CURR 29-33

DESTROYING THE DIVINE NAME

At certain Jewish social affairs of a partially religious nature, such as Bar Mitzvahs, etc., cakes are served with the Name of God written in icing on them. How can it be permitted to eat such cakes, since it is forbidden to destroy the Name of God? (Asked by Professor Jacob Marcus, Cincinnati, Ohio.)

WHILE it may seem to be merely curious interest as to whether the Name of God may be put on cakes, many more serious problems are related to it, such as painting verses on synagogue walls, since when the time comes for the synagogue to be redecorated, the Names of God originally painted on the walls will have to be blotted out. Also, the question would involve the treatment of utensils, spoons, etc., with the Name of God engraved upon them. The ques-tion is a difficult one, not only because the law involved is highy complicated, but also because in the development of the law, there are two basically opposite tendencies. It is therefore necessary to go into the subject rather fully.

The basic prohibition of erasing the Name of God is derived from the verse in Deuteronomy 12:3—4, where we are told: “Thou shalt destroy their names (of the idols) but thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God.” The Sifre to the passage (ed. Friedmann, p. 87b) says that it is therefore forbidden to erase the Name of God. The Talmud in b. Maccos 22a uses the same verse as the basis for this prohibition. The Rambam in Hilchoth Yesode Torah, VI, 1ff., develops most of the law implied in this prohibition. He speaks also of engraving on a vessel and says that the Name of God (on the spoon or cup) must be cut out and hidden, put away (ganuz) before the article can be melted. The Name of God tattooed on the skin must be covered up when bathing. The prohibition of erasure applies to all sacred writings (not only the Torah scroll). Thus in Sefer Ha-chinuch (Aaron of Barcelona), commandment 437 likewise states that wherever the Name is found, in whatever commentary, etc., it may not be destroyed. This ex-plains the habit of preserving old prayerbooks, etc., and burying them with a righteous man in the cemetery, as was originally done with the Sefer Torah.

The prohibition elaborates into questions such as this: If a verse containing the Name of God were painted on the walls of a synagogue, how can the walls later be repainted thus erasing the Name of God? This question was asked of Jonah Landsofer (Bohemia, seventeentheighteenth cen-tury) and he, in turn, asked it of Meyer Eisenstadt (see M’il Zedaka, 23 and 24, and Panim Meiros I, 45). They both are disinclined to permit the repainting, although both are troubled by the statement in Sota 35b that the Jews wrote the Torah on stone in seventy languages and then plastered the stone, hiding the writing.

All of the above is sufficient to indicate that the tendency of the law has been towards increasing carefulness with the Name of God, spreading the former sanctity of the written Name in Scrolls to the printed Name (prayerbooks, etc.), to the painted Name (on synagogue walls, etc.), to the engraved Name (on spoons, etc.).

While this tendency towards increasing caution as to the erasure of the Name is a definite development, nevertheless, there are so many limitations (which we will now mention) to the prohibition of erasure that they constitute an entirely opposite tendency. First of all, what does the law mean by “writing”? The Mishnah (in Sabbath XII, 4) discussing what sort of writing is prohibited on the Sabbath, says that if one writes with fruit juice or with any material that does not endure, this is not to be legally considered “writing,” and therefore it is not prohibited on the Sabbath. Hence, a writing of the Name of God on a cake with sugar or whatever the icing is composed of, is not permanent writing at all and, therefore, not prohibited. Obviously, since (technically) it is not writing, one may destroy it.

A second consideration involves who the writer is. Even a Sefer Torah, if written by an epikoros, a min, i.e., an unbelieving Jew, must actually be burned with all the Names of God in it (see reference in the Yad 6, 8; this is based upon the Talmud in b. Gittin 45b). If it is written, however, by a non-Jew, it must be hidden away (i.e., not burned). The Rambam says that if written by a non-believing Jew, it is even a mitzvah to burn it. Who knows who the pastry chef was who wrote the Name of God? Only if he were a pious Jew could the Name have any sanctity (aside from the question of the temporary nature of the “writing”).

Furthermore, and this perhaps is the most important ele ment in the whole matter, not all writing of the Name of God, even by a pious Jew, is sacred. All the laws on this matter are derived from the writings of the Sefer Torah and other scrolls. Every writing of the Name of God, in order to be deemed sacred, has to be written with the conscious intent on the part of the scribe and his clear awareness that he is writing it for a sacred purpose (l’shem kedusha). Joseph Caro, based upon early authorities, even believes that he must actually utter the formula of consecration for every Torah Divine Name he comes to. At all events, either in mind or by actual words, the Name is not holy unless consciously consecrated (see Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah, 274 and the long discussion by the Taz in the passage).

Suppose, then, the Names are not consciously consecrated. What is their status? May they be erased? The classic source of the discussion of this question is in Simon ben Zemach Duran (Tashbetz I, 177). He bases his argument on the Talmud in Gittin 20a, where we are told that if the scribe should have written “YHWH” but thought that he should have written “Judah,” but by chance left out the daled and thus wrote the Name “YHWH” anyhow, the law is (with the Rabbis) that the Name is not sacred (at least not proper). Duran, upon this foundation, says that the Name is not sacred at all, unless written with conscious intent to make it sacred. (See, also, Hagahot Maimoniot to the Yad 1.e.).

Upon this foundation, Joseph Babad (of Tarnopol) in his famous commentary to Sefer Ha-chinuch (Minchas Chinuch) says (1.e.) explicitly: It is the opinion of many of the earlier and later authorities that no sin is committed by erasing a Name which we know for certain was not con-sciously consecrated (cf. top of column 2, p. 42).

It is evident that the mood, especially of the later Halacha, is to avoid any erasure of any Name of God. Yet the basic law is absolutely clear that an impermanent writing by someone of whose piety we do not know, and which, at all events, has never been consciously sanctified, such a Name has no sanctity at all. The only conclusion one can come to, based upon the general mood of the law, is that in the case mentioned, no sin has been committed, but what was done is contrary to the spirit of reverence for God’s Name.