Question: When reciting a berachah in English, does a person fulfill his obligation if he says “Hashem” instead of “L-rd” or “G-d”?
Yosef
Answer: The Mechaber rules (based on Shabbos 12b and Sotah 32a) that one may pray in any language when praying with a congregation, save for Aramaic, which angels do not know. The Beit Yosef explains that Aramaic is an unpleasant language.
The Aruch Hashulchan argues that a Jew should pray in Hebrew except when it comes to prayers like selichot and yotzrot. Shulchan Aruch HaRav states that it is far better for someone who has not mastered the Holy Tongue to pray in a language he understands.
Last week we cited a responsum of the former chief rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, zt”l (Yabia Omer, vol 1, Orach Chayim 12). He was asked about transliterated siddurim (for the Turkish Jewish community), the basic question being whether a person can discharge his obligation by reading (or listening to) prayers whose meaning he doesn’t understand.
Rabbi Yosef cites authorities who are strict and maintain that a person must know what he saying (or listening to) when he prays. He leans towards this view, but notes that if it were the halacha, the prayers of multitudes of Jews would be considered worthless, which is a difficult position to maintain. He therefore endorses the printing of the transliterated siddurim he was asked about. He does so even though Hebrew has some sounds that are not represented in transliteration (based on authorities who rule that someone who mispronounces in Hebrew can nevertheless perform chalitzah and recite Birkat Kohanim if certain conditions are met).
* * * * *
We have thus far proven that all our prayers and blessings should optimally be said in the Holy Tongue. It is therefore important that just as young children are taught to read Hebrew, so too an adult who first recognizes Hashem late in life should make every effort to learn the Holy Tongue and thus be able to fulfill his prayer and mitzvah obligations in an ideal manner.
Relevant to this discussion is a responsa by the Gaon Rabbi Menashe Klein, zt”l (Responsa Mishneh Halachot Vol. 5:119) about the permissibility of throwing out a U.S. postage stamp bearing the words “Under G-d” (with the second word spelled with an “o” between the “G” and the “d”). Rabbi Klein notes an even greater question can be asked. Can one open the envelope and thus risk tearing the stamp and G-d’s name (which constitute a violation of “mocheik” – erasing the Holy Name)?
Rabbi Klein also raises the possibility that a Jew working for the post office might not be allowed to postmark the envelope since the postmark often covers the stamp, which may constitute erasing G-d’s name. And one perhaps may be forbidden from sending a letter with such a stamp knowing that the name will be descrated. One may also be forbidden from carrying such a letter into an unclaean place (such as the restroom).
At the heart of all these questions is the status of G-d’s name written in English. Does it possess the kedushah of G-d’s name in Hebrew? The answer to this question is also relevant for U.S. coins bearing G-d’s name in English (e.g., can one walk with them into a bathroom?).
The Rambam (Hilchot Shevuot 2:2) writes that an oath made with the Holy Name or one of the substitute names – e.g., he swears by He whose Name is Chanun (Merciful) or He whose name is Rachum (Compassionate) – in any language is considered a shevuah gemura (a firmly placed oath). Thus, in Rambam’s view any name that refers to Hashem, no matter the language, is halachically considered His sanctified Name.
Rabbi Klein also cites the Mechaber, who writes (Choshen Mishpat 27:1), “One who curses another Jew with the Name or one of the substitute names or one of those used by gentiles to refer to Hashem, b’eidim v’hasra’a (in the presence of witnesses who warned him), is lashed for violating the Biblical injunction in Parshat Kedoshim (Leviticus 19:14) ‘Lo tekallel cheiresh – You shall not curse the deaf.’ [Rashi, citing Torat Kohanim, explains that this prohibition precludes cursing any Jew, not just deaf Jews; cf. Rav Yosha Wolk Hakohen, Me’eirat Einayim C.M. 27 ad. loc].
“If the one he cursed is a dayan (a beit din judge), he violates the additional injunction of ‘Elokim lo tekallel – you shall not curse Hashem.’” (Rashi, citing Sanhedrin 66a, explains that included in this injunction is both one who curses Hashem and one who curses a judge, who is also referred to as elohim.)
Rabbi Klein also cites the Tumim, essentially identical to Netivot Hamishpat (C.M. 27:2), who states. “Unfortunately, due to our manifold sins, many people are not careful and [when upset] say in Ashkenaz [i.e., Yiddish], ‘G-t zul ihm struffen, G-t zul ihm shluggin – May Hashem afflict him, may Hashem strike him.’ By doing so, they violate a Torah prohibition [‘Lo tekallel’]. In our sinful times, they are careless with using substitute names for Hashem and [mistakenly] think that what is written or spoken in the gentile tongue is only a substitute [without any sanctity] and they also write ‘A Di-eu’ – which means ‘with Hashem’ in French – on their documents, which are later thrown in the trash. Our sages (Rosh Hashana 18b) already created a Yom Tov on the day they eliminated Hashem’s name from documents because a person would pay off his debt and the document containing the loan, with the Holy Name on it, would be discarded in the trash.”
The Tumim concludes: “Unfortunately, due to our manifold sins we have learned from society at large and matters have degenerated to to the point that they were in earlier times. Such behavior has caused a weakening of our people in places where the Holy Name is found [and used needlessly] and especially where it is disgraced and for no reason. Therefore, what is needed is the wisdom and due diligence of the Gedolei Yisrael to eradicate this practice from amongst the masses of our people.”
See as well Chochmat Adam and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch who also write that the prohibition applies no matter the language (when spoken and when written down). In other words, stamps with the words “Under G-d” would be problematic.
(To be continued)