It is clear that biblical matzah isn’t in fact referring to our crisp (if sealed i the factory), indigestible, bubbly sheets:

• Hillel used to wrap up (כורך) lamb inside his (think shawarma)
• On all other nights we eat leavened bread or matzah, but who really eats matzah on a meal throughout the year? Something a bit more like a roti I can understand.
• And God demands the stuff. Solomon’s did a pretty good job this year, but is their matzah really worthy of God?

Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not acquit one who takes His name in vain.

Rashi follows the translation of Onkelos in suggesting that the repeated “taking in vain” is once an injunction against those who swear by the Name falsely, and once against those who swear needlessly.
((*dibrot:”Commandment” might be a misnomer here, as the Hebrew term for commandments is clearly mitzvot (or huqqim, mishpatim, etc.) The Ten Commandments are only ever referred to in the bible as aseret hadevarim (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13), or in later writings as aseret hadibrot. Devarim would often mean “words” or “things” or “utterances” or “statements”; its root means “to speak”.*))

Judaism abounds in traditions of protecting the sanctity of Divine Names in writing, and avoiding them in speech except when necessary. In fact, (להבדיל) the Rabbinic manner of protecting the divine name has taken on characteristics commonly found in linguistic taboo associated with swearing (the other type), euphemism, or political correctness.

Taboo is a favourite topic of many sociolinguists, largely because it is a lot of fun to explore trends in how people refer to reproductive organs and things you can do with them, but also because it is one of the most lexically dynamic parts of language, tied into a number of social factors. Terms are often invented or borrowed with a changed meaning to cover up things we do not want to say plainly. Some euphemisms then take on similar negative or embarrassing connotations (ask any American who’s worn a “roots” sweater in Australia), or can alternatively broaden to become a more generic swear-word, losing the particularly dirty connotations it once had (arguably like “screw”). Numerous options (with greater or lesser offensiveness) for replacing some forbidden concept come and go in trends.

In a curious case, the word “hanged” once was appropriate for hanging a painting or laundry, but eventually got associated exclusively with the stigmatised criminal on the gallows. Eventually “hung” was invented as a past/passive participle (by analogy with “sang”, “swam” or “rang”) for these everyday uses in order to steer clear of the otherwise negative connotations the word might bring. In short, stigmatisation provokes avoidance.

In the world of political correctness and etiquette, terms change regularly and could even cycle: a term that was once used to avoid offense itself may become offensive and is replaced, and so on, or on the contrary, a term that was once offensive may become an identity symbol and return to vogue! Just consider the variety of terms (and their fashion trends) used over the last hundred years to refer to dark-skinned people descended from Africans who live on the North American continent. It is this continuous leapfrogging change (and possibly the unwarranted offense) that generates a contemporary distaste for excessive political correctness or for the outlawing of “foul language”.

Like much foul language, the Divine Name (YHWH) is a “four-letter-word” (להבדיל). Indeed, its academic title, “the Tetragrammaton” means exactly that! Masoretic texts of the bible commonly print the vowels for the word “Adonai” (a name or title for God derived from “my lord”) mismatched upon the letters of the ineffable name as a hint not to say the letters as written, but “Adonai” instead, in order to keep well away from needless utterance of the Name, or indeed any utterance at all.
((*consonantal:In general, only consonants are written as letters in Hebrew, and the bible text was originally transmitted consonantally. Vowels, usually dots below or above the letters have been written in according to traditional pronunciations since at latest around the 9th century.*))((*qere:Other words in the bible that are not to be read as they are written are treated in similar manner, with strange vowels squeezed in on the word, and usually the replacement word to say written in the margin. The case of the Divine Name where the reader is expected to understand the change without the replacement letters in the margin is supposedly known as qere perpetuum.
The Masoretic text also uses this “qere and ketiv” on occasion as a means of euphemism, indicating that the word “שגל” (“have sex with”) should be read as “שכב” (“lie with”). See for instance Deut. 28:30. This also indicates changing trends in offensiveness: it would seem that at the time the text was written, the word was acceptable, but at some later point it was seen as excessively obscene and replaced.*))

A few verses on from our quotation above, God indicates that “in each place that I cause my name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you.” Sifri (as quoted by Rashi) reads this midrashically to say that one is not permitted to utter the Divine Name (שם המפורש) except in the abode of the divine presence (the tabernacle or temple), when the priests alone use it to bless the congregation. So we see that the Jewish prohibition on saying this divine name became much stricter than the simplest implications of prohibiting false or needless swearing as mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

In possible contradiction with this midrash, the biblical prophets often use the formula “Adonai YHWH”. In these cases, the Masoretic text marks the ineffable name with the vowels of “Elohim”, another name or title for God derived from the word “god”, rather than using the usual replacement and thus saying “Adonai Adonai”. This seems to indicate to me that at least in prophetic times, the Name was clearly effable in prophecy, or at least probably not “effed” as “Adonai”.

