הַפְּסוּקִים וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא זֶה פִּיסּוּק טְעָמִים וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אֵלּוּ הַמְּסוֹרוֹת". The passage appears to suggest that as Ezra relayed the Torah, he did so with a tradition of punctuation, cantillation and vocalization, perhaps implying that there must have existed a diacritic system already in his time.
• If so, one might say either that such a system pre-existed Ezra (having been given at Sinai), and he simply "renewed" or canonized what had been forgotten or ambiguous, or that he established it on his own.
  • R. Eliyahu HaBachurSee his Masoret HaMasoret, third preface cites the former possibility in the name of R. Moshe HaNakdan, "אמת הוא שהניקוד ניתן מסיני אלא ששכחוהו עד שבא עזרא וגילהו".
  • Abarbanel appears to agree with the latter possibility. However as he mentions the issue only tangentially,The main discussion revolves around the phenomenon of the "קרי וכתיב" his position is not totally clear.He writes, "וקודם שהתעורר עזרא לעשות הנקוד והטעמים וסופי הפסוקים" (introduction to Yirmeyahu).
• It is also possible, however, as above, that here too the Gemara is referring only to the transmission of an oral tradition, and not to a written one, and not suggesting that Ezra actually innovated anything. [See the sources on the next slide for elaboration.]

• A final approach to our question suggests that the graphic signs of the vowels and accent marks were a late human invention, with some explicitly attributing them to the Masoretes who lived after the close of the Talmud (6th-10th centuries).
• In discussing the reason a Torah scroll is not pointed with vowels Machzor Vitry (11th c.) explains that this is because the Torah given to Moshe at Sinai did not include such markings.Thus, to add vowels would be a violation of the prohibition of "בל תוסיף". Though proper vocalization was passed down orally by Moshe, the signs were introduced only later as reading aids. He, thus, explains that the discussions in Bavli Nedarim mentioned above refers only to the transmission of an oral tradition of reading, not a written diacritic system.See similarly Teshuvot HaRashb"a HaMeyuchasot LaRamban. Neither of these sources says exactly when these reading aids were established.
• Others similarly distinguish between the Divine oral tradition given at Sinai and a later human invention of graphic signs. See R. Yehuda HaLevi (12th c.) in his Kuzari 3:29-31,He notes that the Torah was given without vowels, claiming that its vocalization was passed down orally and guarded by generations of sages, until at some point, "שָׂמוּ שִׁבְעַת הַמְּלָכִים וְהַטְּעָמִים אוֹתוֹת לַתְּכוּנוֹת הָהֵם אֲשֶׁר הֶעְתִּיקוּם בְּקַבָּלָה מִמֹּשֶׁה". Radak in his Sefer Mikhlol (p. 54 and 73),He too says that Moshe passed down a tradition of vocalization at Sinai (Mikhlol, p. 73) but attributes the actual signs to humans, speaking of "מתקני הניקוד", perhaps referring to the Tiberian Masoretes. and Maharal (16th century) in Tiferet Yisrael 66.He vehemently argues against those who claim that Ezra established the vowels, noting that to say so is theologically problematic for one may not introduce changes to Torah and to say that Ezra did so implies that the Torah needed fixing. He, thus, emphasizes that Hashem transmitted the correct vocalization at Sinai, but clarifies that this means only that Hashem fixed the pronunciation, not that He created the vowel signs. These were only made later. He writes, "ואין הכוונה על צורת הנקוד, מה שנתנו צורה לקמ"ץ ופת"ח ושאר הנקודות. שודאי אין זה רק סימן בלבד לקריאה... ועל הנקודות שהם סימנים אין דברינו כלל, ולא דברו בהם חכמים מעולם. אבל דברינו על קריאת התיבה."
• In contrast to the above sources which do not clarify who exactly are the sages who invented the vowel signs, Ibn Ezra (12th c.) explicitly attributes them to Tiberian scholars, writing in his ספר צחות (a grammatical work): "כן מנהג חכמי טיבריא והם העיקר כי מהם היו אנשי המסורת ואנחנו מהם קבלנו כל הניקוד."‎It should be noted that elsewhere Ibn Ezra appears to attribute the verse breaks (in contrast to the vowel signs) to Ezra, writing "איך טעה המפסיק ואף כי אם הוא עזרא הסופר. והכלל כי המפסיק לא היה אחריו חכם כמוהו כי הנה ראינו בכל המקרא לא הפסיק כי אם במקום הראוי". He is also the only one of those listed here to not state explicitly that the written system of vowel markings was based on an oral tradition of reading stemming back to Sinai.

• One of the most well known advocates for a late dating of the vowel marks is R. Eliyahu HaBachur Levita, whose discussion in the third preface of his work, Masoret HaMasoret, sparked much controversy.For discussion of the controversy, and many of the sources cited in this overview see "Nekkudot: The Dots that Connect Us" by D. Rabinowitz.
