[Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos?

Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 PDT 2016

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says <
: YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. >
: 
: 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full
: text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. >

And skipping ahead a bit:
: After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah
: had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is
: interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation
: than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that
: the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the
: two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's
: use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---".

And in between:
: I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos
: should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the
: Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous.

All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore
assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A"
in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y
EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R
... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have
"Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of
sheim Hashem implied.

Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually
avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find)
breaking your ambiguity.

So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim,
as per the MB.

Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a
distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal,
and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots,
or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray.

...
: I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one
: says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't
: that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues
: that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by
: pronouncing them that way?

There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh,
other names of G-d, and kinuyim.

Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in
a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds.
Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we
switched to using H' or 4'.

Kinui inflation.

In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's
reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush
hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d.

One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it
"HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d",
which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the
title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was
perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon
at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n045.shtml#10>.)

I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary,
investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste.

That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me.
But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from
being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is
to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using
it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if
people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't.

But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first
principles.

BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate
it as "<Hashem>" like "<Ploni> ben <Ploni>". After all, it's really an
instruction to the reader or listener, "<name>" like <insert the Creator's
name here>.

Or:
Blessed are you _______ our G-d...
                (name)

GCT and :-)@@ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha at aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites