כתב אל"ף למ"ד מאלהים יו"ד ה"א מיהוה אינו נמחק. ואצ"ל יה שהוא שם בפני עצמו. מפני שזה השם מקצת שם המפורש הוא. אבל הכותב שי"ן דל"ת משדי צד"י בי"ת מצבאות הרי זה נמחק:
If the Alef and Lamed from the word Elokim is written or the letters Yud and Hey from the word Hashem (spelled yud kay vav kay) you can not erase them. You don't even need to mention Yud and Hey because it is a name (of G-D) by itself, because it is the shortened version of the explicit name. However, if the Shin and Dalet from Shakai or Tzadi and Beis from Tzivakos (is written) these can be erased (before the name is completed).
This is, seemingly a simple Rambam. The Alef Lamed and Yud Hey can be names of G-D by themselves. However, the SHin Dalet and the Tzadi beis are not names in and of themselves. Therefore, it makes sense that one group, the group that the shortened version is a name of G-D in and of itself, can not be erased. However, the letters that do not refer to G-D by themselves are allowed to be erased.
There is still a question to be asked, why are these two letters Yud Hey or Alef Lamed not allowed to be erased based on the idea that they can refer to G-D in and of themselves? If they are not allowed to be erased they should have been stated in the Rambam's earlier halacha that talks about names that are not allowed to be erased. If they are allowed to be erased then it should not matter that the intention was to complete them to the full name of Hashem (Yud kay vav kay) or Elokim.
I think the answer teaches us something about kedusha (holiness). The whole reason these names are holy is because we have the intention of writing them out in their full name. Yes, the shorthand version should be allowed to be erased because it is not the main name of G-D. However, it is our intentions that give this name holiness. Holiness only comes through the thoughts and actions of people connected with something that has inherent holiness. It is the combination of the two that bring about holiness. If you are lacking any inherent meaning then no matter how much a person wants it to be holy, it is impossible for that object to be holy (like the tzadi beis that has no holy meaning). This is why the Tzadi Beis is allowed to be erased, but the Yud hey is not.
13 comments:
"There is still a question to be asked, why are these two letters Yud Hey or Alef Lamed not allowed to be erased based on the idea that they can refer to G-D in and of themselves? If they are not allowed to be erased they should have been stated in the Rambam's earlier halacha that talks about names that are not allowed to be erased."
But Alef-Lamed is stated in the Mishneh Torah's earlier Halakha( 6:2) that talks about names that are not allowed to be erased. So the question really should be: Why is Yud-He' not mentioned in the earlier Halakha, but forbidden to be erased, when Alef-Lamed is mentioned ?
I see what you are saying, but the alef lamed of elokim is not the same as the alef lamed of kel. The alef lamed of elokim has a segol, it is pronounced el. The alef lamed of keil has a tzeirei, so it is actually pronounced differently. So when you write one, your intention is clear based on the pronounciation.
E-Man: "... but the alef lamed of elokim is not the same as the alef lamed of kel ... [s]o when you write one, your intention is clear based on the pronounciation".
Maybe, but the reason that the Alef-Lamed of Elohim is not erased, once written, is because Alef-Lamed( as 'El') is also a not-to-be-erased name, as opposed to Shin-Dalet and Sadi-Bet, which aren't. So, if Yud-He' is, in itself, not on that "list", why mustn't it be erased, once written( like the other two) ?
Or, conversely:
If Yud-He', once written( as part of haShem haMeforash), must not be erased, why isn't it( as a separate name: Yah) one of those listed in 6:2 ?
"Maybe, but the reason that the Alef-Lamed of Elohim is not erased, once written, is because Alef-Lamed( as 'El') is also a not-to-be-erased name, as opposed to Shin-Dalet and Sadi-Bet, which aren't. So, if Yud-He' is, in itself, not on that "list", why mustn't it be erased, once written( like the other two) ?
Or, conversely:
If Yud-He', once written( as part of haShem haMeforash), must not be erased, why isn't it( as a separate name: Yah) one of those listed in 6:2"
I believe I answered this in the post.
" The whole reason these names are holy is because we have the intention of writing them out in their full name. Yes, the shorthand version should be allowed to be erased because it is not the main name of G-D. However, it is our intentions that give this name holiness. Holiness only comes through the thoughts and actions of people connected with something that has inherent holiness. It is the combination of the two that bring about holiness. If you are lacking any inherent meaning then no matter how much a person wants it to be holy, it is impossible for that object to be holy (like the tzadi beis that has no holy meaning). This is why the Tzadi Beis is allowed to be erased, but the Yud hey is not."
