11

Since (according to the Gra (YD 147:3), cited in this answer), there is no issue in saying the name "Jesus," would there be an issue in saying the name "Christ"?

This name might be more problematic than "Jesus," because the word "Christ" means anointed, and apparently wasn't his given name, and also is a name that deifies him.

What does halacha have to say about saying the name "Christ"?

b a
  • 24,685
  • 2
  • 54
  • 112
Chiddushei Torah
  • 6,915
  • 14
  • 46
  • 4
    "and also is a name that deifies him"--it doesn't deify, it just messiah-fies – wfb Jun 04 '15 at 15:31
  • 1
    Cristos is the Greek form of the Hebrew word Mashiach. It simple denotes the messiah. So as @wfb noted, it does not name Yeshu as a god, but as a messiah. – ezra May 24 '17 at 16:25
  • I've seen ימח שמו used on his name. Will post source if I find it again. – user6781 Jun 18 '20 at 03:06

1 Answers1

5

It would seem to be that technically there might be no issue saying Christ

  1. Like you pointed out all christ means is anointed. Being that it has a set definition, we don't care if the connotation was changed throughout the generations, as per the sources the Gr"a brings (Mordechai, Hagahos Maamonis, Yereiym etc.)

Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz (link below) quoting Rav Ezriel Hildesheimer - differentiations between titles that are godlike and non godlike appellations. For example like “Lord of the Hosts” or “Our master” connotes a godlike attribute.

But all the word Christ means is annointed.

However Rabbi Ari Enkin in an article on Torah Musings titles “Jesus!” Says that saying Christ is problematic - even according to those that allow to say Jesus:

Nevertheless, one should probably not use the word “Christ”, as it is Greek (and/or Latin) for “the messiah”, “the savior”, and even “the lord” all of which are terms that are forbidden to be attributed to anyone.

Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz in a recent Shiur (I unfortunately do not have a recording) prohibited the use of the word Christ

Listen here from Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz who quotes Rav Herschel Schachter that says saying Christ is problematic.

Shoel U'Meishiv
  • 15,505
  • 1
  • 37
  • 80
  • 1
    What about when it's used as a name -- as a clear reference to an individual in history? I'm talking about uses like "C-- died on the cross" etc -- that's clearly talking about one false claimant to the title, not the concept in general. In other words, when it is used as a name, is the Gr"a still ok with it? – Monica Cellio Dec 24 '14 at 15:14
  • @MonicaCellio the answer is yes, the name, word, appellation or whatever you want to call it, is not a name which inherently connotes lordship or godliness, so even if the meaning has changed over the generations, it doesn't matter. That is the entire point of the Gr"a, that even though yushka became a god over the generations, it doesn't change the essence of the name, it still retains the category of "shem hedyot", despite the fact that the name Jesus and "our lord and savior, the son of god blah blah" are inextricably connected. – Shoel U'Meishiv Dec 24 '14 at 18:47
  • 2
    @Mefaresh R. Hildesheimer doesn't say "christ" is less problematic, he says it's more problematic – wfb Jun 04 '15 at 15:32
  • @Mefaresh besides wfb's point from your quote, the tshuva says NOT to say it, even if the issur is not clear being that previous generations did not it is at least similar to a davar shel hetter shenogagim bah issur, she'ee efsher lihater lifneihem. And it is especially problematic in front of impressionable youth. – user6591 Jun 05 '15 at 17:37
  • 1
    Is it ok to refer to a well-known am ha-aretz as "rabbi"? After all, it's not a name, just a title, and a title far less lofty than mashiach. But we see people refusing to call even people who've been through rabbinical programs "rabbi" when they disagree with the issuing institution. (I am not trying to start a fight about that, only pointing out the example.) So it seems that there's probably some problem with ascribing honored titles to people who haven't earned them. Do any of these sources talk about that, or are they focused on ascribing lordship specifically? – Monica Cellio Jan 03 '18 at 15:59
  • @MonicaCellio I’m sorry i don’t understand what you are trying to convey. The issue at hand is whether or not an honorific can, in a sense, become a name of an Avoda Zarah - and thus be subject to the prohibition of uttering it. Maybe you could rephrase the question or speak your premise again? Thank you – Shoel U'Meishiv Jan 04 '18 at 17:15
  • Sorry, let me retry. You say that it's ok to use that word because it's not specifically a name of an avodah zara. But it seems like we have other cases where we don't use a person's claimed title because we dispute its validity. And if that's so, it seems like it would especially apply to somebody claiming to be the mashiach. So I wonder if there's more to it than just the "name of AZ" angle. Is that better? – Monica Cellio Jan 04 '18 at 17:20
  • @MonicaCellio thank you for clarifying - I’m still not sure i fully understand the premise of the question, but I think thats the issue. As the possible reasons why we we would or wouldn’t bestow a title or honorific to someone isn’t working within the same framework that the laws of AZ are.The title rabbi nowadays has very a very watered down meaning. Without getting into the nitty gritty it has very little real pure halachic ramifications- thus whatever infighting there is regarding refueling to call someone a rabbi who had been through a “rabbinical program” is purely an ideological debate – Shoel U'Meishiv Jan 04 '18 at 17:27
  • The Gra says (quoting Hagahot Maimoniyot) that it would be forbidden to say שם שניתן לה לשם אלקות - he doesn't say it's permitted to say "a name with a definition" or "an appellation," and as I understand it שם שניתן לה לשם אלקות is an appellation – b a Jun 17 '20 at 10:49
  • @ba Thank you for your comment. The crux of the issue is whether “Messiah” or “annointed one” is a considered a shem hedyot (i understood Shem hedyot to mean “a non deity name”) Christ is not the name of a deity. It doesn’t mean the lord or a superior being - does it? Interested to hear what you think – Shoel U'Meishiv Jun 17 '20 at 10:53
  • @ShoelU'Meishiv I have no opinion on whether Christ in particular is the name of a deity or not, but I think that the two reasons you brought to permit saying Christ would be irrelevant (the fact that it has a definition) or even possibly a reason to forbid saying it (the fact that it is an appellation). If you read שם הדיוט to mean "non-deity name," as you say, then that could be a reason to permit (though I would have read it as "given name") – b a Jun 17 '20 at 11:18
  • @ba Rav Ezriel Hildesheimer specifically says Christ just means anointed - he says lemaaseh not to. But its an innocuous idea unto itself – Shoel U'Meishiv Jun 18 '20 at 11:28
  • @ShoelU'Meishiv I don't think the meaning of the word is relevant, based on my understanding of the Gra which you quote in support of it. (I didn't read Rabbi Hildesheimer or listen to Rabbi Leibowitz so I don't know what they say. My point is only with regard to the Gra, because you say that the Gra's sources say something that I don't see them as saying.) – b a Jun 18 '20 at 11:35