• In contrast to many of the earlier sources mentioned above which spoke of the issue only tangentially, he confronted it head-on, critically analyzing and presenting arguments to prove that the vowels were likely not invented before the end of the Talmudic period (5th century):Like the above sources, however, he also thinks that a tradition of pronunciation had been passed down from prophet to sage or priest throughout the generations.
• Levita notes that no where throughout Mishnaic and Talmudic literature, despite the numerous passages which relate to pronunciation, are the individual vowels ever mentioned explicitly by name or description, perhaps because they were not yet established.
• See, for example, the many places where the Talmud says "Do not read "x" but rather "y",For some examples, see Bavli Berakhot 5a (אַל תִּקְרֵי תְּלַמְּדֶנּוּ אֵלָּא תְּלַמְּדֵנוּ), Bavli Berakhot 7b (אַל תִּקְרֵי שַׁמּוֹת, אֵלָּא שֵׁמוֹת), and Bavli Berakhot 48b (אַל תִּקְרֵי וּבֵירַךְ אֶלָּא ובָרֵךְ) Bava Batra 21b, which presents Yoav as vocalizing "זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק" incorrectly and Bavli Avodah Zarah 29b which has R. Yehoshua question how to pronounce "טוֹבִים דּוֹדֶיךָ מִיָּיִן". In none of these cases is a vowel sign mentioned as might be expected had they existed.Moreover, as the passages would be much clearer to the reader had the Gemara actually done so (for example, presenting R. Yehoshua as questioning whether "דודיך" should be pointed with a segol or a patach), the fact that it does not, might imply that the Gemara is unfamiliar with these written signs.
• In addition, had signs existed from Sinai, it is hard to know how Yoav and R. Yehoshua could confuse the correct readings to begin with.
• R. Eliyahu also points to the fact that many of the vowel names are Aramaic rather than Hebrew, supporting a later date.One, of course, could argue that the signs predate the names given to them.
• Levita's position was met with fierce opposition by many, especially by those who were devoted to the Zohar.See above that according to the Zohar, the vowel signs were established already with Creation. As the Zohar was first printed and rose to prominence during this era, it is perhaps not surprising that its followers attacked Levita. The first to challenge R. Eliyahu was R. Azariah dei Rossi in his work Me’or Enayim, itself extremely controversial. Another more expected opponent is the kabbalist, R. Chaim Yosef David Azula (the Chida). See also the attack of R. S. Archivolti, Arugat HaBosem, Chapter 26, available in English here.
• Among the defenders of a later dating of the vowels is R. Yaakov Emden who argues against the antiquity of at least parts of the Zohar, casting doubt specifically because it mentions vowel names when "it is known that the Ba'alei HaDikduk are very late" and unknown in the Talmudic period.See his Mitpachat Sefarim, available here. See also the discussion of Shadal in his ווכוח חכמת הקבלה available here (p. 93ff).
• The debate between the two sides continues until the present. However, with the discovery of a least three distinct systems of Hebrew vocalization in the 19th century, each with their own symbols, there is perhaps good reason to follow the opinions which argue that the vowel forms are late, the invention of the Masoretes living between the 6th-10th centuries.
• The rest of this module will attempt to trace the development of this written system, first explaining the need for such a system and then looking at the various attempts made to address that need, concluding with the vowel signs used today.

• Any alphabet which is purely consonantal, such as Hebrew, will contain words whose pronunciation is ambiguous. Though context is often enough to clarify meaning, when standing alone, words can often be read in more than one way. For example, the word "שלם" can be read as: shalom, shalem, shilem, shulam, Shelomo, salmah. etc.
• To highlight the point, go to the concordance and type "שכר" in the input bar. How many entry possibilities appear? [These do even include the various conjugations of the verb!]
• It is assumed that one of the first steps made to ease reading was the introduction of "vowel letters". At some point around the first millennium BCE,See the next slide for discussion., there is evidence that the four letters "אהו"י" began to function not only as consonants but also as vowel markers. These "vowel letters" are known in Hebrew as "אימות קריאה" and in Latin as matres lectionis (mothers of reading).
• Their placement at the end or middle of a word signified to a reader that the previous consonant should be read with a certain vowel sound, significantly reducing ambiguity. For example, "שלום" could no longer be confused with shalem, shilem, shulam, shilemah etc.
• It is has been hypothesizedSee, for example, W. Chomsky, "The History of Our Vowel-System in Hebrew". that specifically these four letters came to serve in such a capacity because all were originally phonetically weak letters (with the "ו" originally being pronounced closer to an English "w").
