dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/16/83)
I have had a number of requests for a reposting of my article on
the status of holy names which are written and stored in digital form.
I originally posted this to net.religion on August 4, 1983.
================================================================
I spoke with Rabbi David Schochet, who is the senior Rabbi (the "Rav")
of the Lubavitch community in Toronto. (Lubavitchers are Orthodox
Jews who follow particular teachings and a particular way of life;
they are fully observant of halachah, Jewish religious law.)
Rabbi Schochet's answer can be summarized as follows:
1. The translation or transliteration of a holy name into English
is not the same as the original, but it is still holy, and, if
written on paper, should not be destroyed. One should write "G-d"
instead.
2. "Writing" on disk is not the same as making a writing ("k'sivah").
Therefore, it is permissible to destroy a holy name (in Hebrew or
English) which is written on disk. However, one should not erase
simply the name itself; one should do so only when destroying/erasing
the entire document or paragraph.
3. Records (the record-player type), audio tapes and magnetic tape
fall into the same category as disks. They are not k'sivah. (Thus,
a tape of someone reciting prayers with sacred names can be destroyed.)
Microfilm, however, is k'sivah, even though you may need a special
reader or microscope to read the writing.
4. If you are creating a file on disk and put a holy name into it,
it is not your reponsibility if someone chooses to run it off
onto hardcopy and then destroy the hardcopy. The same goes for
sending someone private mail, if you know they will be reading
the mail on a screen rather than hardcopy terminal.
5. When posting news, you can be pretty sure someone out there will
be reading the news either with a hardcopy terminal (does anyone
actually do this? I'd like to hear) or via "readnews -p" to the
line printer. Accordingly, you should not put holy names into
news because they will certainly be printed on paper and then
destroyed as a result of your actions.
6. Even when sending private mail, it is better to use hyphens
so that you are not spelling out the name in full, to be
safer and out of respect for the holiness of what you are
writing. However, as outlined in #4 above, it is not prohibited
to spell out the full name.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davetim@unc.UUCP (12/18/83)
Interesting, but with regards to English language translations still being holy and it being preferable to write "G-d", doesn't that make "G-d" itself into a translation, and leave you right where you started?
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/19/83)
From Tim Maroney:
-- Interesting, but with regards to English language translations still being
-- holy and it being preferable to write "G-d", doesn't that make "G-d" itself
-- into a translation, and leave you right where you started?
It's possible, but I think not. "G-d" is so different from normal
English words (normal English words don't have hyphens in them,
after all), that it's quite visibly a substitution for something.
Of course there's nothing "magical" about the letters "g", "o" and
"d". The reason for not writing the name is partly for our own sake -
it reminds the writer and reader of the sanctity of the topic of
discussion.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davetim@unc.UUCP (12/22/83)
I must be crazy to argue with a lawyer, but... Dave, I never said that translating the Hebrew YHVH form as "G-d" was a translation into normal English, only that it was a translation. Given this, your argument about the difference between "G-d" and normal English doesn't really hold water. If there is some difference between translating a word and finding a readily comprehensible substitute, I don't know what it is. Care to try again? -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/30/83)
Tim Maroney says:
-- I must be crazy to argue with a lawyer, but...
--
-- Dave, I never said that translating the Hebrew YHVH form as "G-d" was a
-- translation into normal English, only that it was a translation. Given
-- this, your argument about the difference between "G-d" and normal English
-- doesn't really hold water. If there is some difference between translating
-- a word and finding a readily comprehensible substitute, I don't know what it
-- is. Care to try again?
I must be crazy to argue religion with unc!tim, but...
As I see it, the difference is that the *translation* is not into "G-d",
but into the fully-spelled word. Only when it is written casually, that
is, in some form in which it is likely to be destroyed, do we write the
word imperfectly. "G-d" is not a translation but an incomplete substitute
for the translation.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davelaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/02/84)
Dave, Suppose electronic mail catches on like crazy and everybody uses "G-d" just because everyone else does. How long can people keep doing this before "G-d" becomes as valuable as "God" and should not be destroyed? If it is not time-dependant, then what is it dependant on? Was "God" a valuable word in the year 10 B.C., for instance? Is it the attitude that counts, in that as long as people remember that they are using "G-d" in place of "God" out of respect for "God", "G-d" will be okay? (Hmm. seems like they tried that before with Elohim rather than Yahweh, and it didn't work....). Does what "God" refers to in the context of the article matter? (For instance, if one is talking about Jesus, does it matter to you whether that God gets destroyed?) Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (01/02/84)
Laura,
I would still argue that "G-d" is not a translation which can become a
holy word, since by its very nature it is not an English word. English
words do not use hyphens in place of vowels. It is clearly a substitute
for something. Therefore it will not become a holy word, as you correctly
note other substitutes have done in the past.
Yes, it is largely the attitude which counts. The restrictions on using
the English form largely relate to attitude; only the Hebrew rendition of
the Tetragrammeton is truly "holy", when you get down to the most basic
principles, although the alternative Hebrew forms have a lesser, but still
important, holiness.
Yes, it does matter what deity you are referring to. One might say
that your God is not my G-d. Again, this makes sense when you remember
that the basic idea is to remind one of the importance of the matter.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!daveariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (01/03/84)
Laura, People have been using "G-d" in place of "God" for as long as they've been writing such things in English (as opposed to Hebrew or Aramaic or Yiddish). The use of "G-d" is not a recent invention (recent here meaning the life of electronic mail systems). So, I don't think that there is much danger of "G-d" becoming "sacred". Also, Elohim was not a substitute for the tetragramaton, but a name of God in its own right (ITS substitution is Elokim), along with Shaddai, Ael (Kael), Addonai (Adoshem), the Shechina, and many others. These all were used (are used) to represent different attributes of the Diety. Ariel Shattan decvax!tektronix!tekecs!ariels
keesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan) (01/05/84)
--------------------------- >Also, Elohim was not a substitute for the tetragramaton, but a name >of God in its own right (ITS substitution is Elokim), along with >Shaddai, Ael (Kael), Addonai (Adoshem), the Shechina, and many others. > >Ariel Shattan But both Elohim and Adonai ARE substitutes for the tetragrammaton, as well as being names for God in their own right. They are the two "pronunciations" of the tetragrammaton, or actually the words that one says in place of the tetragrammaton (because it's unpronouncable) when reading aloud, e.g. from the Torah. Incidentally, I was struck recently by the similarity between typing "G-D" to protect holiness and typing "UN*X" to protect trademark. -- Morris M. Keesan {decvax,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!keesan keesan @ BBN-UNIX.ARPA