So really, the reason the Alef lamed is not allowed to be erased has nothing to do with the Keil of the previous halacha not being allowed to be erased.
The best example I can give here:
Rambam's previously halacha about which names are not allowed to be erased refers to the names of G-D written with the intention that they meant the name of G-D. So, elokim is not allowed to be erased because it is a name of G-D AND it refers to G-D's name. However, if I wrote elohim referring to idols then that IS allowed to be erased. So we see from this idea that not only does the word matter, but the intention matters as well.
Maybe to make this a little clearer I should state that the rambam should have written the alef lamed of elokim is forbidden to be erased and the yud hey of yud key vav key is forbidden to be erased.
O.K., I think I understand now what you meant( I'm not sure what your latest comment contributes: I understood what the Halakhot say, just not how you were relating them one to another).
Two more question, on this issue: What is the status, according to your understanding of the Halakhot, of the word Yah( Yud-He', not as part of haShem haMeforash) once written ? May it be erased ?
And, why ?
I was trying to clarify what I meant in my post by the Rambam should have explicitly said alef lamed or yud hey if he thought they shouldn't have been erased because they are G-D's name.
Tamir said:"What is the status, according to your understanding of the Halakhot, of the word Yah( Yud-He', not as part of haShem haMeforash) once written ? May it be erased ? And, why ?"
If Yud hey is written with the intent to write G-D's name, it is not allowed to be erased. If it is written as part of yiheyeh (yud hey yud hey) it is allowed to be erased.
The reason it is not allowed to be erased if it is being written as part of yud kay vav kay is because it is a version of G-D's name AND it was intended to be written as G-D's name. You NEED both to make it forbidden to be erased. Like I said in the post:
"The whole reason these names are holy is because we have the intention of writing them out in their full name. Yes, the shorthand version should be allowed to be erased because it is not the main name of G-D. However, it is our intentions that give this name holiness. Holiness only comes through the thoughts and actions of people connected with something that has inherent holiness. It is the combination of the two that bring about holiness."
Sorry if it wasn't clear.
This was another idea I was trying to bring forth by mentioning elokim of G-D's name vs elohim referring to idols. If you write elokim referring to G-D's name, you can not erase it, but if you write elohim referring to idols then you can erase it. The main point of these halachas is that the name of G-D is only given holiness if the one writing the name has intention to give it holiness, but the name itself has to be a vessel that can accept that holiness (aka, it must be a name of G-D).
E-Man: "If Yud hey is written with the intent to write G-D's name, it is not allowed to be erased. If it is written as part of yiheyeh (yud hey yud hey) it is allowed to be erased."
What do you mean by "God's name" ?
Of the names in 6:2, only the Yud-he'-Vav-He' and the Alef-Dalet-Nun-Yud are actually referred to as God's name. The others are more His titles( but as opposed to the "descriptive terms" mentioned in 6:5).
I was referring to Yah as in:
"'Ozi veZimrat Yah"( Shemot 15:2),
"Ki Yad Al Kes Yah"( Shemot 17:16),
"Amarti Lo 'Er'eh Yah, Yah be'Eres haChayim"( Yesha'ayahu 38:11),
"vaYomru Lo Yir'eh Yah"( Tehilim 94:7),
And more.
What is not clear to me is: Is Yah in the list of names that may not be erased, in 6:2( and the question in your post doesn't even begin), or is it part with the terms listed in 6:5, and is erasable( in which case, it should have been listed along with them, and 6:5 should have preceded 6:4), or something else( which introduces a new category for the one name) ?
To know that the names( in 6:2 and 6:4) need proper Kavanah, that I could have told from 6:8, where it says that a Sefer Torah written by a Min Yisra'el is to be burnt, and one written by a Goy is to be put in Geniza( also, Hilkhot Tefilin uMezuzah veSefer Torah 1:15 says the Azkarot need Kavanah). From 6:9, that says most of the names concerning Lot's story are Chol( which sounds to me even less than having "inherent holiness"), as well as all those concerning Mikha's Pesel's story, I could tell that without the Kavanah, even the names listed in 6:2 have no Qedushah. I didn't need the Qushiya veTerus around 6:4 for that.