• As such, in certain words these letters had already naturally lost their function as consonants, having been assimilated into other sounds. However, they were still preserved in the written form of the word,Spelling tends to be more conservative than pronunciation, as evidenced in many languages where a word's spelling no longer matches its current articulation but is nonetheless maintained. making them natural candidates to serve as vowel markers.For example, it is hypothesized that the "א" in words such as "מצאתי" or the "ו" in words like "יושיב" were originally consonantal, equivalent in form to words such as "כתבתי" or "ישליך". At some point the letters lost their consonantal values, but remained in the word, and eventually came to represent vowel sounds. So, too, in words with a final vowel letter "ה" pronounced with an "o", such as "עִירֹה" and "סוּתֹה" in Bereshit 49:11, it is suggested that the "ה" was originally pronounced, as in the form "פִּיהוּ". After the "ה" became silent, it was nonetheless preserved, coming eventually to represent a vowel. A last examples relates to words of the pattern "בית", "יין" and "זית". These are assumed to have originally been monosyllabic diphthongs (a cluster of vowel sounds which function as a single unit) of the form bayt, yayn, and zayt. When used in the construct state (a form which indicates possession), the original diphthong contracted, with the ay being replaced by a single vowel sound, today's tzere, and the yud no longer being pronounced at all. It nonetheless remained in the word, making it a good candidate to be used as a vowel letter.
• They were each eventually identified with certain vowel sounds and used as vowel markers even in words where they never served as consonants.For example, a "ו" marks a long "o" or long "u" sound; a "י" often marks a long "e" (as in בָּנִים) or "a" sound as in בְּנֵי), while final "ה" indicates the sound made by a kamatz (as in יְהוּדָה) or a segol (as in יִרְבֶּה).
• Words written with vowel letters are said to be written "מלא" (plene, or full), while those without are said to be written "חסר" (defective).

• Epigraphic evidenceEpigraphy refers to the study of inscriptions. suggests that the usage of vowel letters was introduced at some point around the first millennium BCE, with their prevalence gradually increasing over time.For a review of some of the literature on the subject, see Z. Zevit "Matres Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs". The article explores the usage of vowel letters in a selection of ancient inscriptions from the 9-6th centuries BCE in an effort to trace how and when they were used in writing. See also Y. Eliztur, "Plene Spelling and Defective Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: The Question of Dating" who similarly reviews the epigraphic material and questions how the findings relate to spelling in the Masoretic text.
• Thus, for example, if one looks at Phoenician and Moabite inscriptions from before the tenth century BCE, there is no evidence of vowel letters.There are no inscriptions from the period that can be said with certainty to be written in Hebrew, but it is plausible that the record from the Phoenician and Moabite texts (both being sister-languages to Hebrew, written in almost identical scripts) is somewhat representative of the period. [It is important to note, however, that the paucity of texts makes it hard to make any definitive claims.]In addition, in some texts, there is dispute as to whether certain letters function as a consonant or vowel. Thus, for example, in the tenth century BCE Gezer calendar (see a transcription into modern Hebrew letters here) one finds "קציר שעורים" spelled "קצרשערמ" and "ירח קיץ" (month of summer fruit) spelled as "ירחקץ", both without vowel letters. Yet, the word "ירחו" appears with a final vav whose status as a consonant or vowel is debated. [Scholars further debate whether the language of the inscription is Hebrew, Phoenician or Canaanite.]
• In contrast, in ninth century BCE inscriptions, one finds vowel-letters used at the end of words, but not yet mid-word. See, for example, the Mesha Stele and its spelling of "בתה" and "בנתי" (for בֵּיתוֹ and בָּנִיתִי).
• In the eighth-seventh centuries BCE, there is attestation of vowel letters mid word as well, but usage is still sporadic. Thus, in the Shevna inscription we see "זאת" with a medial "א" and "ארור" with a medial "ו", and in the Shiloach inscription, we see "עוד" and "מוצא", both with a "ו" mid-word, but alongside these we see defective spellings of "אש" (for איש) and "ימן" (for ימין).
• Later, in the second Temple period, there was increased and more widespread use of such vowel letters, as attested to in many of the Qumran scrolls, known for their "plene" or "full" spelling (i.e their prevalent usage of vowel letters.)

• The Masoretic text of Tanakh is inconsistent in its use of vowel letters, with some words written with full spelling, others with one medial vowel letter but not another, and others defectively, without vowel letters at all.
• For example, compare the various spellings of the word "נְבִיאִים" in Bemidbar 11:29 and Yirmeyahu 23:30-31 or "סוכות" in Vayikra 23:42 and Vayikra 23:43.
• On the whole, though, the Masoretic text shows a shift from more defective spelling in its earlier books to heavier usage of vowel letters in its later books. Compare, for example, the spelling "דוד" in Sefer Shemuel and "דויד" in Divrei HaYamim.This, however, does not mean that there is no plene spelling in earlier books or defective spelling in later books, but rather that on the whole there is a gradual move to fuller spelling.
