The Word “God” Spelled “G-d”
Your question concerns the spelling of the word “God” in English printed material. You have noticed that in recent years, many Orthodox magazines print the word “G-d. ” Now you have found that the bulle tin of one of the Reform congregations has apparently adopted the custom of the Orthodox and spelled the word in the same skeleton way. Should we follow that custom in our own bulletin? What is the justification for it in the Jewish legal tradition? (To Rabbi
Walter Jacob, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
The question involves one of the most complicated themes in Jewish legal literature. Almost every phase of it has been subject to debate and divergence of decision. The basic source of the law is Deuteronomy 12 : 3 and 4. The verses contrast the treatment to be accorded idolatry with that accorded to the worship of God. It reads: “Thou shalt destroy their altars and erase their name” [of the idols], and it continues (verse 4): “Thou shalt not do thus to the Lord thy God.” The Sifre to this verse says that from this we derive the law that it is forbidden to erase the name of God. This statement is the source of a great deal of law with regard to the writing of Torah scrolls. If, for example, the scribe makes a mistake and writes the name of God where it should not appear, may he erase the error? If he misspells the name of God, may he erase the incorrect letter? These laws are discussed in the Talmud (Menahot 30c and b) and are finally codified in the law in Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah276.
The question then ramified into many other questions. If a Sefer Torah is written by a heretic and according to some authorities (Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 281 : 1) must be burned, how is it possible to permit the burning of all the names of God in that scroll? If, as often occurred in certain old synagogues, psalms and texts were painted on the wall, how could the synagogue be repainted and those names of God be erased by the new paint (in case they no longer wanted to have those verses on the wall)? (Z’vi Eisenstadt, “Panim M’iros,” vol. I,45, and Jonah Landsofer, “M’ill Zedekah” 24 and 25.)
New complications arose at the beginning of the age of printing. Does sanctity inhere only in the written name of God, or does it apply also to printed text? What about texts written in languages other than Hebrew? Are these texts to be deemed sacred?
A variation of the problem is found in the discussion in the Talmud (b. R.H. 18b) where there is a report that the name of God used to be written in notes of debt (i.e., in the date) as, “In the third year of Johanan, High Priest of God.” Then a man would pay his debt and the note with God’s name would be found on the ash heap. Therefore they prohibited this use of God’s name in order to protect it from undignified neglect. Thus to the problem of erasure was added the problem of indignity through neglect.
During the last century, owing to a rather curious circumstance, most of these problems received a thorough discussion in one single essay. When Chaim Cheskia Medini published the first volume of his great legal compendium, he named it after the verse in Isaiah 32 : 12, “S’de Chemed” (Pleasant Fields). A rabbi wrote to him objecting to the title, saying that in case some of the sheets should be thrown onto an ash heap and the title were torn in half, the word S’de, meaning “field,” would look like the word Shaddai, which is one of the names of God.
To defend his use of the title, Medini wrote a long essay called “Be’er Bisdey” (Explanation of the Fields), in which he defended his use of the title, stating primarily that this word means “fields” and not “God,” and that even if he had meant it to signify God, that would not be wrong, for there were scores of books using the name of God in their titles. Following his own detailed statement are a series of letters from most of the great scholars of the generation. This essay, “Be’er Bisdey,” contains much of the legal material involved in our problem. Yet there are certain matters not included since, after all, Medini did not mean to use the name of God, while those who write and who print “G-d” do mean it to be the name of God. Therefore the matter has to be discussed systematically.
Before going into the subject itself, one general consideration must be borne in mind. This writing of the word “G-d” is a fairly recent custom in America, and all new restrictions and disciplines must be looked upon with suspicion. Just as it is wrong to eliminate laws, so it is wrong to add restrictions and prohibitions. Such additional strictness as this spelling represents in English texts must not be allowed unless it is absolutely certain that it is required. An example of how far such new restrictions can go is the one made by Isaac ben Aryeh Rudnik in his responsa “S’de Yitzchok” 5 (London, 1961). He would forbid the sound taping of the wedding ceremony, for if the tape were to be erased, the name of God would thus be destroyed! Of course, anybody may add additional strictness to his own behavior; but he has no right to add additional strictness to the life of the general Jewish public unless, of course, this new strictness has become indispensable because of some new situation or is unmistakably justified in the law. It will be seen upon study of this matter that every basis of the prohibition is dubious or, at least, debatable.
