Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 76

Mon, 22 Dec 2025

• 1. Saying Sheimos Aloud (Akiva Miller)
• 2. R'YBS / Kant (Joel Rich)
• 3. Re: Saying Sheimos Aloud (Micha Berger)
• 4. eit laasot (Joel Rich)
• 5. Re: Saying Sheimos Aloud (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: R'YBS / Kant (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Modern Orthodox (Micha Berger)

.
Near the beginning of Hilchos Chanuka in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (139:1),
he uses the phrase, "ad shericham aleihem E-lohei avoseinu." I checked
several different recent editions, and they all printed that Shem with a
heh. Not a kuf, or any other sort of typographical modification.

I would love to know how the author pronounced this as he was writing it,
or proofreading it, or teaching it.

In the communities I'm familiar with, no one would speak aloud any of the
Sheimos Sheinan Nimchakim (divine names which, if written, may not be
erased), unless in the context of a pasuk or some sort of tefilah. But not
in the contexts of learning Torah or of conversation, even if the reference
was sincerely intended to refer to Him. We've even invented a placeholder
for such situations: Hashem. Or we use one of His many titles or kinuyim,
such as Creator or Hakadoshbaruchu.

My question is about the situations where we allow such Sheimos to be said
aloud, and where we use the other terms. Please note that I am NOT asking
about the printing or publication of these Sheimos, such as I cited from
the Kitzur - a sefer is unlikely to be discarded in the trash, so I can
easily imagine why there might be no hesitation to print the Shem from that
perspective. But people often do read from seforim aloud, and it is *that*
perspective which concerns me.

We Anglos have no hesitation about saying "God" in conversation when it is
appropriate (excluding exclamations and curses, of course). I've gotten the
impression that Israelis treat "Elohim" (and "HaElohim", I'm not clear when
one is used or the other) in the exact same way. There is a famous Igros
Moshe that every language has a specific Name for Him, and that one must
use that Name - either God or Gott or Dieu or Dios or whatever - when
saying brachos in that language, but I'm not going to bother looking up
that siman number, because that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking
specifically about while *not* davening, such as when (a) reading aloud
from Sifrei Kodesh while learning, and (b) conversationally talking about
Him which (to me) also constitutes "learning" and probably has the same
rules.

Does anyone know of any poskim or other articles who deal with this?

advTHANKSance

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20251216/5dcf89a3/attachment-0001.htm>

Conversation between Me and R J Ziring on one of his shiurim:

Me: Wasn?t sure from what you were saying whether you believe post-Kant one
can ?prove? religion in a traditional sense. (VS. R?YBS)

R?JZ:? I do not agree with the Rav following Kant in general on this issue,
but partially because I do not agree with his sense of ?proof.? I agree
with Stephen Meyers in The Return of the God Hypothesis, that we should
think of proof the way we do in science- bringing evidence that strengthens
a hypothesis, using abductive reasoning.? (Definition ? ?abductive
reasoning represents an inference to the best explanation.?)

Me: What I suspected ? the challenge is that to many laymen if you can?t
?prove? it (like the Pythagorean theorem, although that also relies on
axioms) then they are not bound.

Your thoughts?


KT
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20251217/f0a92dff/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 05:54:00AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Near the beginning of Hilchos Chanuka in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (139:1),
> he uses the phrase, "ad shericham aleihem E-lohei avoseinu." I checked
> several different recent editions, and they all printed that Shem with a
> heh. Not a kuf, or any other sort of typographical modification.
> 
> I would love to know how the author pronounced this as he was writing it,
> or proofreading it, or teaching it.

I must be missing something. I see sheim Hashem in sefarim all the time.
And people who are nohagim not to say sheim Hashem in this context, which
I assume would vehemently include RSGanzfried, simply say out loud
"Elokim". I mean, that's what every maggid shiur quoting (eg) the Rambam
or the siddur does in every shiur I've been to.

Why here is there a special question about it?

A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The day you were born is the day G-d decided
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   that the world could not exist without you.
Author: Widen Your Tent                  - Rav Nachman of Breslov
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

From President Lincoln:

?By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be
amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.
I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by
becoming indispensable to the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I
assumed this ground, and now avow it.?

Interesting ? eit laasot?  How do we feel about current political leaders
who seem to act in this way? Rabbinic leaders who don?t claim this as their
reason?


KT
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20251217/1633f766/attachment-0001.htm>

.
As usual, I failed to explain my question adequately. Thank you to R' Micha
Berger for pointing it out. He wrote:

> I must be missing something. I see sheim Hashem in sefarim all the time.

