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: Last week we cited Rabbi Menashe Klein, zt”l (Responsa Mishneh Halachot, Vol. 5:119) who addressed whether G-d’s name possesses sanctity when printed on a stamp or imprinted on a coin. Dependent on the answer to this question is the permissibility of tearing such a stamp, throwing it in the garbage, or even mailing a letter with it (since somoene in the postal office will likely place the postmark directly on Hashem’s name).
The Rambam (Hilchot Shevuot 2:2) rules that substitute names for the Divinity are equivalent to the name itself and an oath taken with any of these names are considered proper oaths. The Mechaber (C.M. 27:1) rules that one receives lashes for cursing a Jew with a substitute name (as if the actual Divine Name were used). The Tumim (Netivot Hamishpat) writes that cursing using the Yiddish name for G-d is forbidden.
* * * * *
Rabbi Klein also cites the Shach (Yoreh De’ah 179: 11), who presents a different view. He maintains that Hashem’s name “written in the Holy Tongue is the [Divine] Name, but Hashem’s name in secular languages – e.g., ‘G-t’ in Yiddish or ‘B-g’ in Polish and Russian – is not sanctified.”
According to this opinion, one can erase Hashem’s name in a different language. Rabbi Klein is puzzled by this ruling, though, since it seems to run counter to that of the Rambam and Mechaber. He notes that Rabbi Akiva Eger (siman 25) seeks to reconcile the two views. Yes, he writes, an oath with Hashem’s name in translation is valid, and yet, nonetheless, one may still erase this name as it is a substitute name (a nickname) and therefore does not possess sanctity. He notes that there are even Hebrew substitute names (the Gemara [Shevuot 35a] enumerates seven), that may be erased but which render an oath valid.
Rabbi Klein offers proof for the Shach’s view from the responsa (vol. 1:62) of the Tashbetz (Rabbi Shimon b. Tzemach, 1361-1444), who writes that the Divine Name in its various translated forms may be erased. And he interprets the Rambam we cited above (Hilchot Shevuot 2:2) to mean, not that substitute names are like the Name itself and possess sanctity, but that substitute names are good enough to render an oath valid.
Rabbi Klein also cites the Ritva and Ran (cited by Kesef Mishneh, end of Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 6), Vilna Gaon (Choshen Mishpat 27), Responsa Ohr Same’ach (of Rabbi Meir Simcha Hakohen of Dvinsk, 1843-1926), and Tzofnat Pane’ach, Yesodei HaTorah (6:2), all of whom maintain that names gentiles use to refer to the Deity bear no sanctity.
The Radbaz (1479-1589) writes emphatically in his reponsa (862:9): “And you should know that even though I wrote that an oath sworn with a substitute name is valid and in full force, one is not considered to have recited the Holy Name in vain if one uses a substitute name. I have carefully discerned this as well from the words of the Rambam insofar as verbally mentioning one of the substitute names is not considered a violation of uttering the Name in vain.”
It thus seems from Rabbi Klein’s words that a substitute name may be erased and there is no need to exercise caution regarding stamps and coins that bear Hashem’s name in English. One can tear such stamps and even throw them in the garbage.
(To be continued)