First of all, the primary prohibition against erasure (by act or neglect) of the name of God applies to the sacred names in the properly written text of the Torah, and even in the Torah itself, those names of God are not sacred unless the scribe, by a specifically uttered formula, sanctifies them. If the scribe has not sanctified them, then there is considerable opinion that even the names in the Torah may be erased (see authorities quoted by Isaac Schmelkes in letter 23, in “Be’er Bisdey”). Certainly if a scroll is written by a heretic, it may be allowed to be burned up in a fire on the Sabbath, without needing to be rescued from the fire (cf. above).
Secondly, after the age of printing, there was a widespread debate as to whether the sanctity of the sacred written text of the Torah carried over to printed texts. There is a strong body of opinion to the effect that the special sanctity inheres only in the formally written text. Of course, custom has made printed prayer books sacred and they are carefully preserved and buried. Nevertheless, the strong opinion against the sanctity being transferred to printed texts cannot be ignored (see letter of Schwadron in “Be’er Bisdey,” Letter 13).
Furthermore, the bulk of legal opinion consisting of some of the greatest authorities insists that the sanctity which the law ascribes to the written name of God applies only to the name as written in the Hebrew language, in the sacred tongue. Sabbetai Cohen (Schach) in his commentary to the Shulchan Aruch (Yore Deah 179 : 11) says that the rules of special handling do not apply at all to the name of God written in any other language. Therefore, he says, such names as Gott in German or Bog in Russian may be erased, having none of the requirements of special sanctity as writing. The great authority Yair Chaim Bachrach, in his Responsa 107 (109 in Lemberg ed., 1894), is inclined to believe that if these non-Hebrew names, Gott or Bog are written in Hebrew letters, they are somewhat sacred and may not be erased. But if they are written in non-Hebrew letters, he says (clearly and scornfully): “I cannot imagine that there would be any man in the world who would think that they have any sanctity.” If Bachrach had lived today, he would find out that there are people who imagine that “God” written in EngHsh has special sanctity (cf. also Solomon Eger, “Gilion Maharsha” to Yore Deah 276). Further references to the fact that the name of God has no technical sanctity in any language other than Hebrew, and therefore may be erased, are responsa of Simon ben Zemach Duran (“Tashbetz” I : 2) and Akiba Eger (Responsa 25).
There is one final consideration. The law is clear (see Maimonides, “Hilchos Y’Sodeh Torah” VI : 2, and the Talmud in b. Shevuos 35a and b) that there are seven different names of God which have the same sanctity and must be carefully preserved (against erasure and neglect and so on). These are: Jhvh, Adonoi, El, Eloah, Elohim, Shaddai, and Zebaoth. Since that is the case, then if “God” is deemed sacred in English, we will have to find a special, mutilated spelling for EI, Elohim, Shaddai, and so forth, which will bring the matter close to the ridiculous.
Since, therefore, every subquestion involved in this matter is debated and undecided, and especially since with regard to the technical sanctity of English the weight of opinion is in the negative, it is actually forbidden, or at least it is against the spirit of Jewish law, to make an additional restrictive decree requiring all printers, and others, to write the word “G-d.” In fact, the great Galician authority of the last generation, Shalom Mordecai Schwadron, in his letter in the “Be’er Bisdey” mentioned above (letter 13), ends his defense of Medini by citing exactly this principle (which is found in the Palestinian Talmud, Shevi’is II: 4-5). This great Galician scholar, speaking of precisely this subject matter, says: “We may not multiply and add restrictions and decrees.”
Therefore in our bulletin we will continue to spell the name “God” in full.