I will attempt to clear up the issue by explaining one basic rule
that pertains to this topic. That rule is: There are very SPECIFIC names
of G-D that may not be written and then erased or treated with
disrespect. Those names have an intrinsic holiness just because they are
g-d's names. However if one were to refer to g-d without referring to
him by name, such as the master of the universe (The Ribbono shel Olom)
Then that has no holiness and may be erased etc. In hebrew the
distinction between these rules are Shaimos (Names of Hashem) and
Kinnuyim (Or the words that refer to Hashem.) One may equate this
concept to proper names and pronouns. A proper name has Kedusha whereas
a pronoun does not.
Having said this, I think many of the points mentioned will be
resolved. Michael Voytinsky asks " What is the difference between
writing "G-d" or writing the same thing with an "o" instead of the dash?
The meaning is the same in both cases. Since writing is nothing more
then a method of conveying a meaning through symbols, the two are
functionally identical." Excellent point. In fact I just had the same
discussion with a Talmid of Rav Solevetchick (Who holds that there is no
holiness in ANY name of G-D except when written in Hebrew.) I told him
that whereas G - O - D was the accepted word and translation for G-D.
The symbol G-d is an accepted way of hinting to the reader that we are
referring to G-D. It is very true that this is the accepted way of
writing G-d (For Frum Jews) But it is still NOT G-D's name!
Mr. Voytinsky's second point also falls away since the word bog in the
English language has no relation to divinity at all there is no reason
not to write it. I could make the case that when one is transliterating
Russian into English and one writes bog it still would not have any
holiness since this would certainly also be no more than a symbol
referring to the Russian word BOG which, when written in Russian would
truly be a name of G-d.
Mr. Voytinsky's next thought is valid. He writes: " I always thought
that the part about not taking Hashem's name in vain means something
more along the lines of not making gratuitous references to Hashem, not
swearing in His name, etc. - not putting a dash in place of an 'o' in a
discussion that already concerns him. Certain a blasphemous joke would
remain just as blasphemous regardless of whether the dash or the 'o' was
used." The reason this is valid is because even were one to use a Kinnuy
one mustn't take it in vain. (Although I think the severity may be
different)
Mr. Voytinsky's last point was " In English it is quite possible to
refer to a god, where it is quite clear that Hashem is not being
referred to, but some other divine entity (which happens not to exist,
but that is a side issue). How does capitalizing 'god' suddenly make it
a proper name? Capitalizing it seems to have the same effect as saying
'the god' would." This is valid point. However since we have explained
that there is a holiness that is related to a name of G-D therefore when
one writes about a Roman god. a Greek god or any other god since one is
NOT referring to the master of the universe no holiness is transferred
into this word. In parshas Haazinu we find the word ELOHA referring to
strange or foreign deities and many Chumashim have a notation saying
that that name was NOT referring to G-D and therefore contained no
Kedusha.
Mr. Voytinsky's final editorial comments about his feeling it was
absurd to differentiate between write G-D with an "O" or a dash has no
relevance to the practical halacha and as we pointed out there is a
valid difference between a proper name and a symbolic reference to G-d.
This brings us to Mr Adler's question: " But Hashem is commonly used
as a name of G-D, isn't it? And what about G-D? This is obviously also
His name!" It is very commonly used to refer to G-D But that still does
not make it a proper name, imbued with Kedusha.
In the interest of brevity, which I may have blown already, I will
not go thru Leonard Mansky's reply point by point. However the
explanation Written above, the difference between using one of THE names
of G-D as opposed to his Kinnuyim, does answer all of his points.
I would, however, like to address this paragraph written by Mr.
Mansky: "I cannot believe his interpretation to be valid as it prevents
any discourse, and Torah forums, whatsoever. Therefore a reasonable
compromise is to continue doing what we have been doing; namely changing
the spelling of the more traditional Names in some way so as to indicate
our sensitivity, and yirat Hashem (awe of Gd)."
I mentioned in my original posting as I do in my other postings, that
I am giving my Own free translation of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. I also
quote "chapter and verse" to allow anyone to get one of the published
translations of the Kitzur for further reference. I would not give my
own translation if I had any doubts as to the validity of my translation.
That being the case I encourage all the readers of this and every jewish
forum to learn the halacha from the sources. PLEASE do not make your own
conclusions as to what would be allowed or prohibited and saying that the
logical outcome from "X" would be "Y". See what the Halacha says. Ask your
LOR. Don't Jump to conclusions. And IF your conclusion is that something is
prohibited, than stick with it. Logical compromises do not exit in Halacha.
This is either allowed or not.
Since I have Written this a new Torah Forum was posted and Reb Michael
Broyde who also took me to task. He asserted that ONLY a name that ONLY
means G-D has any kedusha. He writes that therefore G-D which has many
meanings may be erased. A word like DI-EU which ONLY means G-D is what
the Kitzur was referring to, when the kitzur said that G-D in ANY
laguage may not erased. I would like to argue with him on several
points. 1. I have asked a friend who knows French and I was informed
that this is not true. There is a Die-u that refers to G-d and Dieu that
refers to any type of deity. The second point is, I do not think the Rov
gave this as a reason for allowing G - O - D to be erased. In fact I did
speak with a VERY close and "choshuver talmid" (distinguished student)
of "the rov" and he told me he KNEW that "the Rov" based his opinion on
the Rambam that held that the ONLY time there was kedusha in a name was
when it was written in Hebrew. I did search for this Rambam and I could
not find it. (I do not have any CD-rom software I did it the old
fashioned way so I may have missed it.) However I was informed by a T-F
reader that the Shach in Yoreh Deah (A commentary on a specific area of
the Shulchan aruch) definately says that ONLY in hebrew is there any
kedusha.
I hope this sheds some light on the subject
Yosey