Unerasable graffiti
There was some strange Runic-looking graffiti along the southern entrance to Efrat that I saw a number of times on the way to the Trampiada before finally identifying it. I eventually recognised the rightmost symbol of the large text as being the Hebrew letter yod (י) in an ancient Hebrew script (כתב עברי). The script we use today is a variant of the Assyrian script (כתב אשורי; or “square script”) adapted from that borrowed from Imperial Aramaic around the Babylonian Exile.
After recognising the first letter, I realised that I could identify (with confirmation online) that this large text was actually the Tetragrammaton, in Judaism the ineffable and most sacred name of God, albeit that its letters were highly stylised. Altogether, we have the phrase “יראת ה’“, “fear of God”.
Now because, for those who can read it, the graffiti includes the Name of God, does this mean it cannot be erased as would usually be the case with this four-letter name?
We know that God’s name written in another language (or the word “God”) has no prohibition against its destruction. We find in the Shach on Yoreh Deah 179:11 (and brought similarly in the Mishnah Berura 85:10):
השם בל’ הקדש הוא שם אבל בלשון חול אינו שם כלל והגע עצמך דהא מותר למחות שם שנכתב בלשון חול כגון גאט בלשון אשכנז או בו”ג בלשון פולי”ן ורוסי”א וכיוצא בזה
The Name in the Holy Language is a name, but in a non-holy language it is not a name at all, and behold it is permitted to erase a name that is written in a non-holy language like “Gott” in German or “Bog” in Polish or Russian, etc.
Clearly, there, the name in a non-holy language is not to be considered holy itself.
So is the text of this graffiti considered the Holy Hebrew language? Not if it is in fact Moabite: The stylising, especially of the vav (but also heh and resh) are less akin to Hebrew than the Moabite alphabet as found on the Mesha Stele (see alphabet charts 1, 2, 3; or possibly Phoenecian). The א used in יראת is not close to any ancient script I can quickly find, again pointing to merely a stylised font. And in the end, the words have obviously been written with the intent of Hebrew.
So is this font, albeit stylised, still Hebrew? Modern Hebrew print is also stylised, and still God’s name in such a font would usually be unerasable to my knowledge. Does this law apply to other common scripts like Israeli/Yiddish hand, or “Rashi” script?
On occasion, the Talmud actually tells us that the Ancient Hebrew script is without religious value. The mishnah in Megillah 8b states that while books may be in any language, tefillin and mezuzot must be written in the Assyrian Script. Further, the gemara adds:
כתב עברי אינו מטמא את הידים עד שיכתבנו בכתב אשורית על הספר ובדיו
Hebrew Script does not impurify the hands [signifying its holiness], until one writes it in Assyrian Script upon the [parchment] scroll and in ink.
This may well be our answer and clarify that a script that is not akin to the Assyrian script would not be considered holy. But the conclusion is far from certain.
Curiously, for instance, we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls a number of biblical documents where the entire text is Assyrian, with the Tetragrammaton alone in Hebrew Script (some Psalms examples; a form of diglossia?). Some have argued that this would make damage to the scroll less critical: having the Holy Name in the unholy Hebrew Script means that the scroll can be treated more loosely (and it may not impurify one’s hands). On the other hand, one can also argue that this change of writing illustrates some special sanctity attached to the Divine Name in that script. This is supported by fragments of early Greek translations of the bible that also include the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew!
Even if we are to take the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence for the significance of God’s name in Ancient Hebrew script (something contemporary Rabbinic authorities would unlikely rely on), we may also note that the Efrat graffiti looks little like the Name as found in the scrolls mentioned.
Finally, we have two more criteria on the unerasability of God’s name. The first is permanence, and it is arguable that graffiti by it’s nature is not intended to be permanent, although paint on stone is a permanent medium. The second is that its purpose needs to be consecrated: that is, the one that wrote it was not merely putting four letters down that turned out to compose God’s name; nor was it written in malice or by a non-believer. The intentions of the graffiti artist are maybe too unclear.
The sources brought seem to allow us to remove the graffiti in Efrat, and even if it is not clear, they bring enough doubt into the sanctity of the text. Nonetheless, it is still a surprising and unexpected situation to be encountered with.