Yes, so do I. This has been bothering me for ages. I've long wanted to ask,
just never got around to it. Something about this case pushed me over the
edge. Perhaps I was surprised at seeing the Shem in ArtScroll's
fully-voweled version of the Kitzur - I suppose I expected them to censor
it. (This is not the first edition of the Kitzur to be vowelled, but
ArtScroll is in a special class.)

So I will be clear: My question is not about this particular example, or
even about this particular author. It is about every single sefer that ever
spelled one of the Sheimos She'einam Nimchakim *correctly* but outside of a
pasuk or tefila.

> And people who are nohagim not to say sheim Hashem in this context,
> which I assume would vehemently include RSGanzfried, simply say out
> loud "Elokim".

Now we get to my real question, thank you. You are assuming that Rav
Ganzfried would say "Elokim" out loud, but I can't imagine why he would
write it one way and vocalize it differently. If he would censor it when
reading aloud, how did his hand not tremble when writing it? It seems to me
that this constitutes evidence (admittedly not proof, but yes,
circumstantial evidence) that it is okay to pronounce these Sheimos
properly.

I would like to add that although I've seen this often regarding Elohim and
Shadai and some other Sheimos, I cannot recall EVER seeing Yud Kay Vav Kay
spelled properly outside of a pasuk or tefila. THAT Name is always
abbreviated or truncated or otherwise censored in some manner. To me, this
is further evidence that it might be okay to use these slightly-less-holy
Names when learning and/or in conversation.

> I mean, that's what every maggid shiur quoting (eg) the Rambam
> or the siddur does in every shiur I've been to.

Ditto. And I'm asking whether any posek has written anything on this topic.
Perhaps it is required, and perhaps it is a new chumra.

Akiva Miller

PS: I once saw a gemara in which Amora A was surprised by something that
Amora B said or did, and Amora A's reaction was to exclaim, "My God!
Seriously?", and "Elohim" was spelled properly. I was shocked that Amora A
would use Hashem's Name in such a context, and even more shocked that the
Gemara spelled it correctly. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find
that Gemara. Does it sound familiar to anyone? (I asked Google's AI, which
answered that the amoraim were Raba bar Avuha and Rav Huna in Bava Metzia
94b, and the phrase used by Rav Huna was "Elohim! Tzricha!", but I cannot
find it there. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, or maybe the AI was
hallucinating.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20251217/11a8aea4/attachment-0001.htm>

CC-ing RYGB to make sure he sees the PS at the bottom. (Twice, because
I could never remember which mailbox he checks regularly.)

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 06:24:22AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Me: Wasn't sure from what you were saying whether you believe post-Kant one
> can "prove" religion in a traditional sense. (VS. R'YBS)
> 
> R'JZ:"I do not agree with the Rav following Kant in general on this issue,
> but partially because I do not agree with his sense of "proof...

You say "'prove' religion in a tradition sense", but R J Ziring answers
that he disagrees because he is using tradition in another sense, which
would mean a non-traditional one?

Everyone in the conversation seems to agree that the kind of proofs we
find in the Moreh Nevuchim don't work. The kind that the Rambam says is
necessary for true Emunah (as Ibn Tibbon translated it, the word choice
is controversial), without which one does not really embrace the 13 Middos
in a way to qualify for "Kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq le'olam haba".

Personally I think that a proof of that sort could very well exist.
Contra Kant. However, its existence is useless. Our choice of postulates
/ first principles is based on what fits the worldview that is working
in our lives (or rejecting those that fit what isn't working). And it
is we who decide what questions upshlug an entire proof, and which are
just puzzles that must have a solution somewhere.

So we could be staring an effective Kalam / Scholastic style proof and
not realize it. Or, embract a false one, and not notice its flaws.

>                                                                 I agree
> with Stephen Meyers in The Return of the God Hypothesis, that we should
> think of proof the way we do in science -- bringing evidence that strengthens
> a hypothesis, using abductive reasoning." (Definition -- "abductive
> reasoning represents an inference to the best explanation.")

Carl Popper argues that science never proves theories. There could always
be a "black swan"* out there that disproves it. All science can do is
narrow the range of possible theories by disproving wrong ones when they
contradict an experiment.

* The expression "black swan" comes from an illustrative example. Someone
in Europe could construct the theory "All swans are white." Juvenal
(2nd cent Roman poet) used a line meaning "a bird as rare as a black
swan" to mean something that never happens. But then Europeans got to
Australia... where there are black swans.

Then there is the weirdness known as the Raven Paradox:

1- All ravens are black.

Therefore, we know the contrapositive:
2- Anything that isn't black isn't a raven.

And then we have an observation:
3- This green apple isn't black, and it is not a raven.

Does observing the green apple then become an experiment adding weight
in the Meyers sense to the thesis that all ravens are black?