• As such, Tanakh might generally be described as having semi-plene spelling, with much fuller spelling than the epigraphic material of the same period.
• This leads scholarsSee the literature cited by Prof. Y. Elitzur in his article "Plene Spelling and Defective Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: The Question of Dating" to suggest that the original spelling in Biblical books was more defective than that seen now, and must have reflected contemporary defective writing practices. They claim that the present form of the Biblical text must be the result of a process of editing made in the first half of the Second Temple period when scribes added vowel letters to the text.
• For many this is a theologically problematic hypothesis, as it suggests that the Masoretic text used today is not identical to that which was given to Moshe. This would seem to negate one of the principles of faith put forth by the Rambam.See his introduction to "פרק חלק" where he writes, "והיסוד השמיני, הוא התורה מן השמים. והוא שנאמין כי כל התורה הזאת המצויה בידינו עתה, היא הנתונה על ידי משה, שהיא כולה מפי הגבורה" In addition, throughout Talmudic and Midrashic literature, the sages expound the plene and defective spellings of words, with various messages and even laws sometimes being derived from the presence or absence of a vowel letter.See, for example, Bavli Sukkah 9b (and R. Chananel there) where the Sages learn from a defective spelling that if a Sukkah is built under another one it is not valid, and see Bavli Sanhedrin 4b (and see Rashi there) where the number of chambers used for phylacteries is learned out from the defective/plene spelling of "טֹטָפֹת" in its various occurrences.
• It should be noted, however, that Tannaitic and Amoraic sources themselves attest to cases of textual variants,See, for example, Sifrei Devarim 33:27 regarding the three Torah scrolls that were found with slight variations, leading the sages to determine the correct text by majority. For many other examples and for discussion of how Ramabm's principle of faith should be understood in light of the obvious existence of textual variation, see M. Shapiro, "Maimonides' Thirteen Principles: The Last Word in Jewish Theology?", Torah U-Maddah Journal 4, 1993 and R. Amnon Bazak, "Accuracy of the Biblical Text". and even mention the issue of ambiguous vowel-letters. For example, in Bavli Kiddushin 30a, R. Yosef admits that the Sages are no longer experts in full and defective spelling: "אינהו בקיאי בחסירות ויתרות, אנן לא בקיאינן"‎.The discussion there has even led many Rishonim and Acharonim to conclude that a Sefer Torah should not be invalidated merely on account of differences in plene or defective spelling. See, for example, Meiri on Bavli Kiddushin 30a and Rema Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 143:4. In fact, the many examples of variants have led some to suggest that Rambam himself never meant that every single letter in the present Torah matches that given by Moshe but simply that the Torah as a whole is the same Torah.See sources cited by M. Shapiro, ibid, including R"Y Weinberg in "Fundamentals and Faith," p.90-91, who writes, "Rambam knew very well that these variations existed when he defined his Principles... the words of the Rambam, "the entire Torah in our possession today", must not be taken literally, implying that all the letters of the present Torah are the exact letters given to Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather, it should be understood in a general sense that the Torah we learn and live by is for all intents and purposes the same Torah that was given to Moshe Rabbeinu." That said, the suggestion that almost all cases of full spelling were only introduced into Tanakh later is a somewhat broader and perhaps more troubling claim.
• Prof. Y. ElitzurSee the article cited above., thus, argues against the scholarly hypothesis, claiming that Biblical spelling was semi-plene from its very beginnings and that this spelling is part of the original composition rather than the result of later editing.
• He notes that if the plene spelling was simply the product of systemic editing, added into the texts centuries after they were composed, the fact that there is a gradual shift from defective to fuller spelling in the later books of Tanakh is illogical and unexpected.
• As such, he offers a different explanation of Tanakh's fuller orthography, suggesting that the difference between it and that found in contemporary inscriptions might lie in the distinct literary style of each genre of writing. Spelling on inscriptions was more likely to be parsimonious so as to make inscribing easier, while fuller spelling was a feature of literary writing. In addition, since the texts preserved in the epigraphic material were not considered sacred, spelling practices tended to be less formal and nonstandard.One must also keep in mind that there is a paucity of epigraphic material, especially from earlier periods, which might not allow for a comprehensive picture of writing practices.

• This slide resumes the discussion of the usage of "אימות קריאה" in written Hebrew, noting the system's limitations.
• Though the letters were a helpful aid to ensure correct pronunciation, they nonetheless did not remove all ambiguity from reading:
• Despite the presence of vowel letters, there were still many homographs. For example, even with the addition of a heh at the end, "שלמה" can be either: the name Shelomo, the noun "שִׁלֻּמָה" (recompense) or the word "שַׂלְמָה", a garment.
• In addition, vowel letters are not used consistently, and, as seen, the same word can be found in Tanakh with or without one of the אימות קריאה. Moreover, there was no way of distinguishing when these letters were being used as vowels or consonants.