Even if the “inneffable” tetragrammaton was not often uttered, certainly its abbreviations “Yo” and “Yah” and “Yeho” and “Yahu” were once used all over the place. Take the word “halleluyah” (“Praise Yah”), for instance, or many popular biblical names. It is curious that they have been allowed to remain and be used in non-holy contexts. Also, the full divine name (all four letters) does not appear in personal names, possibly precisely as a protection from the profanity with which personal names can be used. These abbreviations could then also be understood as guards around the Name, although we have no real evidence that this is their purpose.
((*elephantine:Interestingly, the Elephantine Papyri that refer to a Jewish temple on their island refer to it as the temple of YHW and not of YHWH (Cowley AP33). Because the documents are essentially profane, this may be further support for such an idea. This idea could also be refuted easily through profane documents that utilise the full name. I might investigate this a little.*))

Contemporary Judaism avoids uttering these abbreviated names by replacing a letter with a “k”. For instance, my name, Joel, should probably be uttered as “Kokel”! Some might say that names are excluded because there is something inherently holy about a person’s name, although they are allowed to be uttered in the bathroom, unlike names of God (and unlike “Shalom”).
((*elokim:I imagine this practice may have originated with elongating the leg on the letter ה in אלהים when writing it. Writing divine names has often been more of a problem than saying them, for the reason that the writing could then not be destroyed, so אלהים would naturally be defaced as אלקים to indicate that the paper it was written on was not to be held sacred. My guess is that this trend spread to turn אל into קל and יה into קה.*))((*shalom:While the major divine names that cannot be erased are certainly not to be uttered in the bathroom, Jewish law also guards against is the saying of the word “shalom” at certain times. The word can mean “peace”, “completeness”, “hello”, etc., but it is also understood to be a divine name. (See Jdg. 6:24 which could be read as Gideon calling God “Shalom”.) As such, it is not meant to be said inside the bathroom, or as a greeting to a friend before greeting the Almighty with prayer in the morning. (See BT Shabbat 10b; Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 89:2.)*))

While “Adonai” replaces the tetragrammaton in prayer and reading from scripture, from early Rabbinic times this too was not used excessively, and the word “Hashem”, literally “the name”, might be uttered in its place. Ultimately, “Hashem” expanded in its generality and became equivalent to “God” rather than an equivalent to the Name which it replaced. Most would think of Hashem as a being rather than a name; or it is a name, rather than a placeholder for the name. Historically, “Adoshem” was also used, a strange (and nonsensical) mix of “Adonai” and “Hashem”, although it was discouraged by some halakhic authorities.

There are many circumstances where it is disputed which is better to use: “Adonai” or the more innocuous “Hashem”. Among them are the zemirot or songs which are sung at the shabbat table. It could be argued that the mere use of these names in the lyrics would indicate that the poet intended them to be said, and more especially because the song “Tzur Mishelo” only rhymes if you say “Adonai” and is a syllable short with “Hashem”.

Sometimes even “Hashem” is avoided. Some people sign the corner of a page they are about to begin writing with ב”ה (b”h), standing for “with the help of Hashem” (בעזרת השם). I recall having been told that the reason some prefer the Aramaic בס”ד (bs”d), “with divine assistance” (בסייתא דשמיא), is because it lacks a reference to God’s name, or at least the letter ה (He) which is found in God’s name. To a similar end, many refuse to write “God” in ordinary writing (on paper intended for disposal), and use G-d instead. These both are protections very distanced from any violation of the direct prohibition, but are certainly popular in practice.
((*bsd:For what it’s worth, Hebrew Wikipedia details:

Parallel expressions to בס”ד include בע”ה for בעזרת השם, or ב”ה for ברוך השם, or בעזהי”ת for בעזרת השם יתברך, while Yemenite Jews write at the head of their letters לק”י for לישועתך קויתי ה’. The reason for the increased preponderance of בס”ד would seem to be that the letter He that hints to God is not present, and hence a page upon which בס”ד has been written does not require sacred disposal (geniza), but can be thrown into an ordinary bin without any concern for defiling the Name. Most halakhic authorities do not consider abbreviations containing the letter He to restrict ordinary disposal of the page.