The logic says yes. But the notion is ridiculous. Which is why it's
called a paradox.

So abductive reasoning has its flaws.

Aside from having the same problems that no matter how valid a proof is,
our personal assessments of that validity are still subjective.

I therefore personally justify my beliefs by embracing that
first-handedness. I believe because

People cannot be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN they love their children. Ask a
psychologist about things lurking in unconscious parts of our minds
because we won't admit ugly truths to ourselves. We certainly can't prove
that love to others. And yet, we do not demand any kind of proof before
making major sacrifices on their behalf.

If the sun has come up every day of your life, and was always in shades
of yellow or orange (when on the horizon) when you saw it, you would
make firm plans on the sun seeming yellow or orange next time you were
able to see it. Would you demand a proof first? Or try to figure out a
way to show other people the sun is really that color before acting? Do
you believe that the sun is yellow because you can get other people to
say the same thing, or because you have seen it uncountably many times
and it's yellow (or sometimes orange).

What's fun about that example is, the sun is acutally white. Check in
photos. (As they say at eclipses: Do NOT look at the sun directly.)
And of course it is, it's the spectrum our eyes were designed for!
But still, people believe it's yellow, and that's why -- not some argument
about fusion, light frequencies, the biology of the eye and the psychology
of perception.

My argument isn't that people like keeping Shabbos, and therefore
believe. Nor the other extreme -- that people rationally prove the Divine
origin of hilkhos Shabbos and therefore keep it. Rather, that the thing
a person likes points to something real about Shabbos. As ineffable as
the aesthetics of a "beautiful" math proof. There is something about the
proof that gives it beauty; but people shouldn't accept proofs simply
because of the beauty.

Or when you learn a sugya in Choshein Mishpat and it casts light on
Pesach and "bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzei", to bring an example from one of
RYGB's "Vos iz Der Chiluk" questions back in volumes 6 and 7, in 2001.*
(VIDC #7: https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n015.shtml#12>)

To ask for anything more solid is simply not how people make decisions. It
would be holding up religion to an unrealistic standard of certainty.

And this is why most people who leave Orthodoxy have reasons other than a
calculated assessment of what the Torah teaches. Although it could include
that as well, but then, assessing the validity of proofs is subjective.

* Off topic: the VIDC series is worth a chazarah:
Ground rules: https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=G#GUIDELINES%20FOR%20DERECH%20ANALYSIS%20VOSS%20IZ%20DER%20CHILLUK
And browse the index ("Vos..." headers) starting at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VOS%20IS%20DER%20CHILLUK%205
And ("VIDC..." headers) at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIDC

If someone has more time than I do, they're worth collecting into a single
page.

An enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 There's only one corner of the universe
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you can be certain of improving,
Author: Widen Your Tent      and that's your own self.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             - Aldous Huxley

On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 06:07:14AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> From Malka Z. Simkovich in Tradition
> > Postscript
> > Working on this essay gave me occasion to consider the rising tendency
> > among Modern Orthodox American Jews to accept the notion that judaism
> > cannot be authentically practiced outside the Land of Israel...

> Does this description fit your sense of galut MO's sense of self?

I actually hit "reply" for a tangent. I finally had a chance
to read your post during Chanukah. A key event during Galus
Yavan. A galus that occured while the core of the
Jewish People was in Israel.

Golah and Galus, when used in their terms-of-trade senses, are different
things. Golah is a geographic statement. Galus is a metaphysical
one. Golah is distance from our homeland; Galus is hester Panim and
emotional distance from the One Who gave it to us. As 7.10 taught us,
even those of us living in Israel are clearly still in Galus.

Now, on to RJR's actual point about Mod-O self-perception of
their practice necessarily being inauthentic because authentic
practice is only possible in Israel.

I don't think so. And I did make Aliyah.

One difference I noticed between Jews in the Greater NY area (let's
say the Monsey - 5 Towns - Lakewood triangle) compared to their
peers in Israel is that Jews in the golah are much much more likely
to focus on Judaism as a personal endevor. Our Mission Statements,
if we would have ones, would be about personal growth into an adam
shaleim, a tamim, one with a relationship with HQBH, what have
you.

And less about mitzvos as a means to reach national or communal goals.

Whilch would mean that "authentic practice" barely depends on context.
Mitzvos one misses out on, yes. But that's like saying that somoene who
never has a bekhor is less authentically practicing than one who made
a pinyon habein.

Besides, ever meet someone not surprised when they learn for the first
time of the Ramban about mitzvos in the golah being just for practice?
(And no, I don't think he meant what the naive read would say he did.)

A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
Author: Widen Your Tent                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)