• Finally, the vowel letters did not address issues of stress, the lengthening of consonantal sounds (later to be marked by a dagesh) or the distinction between polyphonic lettersThe term polyphonic refers to something which has more than one sound. such as fricative or plosive "בגדכפ"ת" lettersEach of these letters can make one of two sounds. Plosives tend to be harder sounds, like that made by a "b", while fricatives are softer, like the sound made by a "v". or shin and sin.
• With the passage of time, as Hebrew increasingly became less of a spoken language, the lack of a vowel system became even more of an issue. Without a reliable oral tradition, the fear of forgetting the correct pronunciation of the Biblical text grew exponentially. Thus, in order to preserve the correct reading of the text, certain diacritical marks were gradually introduced.

• It is likely that before the full-fledged vowel systems were developed, partial systems of diacritic signs were used.See A. Dotan, "Masorah", in Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 16, (Jerusalem, 1972):1429-1431, that the theory presented below was proposed by H. Graetz in his studies on the origin of the vowel-points, and was subsequently accepted by many. One such system might be attested to in the Masoretic work known as אכלה ואכלה‎.The book contains Masoretic notes and often comments on rare words or sets of similar words.
• It contains several lists of homographs, words spelled identically, but differing with regards to a single vowel sound. To disambiguate, it marks each word of the pair as being either "מלעיל" (on the top) or "מלרע", (on the bottom).For examples of such lists, see page 52 of the book, available here. Accordingly, it has been hypothesized that this refers to a practice of placing a dot either above or below the word to distinguish vowel sounds, perhaps an early stage in the creation of a diacritic system.See, though, A. Dotan, ibid, who notes that no manuscripts have as yet been found with such notations, leading him to reject the theory.
• For example, to differentiate between the words "וַיֹּדַע" (and he let know) and "וְיֹדַע" (he will let know), at this point written without any vowel signs, the former is marked as "מלעיל" (perhaps meant to be pointed with a top dot) and the latter as "מלרע" (to be pointed with a bottom dot). Similarly, to disambiguate between "זָרֻעַ" and "זֵרוּעַ", the former is listed as being "מלעיל" and the latter as "מלרע". The same terms were also used to distinguish homographs which were accented on different syllables.
• As seen, these marks were not meant to represent specific vowel sounds, and, for instance, the same sign could represent both what would be later called the sheva and the tzere.The signs simply differentiated between similar words; they did not mark the specific vocalization of any given letter.
• As such, though helpful, eventually it was evident that a more comprehensive system of vowel signs was needed, and at some point in the early medieval period three such systems were indeed developed by the Masoretes.These were likely the outcome of a slow and gradual process, with preceding attempts at easing reading like the "מלעיל" and "מלרע" signs discussed above, paving the way. Once developed, though, the "מלעיל" and "מלרע" markings were no longer necessary and fell out of usage. However, the terms are still used to signify which syllable of a word is to be accented.

• As pronunciation differences naturally develop in different geographical regions, there were three distinct vocalization systems that emerged in different locales: the Tiberian,This was developed in Tiberias, Israel. Babylonian, and Eretz Yisrael systems.Besides the vowels, the three systems also developed a series of טעמים or cantillation marks, various signs which play a role in punctuation, mark stress, and serve as musical notes. For discussion, see the module on the cantillation system.
• Each of the three vocalization systems differed both phonologically and graphically (having a different number of vowel qualities and distinct signs), and also in the way they dealt with polyphonic letters (i.e how they differentiate between plosive and fricative בגדכפ"ת letters, shins and sins, and consonantal vs. vocalic אהו"י letters).
• Tiberian System – The Tiberian system had seven vowel qualities, known as the שבע המלכים, or "the seven kings". The vowel signs were written mainly below the letters, but in two cases either on top or next to the consonants as follows: בִ, בַ, בֶ ,בֵ, בָ, בֹ, בֻ/בוּ‎.Here, the symbols are all connected to the letter "ב". This was chosen for convenience; any consonant could have been substituted. These are known, from right to left, as: chirik, patach, segol, tzere, kamatz, cholam, kubbutz/shuruk.
• According to this system there were seven distinct sounds. [Unlike in Israeli Hebrew of today, a kamatz and patach were distinct as were the segol and tzere.]
• The "u" sound was marked by either a kubbutz or shuruk, depending on whether the word was written plene or not (i.e. whether it had had a vav in place or not).
• Unlike today, the system did not differentiate between long and short vowels, and thus, too, had only one kamatz.
• The sheva sign (בְ) was used to represent both a reduced vowel and the absence of a vowel, and chatafs (אֲ, אֳ or אֱ) were used to indicate reduced vowels under gutturals (as these letters cannot take a vocal sheva).