Great questions. I am really enjoying this back and forth, but I can't respond until tomorrow night since I have two finals tomorrow that I need to study for. So, don't think I am ignoring you, I will respond tomorrow night (night for me, tuesday morning for u)
Tamir said: What do you mean by "God's name" ?
Part of Yud Hey vav hey.
Tamir said "Of the names in 6:2, only the Yud-he'-Vav-He' and the Alef-Dalet-Nun-Yud are actually referred to as God's name. The others are more His titles( but as opposed to the "descriptive terms" mentioned in 6:5)."
Well, they are all not allowed to be erased because these are all names that predominantly refer to G-D. The yud key vav kay is the only one that has no alternative meaning.
Tamir said "What is not clear to me is: Is Yah in the list of names that may not be erased, in 6:2( and the question in your post doesn't even begin), or is it part with the terms listed in 6:5, and is erasable( in which case, it should have been listed along with them, and 6:5 should have preceded 6:4), or something else( which introduces a new category for the one name) ?"
It seems to me that the name yud hey is not allowed to be erased solely because it is part of shem hameforesh. If it was just a name of G-D and not part of the shem hameforesh, then it would be allowed to be erased, but since it is also part of the shem hameforesh, it is not allowed to be erased. That is why it is proper to talk about it here and not in the previous halacha that discusses the names of G-D that can not be erased.
Tamir said: "To know that the names( in 6:2 and 6:4) need proper Kavanah, that I could have told from 6:8, where it says that a Sefer Torah written by a Min Yisra'el is to be burnt, and one written by a Goy is to be put in Geniza( also, Hilkhot Tefilin uMezuzah veSefer Torah 1:15 says the Azkarot need Kavanah). From 6:9, that says most of the names concerning Lot's story are Chol( which sounds to me even less than having "inherent holiness"), as well as all those concerning Mikha's Pesel's story, I could tell that without the Kavanah, even the names listed in 6:2 have no Qedushah. I didn't need the Qushiya veTerus around 6:4 for that."
I will deal with these when I get to them.
E-Man: "Tamir said 'Of the names in 6:2, only the Yud-he'-Vav-He' and the Alef-Dalet-Nun-Yud are actually referred to as God's name. The others are more His titles( but as opposed to the "descriptive terms" mentioned in 6:5).'
Well, they are all not allowed to be erased because these are all names that predominantly refer to G-D. The yud key vav kay is the only one that has no alternative meaning".
After rereading the first two Halakhot of the Pereq, I take back what I said( that I marked here in bold). Though the Yud-He'-Vav-He' is the "specific name"( haShem haMeforash), all listed names are considered God's names( by which He is called).
E-Man: "It seems to me that the name yud hey is not allowed to be erased solely because it is part of shem hameforesh. If it was just a name of G-D and not part of the shem hameforesh, then it would be allowed to be erased, but since it is also part of the shem hameforesh, it is not allowed to be erased.
So, to be clear: In the examples I brought, you say the name "Yah" may be erased ?
E-Man: "That is why it is proper to talk about it here and not in the previous halacha that discusses the names of G-D that can not be erased".
Then, why is it proper to mention it here( in 6:4), and not in 6:5( or in a Halakhah following it), that discusses the names that can be erased ?
From your categorization of the name "Yah"( when written as a separate name), as I understand it, the order should have been: list the names that may not be erased( 6:2), then list the names that may be erased( 6:5), and maybe include Yah( when written as a separate name) with them, and after that deal with the case of partially writing a name that may not be erased( 6:4), where the letters written make a name of God( according to you, whether the name, that the letters make, may itself be erased, as those in 6:5, or not, as those in 6:2).
"Yah" being erasable puts the Halakhot out of proper sequence.
Tamir said: "So, to be clear: In the examples I brought, you say the name "Yah" may be erased ?"
When the name is written out and it is clear that it refers to G-D, like in the verses that you brought, I think it is not allowed to be erased because of it's special status. It has a special status because it is the abbreviated version of the sheim hamefurash, like the Rambam says.
However, if there is a blank piece of paper and there is only a yud hey with no indication of what it is referring to, I think it is allowed to be erased.
Tamir said: "Then, why is it proper to mention it here( in 6:4), and not in 6:5( or in a Halakhah following it), that discusses the names that can be erased ?"
Because the alef lamed and the yud hey are special cases that are not allowed to be erased.
Post a Comment