<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>><br>> How can we call a month Tammuz when it is the name of a Baylonian Deity -
<br>> sholudn't "sheim elohim acheirim lo sazkiru" make that assur mid'orraisso?<br><br>Shu"A Yo"D 147:4 says that one is allowed to mention names of deities<br>that are mentioned in Tanach (In this case, Yechezkel 8:14).
<br><br>Joshua Meisner</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I haven't studied this, but I always assumed that meant davka when reading the Tanach. I.e., while reading the Tanach, when the pasuk mentions a deity, you can say it as written.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Because if any deity mentioned in the Tanach, you can say it whenever you want, at any time, then of what use was the assur during Biblical times? That assur only came into effect much much later (when we first, post-Biblically, encountered non-Canaanite/Babylonian deities), if you say that b'klal it is mutar to say any deity mentioned in the Tanach.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Alternatively, it creates a difference in the mitzvah before and after the Tanach was written. Was it d'oraita assur to say the name, but as soon as the Tanach was written, it suddenly became d'oraita mutar? That seems difficult, to say that Yehoshua or Yechezkel or Yishayahua or Ezra could not say a given name, but we can.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That's why I assumed the heter was davka for when reading the Tanach or saying a pasuk. Otherwise, someone might think that when saying the pasuk, he should say "B-a-a-l" letter by letter. But during my daily speech, it would still be assur to say that name despite his being written in the Tanach (except that he's no longer worshipped today, so actually it is mutar we can say it after all).
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Am I making this all up, or does someone say like me?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mikha'el Makovi</div><br> </div>