• Other signs helped disambiguate between letters with multiple possible sounds:
  • To indicate whether the six בגדכפ"ת letters were to be pronounced as plosives or fricatives, the letters were marked with either a dot in the letter, known as a dagesh, (indicating a plosive) or with a horizontal line on top, a rafeh mark (indicating a fricative).The word רפה means "weak". The same dagesh sign was also used to mark a letter whose vowel quality was meant to be doubled.For example, the word "שַׁבָּת" is transliterated as "Shabbat", for the "b" sound is somewhat lengthened. For further discussion, see the dagesh module.
  • The shin and sin sounds were distinguished by the placement of a dot on the right or left of the letter (שׁ/שׂ).
  • Finally, a mappik (a dot) was placed in a final heh to signify that it was consonantal, while a rafeh mark was placed over it and over the letter aleph when they functioned as vowels and were not pronounced.
• The Tiberian system was comprehensive in its pointing, marking not only all words with vowels, but also all consonants in each word.If a letter is not marked by a vowel, this indicated that the letter itself was silent. Click here to see a page from the Allepo Codex, pointed according to the Tiberian vocalization system.

• The Babylonian system is itself subdivided into what is known as the "simple" Babylonian system and the "complex" system. The latter included more signs than the former, with additional symbols serving to distinguish between types of syllable (open or closed) or to represent unique pronunciations of certain vowel sounds. The discussion below will focus on the "simple" system.
• This vocalization system had only six vowel qualities, as it did not distinguish between the segol and patach sounds.The vowel might have been pronounced with a sound somewhere in between the two vowels. The signs were written on top of the letters, so that it is known as a supralinear vocalization system. Graphically, it used a mixture of lines, dots and letters, as seen in the image here.
• It is possible that there were originally two graphical systems, one composed totally of letter markings and the other totally of dots, which eventually merged together.See. S. Morag, "ניקוד", in Encyclopedia Mikrait, vol. 5 (Jerusalem, 1968): 846. However, he notes that though there are a small number of manuscripts which attest to a system which contained only dots, none have as yet been found which contain only letter markings.
• Some have suggestedSee W. Chomsky, "The History of Our Vowel-System in Hebrew" and the literature cited there and in S. Morag, ibid. that the letters chosen as vowel signs are mainly the אימות קריאה, but written above the word. Each represented its corresponding vowel sound, with "א" signifying a kamatz, "ו" a shuruk, "י" (which morphed into a dot), a chirik, and "ע" (not a vowel letter), a patach/segol.
• This system had a distinct sign for a vocal sheva (a diagonal line above the letter) but did not generally mark the absence of a vowel, nor did it have any equivalent of a chataf.
• It used supralinear letters to mark the equivalent of a dagesh (ג) or its absence (ק)‎The "ג" was short for the word "דיגשא", perhaps chosen instead of "ד",since the latter could be confused with one of the cantillation marks (assuming they existed when the signs were chosen). The "ק" was short for "קיפיא", the Babylonian equivalent of the term "רפה", indicating a fricative or that a letter is not to be pronounced. At times this was instead marked by a horizontal line on top of the letter, as in the Tiberian system. and a shin (ש) or sin (ס).Sometimes these were instead marked by dots on the upper right or left of the letters as in the Tiberian system.
• Either a "ק" or a horizontal rafeh mark were used to indicate when the אהו"י letters were acting as vowels, while dots or letters were used to indicate their consonantal values.A "ה" (and sometimes a dot) was placed on/in heh, "ו" on vav and a dot in aleph.
• Unlike the Tiberian system, in this system, pointing is not consistent and only critical vowels are marked. Click here and here to see two manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah which use the Babylonian system.

• The Eretz Yisrael vocalization systemThere is also another system, often referred to as the "Eretz Yisrael-Tiberian system" which uses the Tiberian graphemes, but for the Eretz Yisrael pronunciation. has the fewest vowel qualities, only marking five sounds, as it does not distinguish between the kamatz and patach or the tzere and segol.This might reflect a pronunciation similar to Sephardic Hebrew (and contemporary Israeli Hebrew). As in the Babylonian system, the signs were written on top of the letters, but graphically, they are closer to those of the Tiberian system, comprised of dots and lines rather than letters, as seen here.
• Despite having only 5 vowel qualities, there are seven signs attested to in manuscripts pointed with this system. In many early manuscripts, one finds two different signs for the "a" sound (both a horizontal and a vertical line), being used side by side without distinction. Similarly, though there is one prevalent sign used for the "e" sound (two dots arranged diagonally upwards to the right), some manuscripts have a second sign alongside it (with the dots pointing in the opposite direction), but being used with the same meaning. It is only in later manuscripts, likely due to the influence of the Tiberian system, that one begins to see a distinction in usage between the signs of each set, so that one marks the equivalent of a kamatz and the other a patach, one a tzere and the other a segol.
