14

I'm taking an Aramaic class, and one of the words that came up in the text I'm reading is "yehuweh," meaning "he will become" (in context, "he will become my successor). It is spelled with the exact four letters as the name of God.

Since it's not actually the name of God - only spelled the exact same way - do I treat it as such? Should I not dispose of my notes?

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
Ayyu-Arku
  • 141
  • 2
  • 1
    I see no reason that would have any Kedusha. We have many instances of the letters of names of God being written with other meanings with no problem at all. – Double AA Nov 27 '13 at 03:55
  • 1
    I made a similar argument here http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10682/how-could-the-numerals-and-be-used-irreverently/10692#comment81212_10692 – Double AA Nov 27 '13 at 04:00
  • 4
    @DoubleAA Perhaps extra stringency is appropriate with the Shem Havaya, sort of in the same vein as T'rumas HaDeshen (P'sakim §171): אולי י"ל דהואיל והוא מן השם המיוחד בכתיבתו יש להחמיר יותר. – Fred Nov 27 '13 at 04:10
  • @Fred That's talking about a place where there is kavana, but no tzura. You can even imagine prohibiting this to someone who actually speaks Aramaic?? – Double AA Nov 27 '13 at 04:13
  • @DoubleAA, I think this question could be effectively and productively answered via citation of a source that indicates that kavana is essential to an expression of a name being considered holy. If it calls out (as it were) the tetragrammaton by name (as it were), so much the better. – Isaac Moses Nov 27 '13 at 04:27
  • 1
    @DoubleAA That's why I wrote "perhaps" and "sort of in the same vein." But the p'sak does seem to give significance to the tzura, as well. And yes, I can imagine prohibiting it to anyone, even if it was meant as a different word in a different language but with the same alphabet (which is not to say I think it is prohibited, only that I can entertain the possibility). That's the point of my above comment, and that's why I think this is a good question. – Fred Nov 27 '13 at 04:53
  • 2
    @IsaacMoses The "Keset ha-Sofer" does say something like this, but only in the context of sofrut. Halakha 10:6 here: http://www.hasoferet.com/ritual/keset/chapter10.shtml – Shivaram Lingamneni Nov 27 '13 at 10:56
  • 1
    Origin discussion at Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/1rji3d/sortof_writing_the_name_of_god/ – Isaac Moses Nov 27 '13 at 16:06
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/29074 as well as http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/28084 and http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/16113 – Fred Dec 02 '13 at 07:09
  • 4
    Rambam (Hil. Y'sodei HaTorah 6:9) rules in accordance with the Tanna Kamma (Sh'vuos 35b; Sof'rim 4:7) and the Y'rushalmi (M'gilla 1:9) that usage of that name in Shof'tim (17,18) is considered profane. Even R' Eliezer who disagrees in the case of Micha (במיכה יש מהן חול ויש מהן קדש אלף למד חול יוד הי קדש) maintains that the letters of shem Havaya are profane in the case of pilegesh b'giv'a (see also Meiri on N'darim 25a and Sh'vu'os 29a). This seems to indicate that it is possible to have a profane form of the shem Havaya just as it is possible with other names of HaShem. – Fred Dec 02 '13 at 18:13
  • @DoubleAA The Y'rei'im (§366), the Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hil. Y'sodei HaTorah 6:1), and the Tashbetz (I, §177) all rule there's no problem if the person's intent wasn't to write HaShem's Name. The Shach (YD 276:12, as understood by Bei'ur Halacha on 32:3) writes more stringently that it's forbidden to erase a Holy Name written without specific intent, but it can be erased if it's clearly written as a shem chol. Igros Moshe (YD 1:172) seems to take a middle view, following the Shach for only the Shem Havaya. – Fred Jul 15 '16 at 08:27
  • @DoubleAA There appear to be multiple opinions on this issue. For some discussion, see here, here (para. beginning "האם יש קדושה"), here, here, and here. – Fred Jul 15 '16 at 08:34
  • @Fred In the Bavli it is indeed R' Eliezer who holds kodesh by micha but chol by givah, but in Sofrim it's R' Yosi who holds kodesh by micha and R' Eliezer who holds chol by givah, so there's no proof everyone holds of the existence of a chol name since R' Yosi may agree with R' Yehoshua about givah. (I haven't checked any manuscripts to see if the names in the printed versions are at all accurate.) – Double AA Oct 19 '21 at 15:22

2 Answers2

3

One may both write, erase, and speak the word יְהֻוֶה.

Source: Rabbi Leib Tropper, talmid muvhak of Rabbi Pinchas Sheinberg.

Please edit to include a dagesh in the vav (יְהֻוֶּה) if you know it should be there.

Community
  • 1
Adám
  • 6,801
  • 21
  • 54
1

The Shach in Yoreh Deah 206 #12 references a responsa of his where he rules that a mundane word which resembles a holy name such as והייתם כאלהים may be erased. This was said concerning a Seffer Torah.

Those are his words. There would be no reason to be more stringent with a word which resembles a holy name written anywhere else.

[The Shach mentions two more categories which I'll quote. Whereas a holy name written without kedusha can only be erased in order to fix what is being written. And a holy name with kedusha can never be erased. Even if it was written with intention to be cut out and put in geniza, it is not allowed to do this. ]

user6591
  • 33,638
  • 2
  • 39
  • 81