*))

But Hashem is not alone in Rabbinic names for God. Just as with euphemism, a number of names or titles are given to avoid those considered forbidden, although likely also in the manner of the numerous honorific titles bestowed upon royalty. We have, each popular in different times and uses: Hamakom, “the place”; Hakadosh Baruch Hu, “the Holy One, Blessed is He”; Ribono Shel Olam, “Master of the World”; Hashem Yitbarach, “The Name, may it be blessed”; or even Der Eybishter; and surely many others.

The manner in which Judaism treats the taboo of the Divine Name is not far from other linguistic taboos, in the sense that guards are heaped upon other guards as each new expression becomes too familiar and adopts some of the sacred forbidenness of the original taboo. The same mentality that argues that euphemism is unnecessary, political correctness futile, and public use of swearing reasonable may similarly propose that the rabbinic shields over violation of the third commandment create excessive censorship to the point of absurdity. But, of course, for the Rabbinic tradition, this practice of lexical layering is not just a matter of linguistics, sociology, and over-legislation, but is a fulfillment of the imperative to build fences around the commandments (in this case one with great force), and to guard their keepers from any plausible misdeed.

דְיֵישׁוֹד דְמָא דַאֲנָשָׁא בְסָהֲדִין, עַל מֵימַר דַיָנַייָא דְמֵיה יִתאֲשַׁד

The spiller of man’s blood with witnesses, upon the word of judges his blood will be spilled.

Pseudo-Jonathan takes this another step and, while saying that the court may kill with evidence, without witnesses, “the Master of the World will surely take retribution on him on the great day of judgement.”
((*poetictarg:For a targum that follows the poetic shape, but not the alliteration, see the Fragmentary Targum: “דשפך אדמיה דברנש, על ידי ברנש אדמיה משתפך”. The Peshitta and Neofiti also come close.*))

The rabbinic system in effect follows Pseudo-Jonathan, but qualifies it to two valid witnesses who had warned the killer immediately prior to the act and who had witnessed its perpetration after the warning was ignored. Resultingly, it becomes very difficult to convict a murderer and — as I have heard many rabbis boast — a Sanhedrin that committed someone to death once in seventy years was considered bloody. That is, the death sentence was extremely rare (as it should be!).

But this makes no sense to me: the reason for not performing execution is not because of the sanctity of life, it is because the person cannot be convicted under the strict requirements of rabbinic courts. Letting all but one murderer in seventy years go unpunished does not make the justice system moral, it makes it dysfunctional! Is there a system for handling the majority of cases where the heavy proof required could not be burdened? Or do we leave justice to God and killers on the street as Pseudo-Jonathan suggests?
((*makkot:Mishnah Makkot 1:10:

סנהדרין ההורגת אחד בשבוע נקראת חובלנית. רבי אליעזר בן עזריה אומר: אחד לשבעים שנה. רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבא: אומרים אילו היינו בסנהדרין, לא נהרג אדם מעולם. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: אף הן מרבין שופכי דמים בישראל.

A Sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years is called murderous.
Rabbi Eleazer ben Azariah says: One person in seventy years.
Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva says: If we were in the Sanhedrin, no person would ever be executed.
Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel responds: Yes; and thus they would increase spillers of blood in Israel.

*))((*simeon:In the actual Mishnah brought in the preceding note, we see that Simeon ben Gamaliel had this idea too, although with support for capital punishment.*))

Am I the only one who has agonised with this question when Rabbis have proudly praised the moral supremacy of the Sanhedrin?

In modern Hebrew, a תינוק is a baby (and etymologically is implied, deriving from ינק, to suckle). But in order to read, it obviously needs to be older than that. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (24:5) writes that such a child is one “שאין מבין את העניין, אבל יודע ומבין את האותיות”—he doesn’t understand the issue, but knows and understands the letters. Similarly, the Mishna Berura (32:49) explains that such a child-decisor is too clever if he understands the issues of when letters need to be fixed, but not too clever if he knows the letters well and can’t read the words. On the other hand, one too stupid cannot read the letters; all-in-all one who can read the letters, even if not proficient or expert in them, may judge in such a case (32:50).

So here comes the issue. Most children nowadays are not taught scribal letters first-off. Most would be taught the alphabets of modern printed Hebrews: either what we find in our siddurim, or in Modern Israeli printed texts. And these are all significantly different from the prescribed scribal art. Even I, for instance, might initially read a valid but thin scribal ך (final kaf) as a ן (final nun), because although the nun of the scribe is very different to their kaf, I am more familiar with a printed nun.

How is a child raised on one script meant to identify letters in another?

Is there a halakhic solution to this problem?