• This system often did not mark either the vocal or silent sheva, nor did it have any equivalent of a chataf; sometimes, though, where one would expect a vocal sheva, one of the other vowel signs or a c-like symbol is found.
• To mark consonantal אהו"י letters or a dagesh, it used the same "c" (or horizontal v) symbol, while a downward half-circle (equivalent in usage to a rafeh sign) marked the absence of a dagesh or a silent letter.
• Finally, several methods were used to differentiate shin and sin, including marking them with either a "ש" or "ס" or pointing with a left or right dot (within rather than on top of the letter); sometimes, though, they were not marked at all.
• This system, like the Babylonian, was not comprehensive it its use of pointing and often marked only critical vowels, as seen in the images here and here.

• The Tiberian system of vowel notation, the most elaborate and comprehensive of the three systems, eventually supplanted the others and, with time, was adopted by all.
• However, alongside it, the various cultures preserved their own traditions of pronunciation which did not necessarily match that of the Tiberians.
• For example, the Sephardic tradition of pronunciation does not differentiate between the sounds made by a kamatz and patach or a tzere and segol, but it does differentiate between what is known as a kamatz katan (equivalent in sound to the cholam) and kamatz gadol.
• As such, there was a disconnect between the oral tradition which had only five distinct sounds and the written tradition which had seven symbols.Historically, as mentioned above, oral systems tend to be much more fluid than written systems. Often, phonetic changes naturally occur, while written systems are conserved even after the two no longer align. The same process happened with the alphabet itself; it still preserves distinct letters such as ס/ש or כּ/ק even though their sounds are no longer distinguished. Though one might thus advocate for ridding the alphabet of the now unnecessary doublings, doing so would soon make it difficult to read texts from long ago (and significantly increase the number of homographs in the language).
• An attempt to synthesize the systems was made by early Spanish grammarians, most notably by R"Y Kimchi and his son R. David Kimchi, known as Radak. They created a hybrid system, using the seven symbols of the Tiberian system but preserving only five distinct vowel sounds.
• Their system divided the vowels into two groups, with five so-called long vowels and five corresponding short vowels,See p. 137 of Radak's Mikhlol, שער הניקוד. yet without significant differentiation in sound between the short and long vowels. See the summary table here.As seen, unfortunately, this hybrid system can sometimes be a bit confusing, for in some cases two distinct signs represent the same sound, and in one case, the same sign is used for two different sounds.
• This system is that still used today. For a comprehensive overview of the system see here.

• Many of the vowel names used today appear to have originated from Aramaic terms and relate to the physical positioning of the mouth when articulating the vowel.Many have attempted to understand and trace the origins of the vowel names. See, for example, A. Dotan, "The Beginnings of Masoretic Vowel Notation", Masoretic Studies, ed. H.M. Orlinsky, 1974, R. Steiner, "Påṯaḥ and Qåmeṣ: On the Etymology and Evolution of the Names of the Hebrew Vowels" available here and N. Posegay, "Hissing, Gnashing, Piercing, Cracking: Naming Vowels In Medieval Hebrew" available here. The discussion below draws heavily off the latter two articles, though the presentation here is simplified. However, over the years there have been several different naming conventions and, as with many aspects of language, there might have been several different stages in the evolution of the various names:
• Relative Names – One of the earliest conventions appears to have been to mark vowels according to their relative phonetic sounds, distinguishing between pairs of vowels by describing one as having a relatively more open or more closed sound when compared to the other.
• Patach and kamatz – Thus, the earliest terms used were variations of the names patach and kamatz, words which appear to have originated as Aramaic participles (pointed פָּתַח and קָמֵץ) meaning "to open" and "to compress" respectively. These might have been abbreviations of the fuller phrases "פתח פום" and "קמץ פום", meaning to open or close the mouth, referring to the relatively open or closed positioning of the mouth when pronouncing certain vowels.Compare the name "מלאפים" (full mouth) used by many medievals to refer to the cholam.
• These terms were used by Masoretes to refer not only to today's kamatz and patach but also to the tzere and segol, which were often referred to as kamatz katan (a tzere) and patach katan a (segol) to disambiguate from the former.See Ben Asher's Dikdukei HaTeamim where he lists the vowel names: "שבע נקודות, ראשונה היא קמצה, בפה היא קבוצה, ושניה היא פתחה...ושלישית פתחה קטנה, כל פתיים מבינה, ורביעית קמצה קטנה, שתי נקודות מכונה". When mentioning the kamatz katan, he describes it as having two dots, referring to what we call a tzere. As mentioned, the names apparently referred to the relative values of each vowel in the vowel pair.In this period, unlike in modern Israeli Hebrew, the sounds of patach-kamatz and segol-tzere were distinct from one another, the first of each pair being a more open sound, and the other, a relatively closed and longer sound. To distinguish the two, the reader was directed to either open his mouth (for patach or segol) or compress it (for kamatz or tzere.) Several scholars See the articles by A. Dotan and R. Steiner cited above. suggest that this convention might even date back to the period before there was a written system of vowel notation, and the directive "פתח" or "קמץ" might have been used with regards to any of the seven vowel sounds in relation to each other.
• The terms kamatz katan and patach katan continued to be used to refer to the tzere and segol by medieval commentators, sometimes alone,See, for example, Rashi Bemidbar 11:8, R"Y Kara Yeshayahu 7:4, and Ibn Ezra Bereshit 3:12 and Ibn Ezra Bereshit 24:61. or accompanied by the name tzereSee, for example, Rashi Shemot 1:20, R"Y Kara Nachum 1:1, and Rashbam Bereshit 49:5. or the description "two/three dots".See, for example, R"Y Kara (third commentary) Esther 1:8, Ibn Ezra Shemot 23:19, and Ibn Ezra (second commentary) Tehillim 68:24. At times, though, the vowels are referred to as simply patach or kamatz with no modifier.See, for example, the end of Dunash's remarks on the word "הצן", Rashi Bereshit 4:22, Bereshit 41:35, , and Yeshayahu 3:24.
• Graphic Names – Alongside the relative names discussed above, vowels were also referred to by graphic descriptions.
• Thus, for example, a cholam or chirik were referred to as "one dot", a tzere as "two dots" and the like.See the example brought in the previous footnotes and other evidence brought by Posegay in the article cited above.
• Another example of a graphic name, though of a slightly different type, is the segol (סגול). The name likely stems from the Araamic "סְגוֹלָא", meaning a cluster of grapes, matching the triangular shape of the vowel.
• Phonetic Names – Other vowel names (like the kamatz and patach discussed above) originated from phonetic terminology. Four appear to have stemmed from Aramaic nouns, with the names meaning:
• tzere (צירי) – breaking or cracking, referring to the narrow crack that opens between the teeth when pronouncing the vowel sound
• chirik (חיריק) – gnashing of one's teeth, referring to the grinding of teeth when pronouncing the "ee" sound
• cholam (חולם) – closing firmly, referring to the relatively closed position of the lips when pronouncing the "oh" soundOthers suggest that the name means "completeness", referring to a vowel sound made with a full mouth.
• shuruk (שורוק) – whistling, relating to the shape the lips take when both whistling and pronouncing "u"
• In several Judeo-Arabic grammatical works these four vowel names are vocalized as segolate nouns (with a double segol, שֶרֶק, חֶלֶם, חֶרֶק).See the evidence brought in the above cited articles. Later, there was a shift in the pointing of the words stemming from the desire to match the opening vowel of the vowel name with the sound the vowel represents so that שֶרֶק became שורֶק etc. The second syllable of the name, too, was eventually adapted to have a corresponding sound, so that שורק became שורוק etc.This type of vocalization change happened to the names kamatz and patach discussed above as well, with "פָּתַח" becoming "פַּתָּח" and "קָמֵץ" being referred to also as "קָמָץ".
• Two other names are phonetic as well:
• kubbutz (קובוץ) – The name kubbutz) means to "gather", referring to the gathering of the lips/mouth (קיבוץ שפתיים or קבוץ פום)‎Radak often uses the full name "קבוץ שפתיים" and see Minchat Shai Shemuel I 4:20 for the name קבוץ פום. made when pronouncing the "u" sound.As above, the original "קיבוץ" was eventually pronounced by many as "קובוץ" to match the vowel sound. See N. Posegay, cited above, that the term likely did not originate from Aramaic terminology like the above terms, but might be the Hebrew translation of the Arabic vowel name ḍamma, likewise meaning "to bring together" and used for their "u" sound. Several medieval commentators (especially those who predate the Kimchis) do not use this name, but rather use the term shuruk to refer to any "u" sound, not differentiating between the two notations for the vowel.See Ibn Ezra's introduction to his "דקדוק המילים" where he lists the seven vowels, naming the "u" sound as a shuruk, and describing it as either coming in a "ו" or as being represented by three dots. See also Rashi Shemot 14:12 and 15:2 where he refers to our kubbutz as a shuruk and see Gur Aryeh on Shemot 14:12 where he comments about this usage..
• מלאפום – This name, meaning "full mouth" is used by some medieval commentators to refer to our cholam,See Rashi on Shemot 14:12 and R"Y Kara on Shofetim 18:6 and see Gur Aryeh (in Shemot) on the various names used to refer to the vowels by different commentators in different places and eras. while later the same term was used in Germanic lands to refer to our shuruk.See, for example, usage of the name by Malbim on Yechezkel 16:34 and R. D"Z Hoffmann on Devarim 1:1.

• Return to the beginning of this module.
• Click here to see the next module on vowels, delving into the details of the modern system.
• Access additional grammar topics and modules.
• Access additional Interactive Learning Modules.