The Jehovah Witlesses

The Vowels in G-d’s Name

You are happily learning Tanach (scripture), and suddenly you bump into a vague combination of G-d’s names; something like this (Samuel B 7:22) —

עַל כֵּן גָּדַלְתָּ אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה כִּי אֵין כָּמוֹךָ וְאֵין אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתֶךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְנוּ בְּאָזְנֵינוּ.

Outside Israel, your early teachers probably told you to ignore all and every permutation of orthography in G-d’s Four-Letter Name. Follow tradition and read “Adonoy” \ “Adonai” (called “Adnus”), they said. This doesn’t always work, however, and this here is a prime example.

We have ourselves a clear mention of Adnus followed by YHVH. Should we read the verse as “Adonoy Adonoy”? Reading this way doesn’t even make sense in the context. What are we supposed to do?

If you possess some experience, you are aware that G-d’s Adnus name is repeated only twice in scripture. You may also remember how the piece in question was read in the synagogue for Torah or Haftarah. Then again, how can the Reader himself recognize what to do? No, there’s no rule that when preceded by Adnus, it is read as Elokim. Is there some way to always tell for sure?

Yes. Some of you are already familiar with it, but many might not be – until now.

YHVH is usually pronounced as “Adonoy”.

When preceded by another letter (כלב), the Adnus spelling is explicit (Patach, Cholam, Kametz), with a silent Aleph, cf. Joshua 22:22, Psalms 11:1, Genesis 4:3 —

 אֵל אֱלֹהִים יְהֹוָה אֵל אֱלֹהִים יְהֹוָה הוּא יֹדֵעַ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא יֵדָע אִם בְּמֶרֶד וְאִם בְּמַעַל בַּיהֹוָה אַל תּוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.

לַמְנַצֵּחַ לְדָוִד בַּיהֹוָה חָסִיתִי אֵיךְ תֹּאמְרוּ לְנַפְשִׁי {נוּדִי} הַרְכֶם צִפּוֹר.

וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ יָמִים וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה מִנְחָה לַיהֹוָה.

Still, most mentions of the Four-Letter Name of G-d, YHVH, are laden with the vowel points: Shva, Cholam, and Kametz. There is a good reason for this.

The original Adnus is actually supposed to begin with a Shva. Since the Alef of Adonoy cannot be voweled with a Shva, it is given a Chataf-Patach instead. In its YHVH form, it reverts back to the Shva. Kametz never appears two consonants away from the accent: אָדון is fine; אָדוני is not.

By the way, this demonstrates the abysmal ignorance of Bible critics and some Christians who separate G-d into several deities based on the varying names, when in truth the spelling reveals that they are one and the same. In fact, the Kabbalists actually combine the two names for mystical purposes.

Some Cursedian sects already pronounce the name as “Jehovah”… (Their full names may definitely be blotted out!)

The vowels are always guideposts!

Take another example (Psalms 71:16) —

אָבוֹא בִּגְבֻרוֹת אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה אַזְכִּיר צִדְקָתְךָ לְבַדֶּךָ.

Look closely at the vowels on YHVH. We see a Chataf-Segol, a Cholam, and then a Chirik. Can you think of any other word containing the same spelling? That’s right; YHVH now holds the precise diacritics for the word “Elokim”. This tells us not to read this as Adnus, but as Elokim.

OK, your turn! How do we read these verses (Samuel B 7:29, Ezekiel 28:6)?

וְעַתָּה הוֹאֵל וּבָרֵךְ אֶת בֵּית עַבְדְּךָ לִהְיוֹת לְעוֹלָם לְפָנֶיךָ כִּי אַתָּה אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה דִּבַּרְתָּ וּמִבִּרְכָתְךָ יְבֹרַךְ בֵּית עַבְדְּךָ לְעוֹלָם.

לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה יַעַן תִּתְּךָ אֶת לְבָבְךָ כְּלֵב אֱלֹהִים.

You get the idea. But some editions don’t realize this (or are designed for fools). Here’s a quote from the introduction of the Koren English translation of 1982 —

THE NAME OF THE LORD: In all other editions the name of the Lord JHVH is printed with nikkud (vowels) which may mislead the reader to read this name as it is strictly forbidden to do. The name of the Lord has to be read in “Adonoot”. In the Koren edition the name is printed without vowels: this eliminates the possibility of the forbidden reading and emphasizes the holiness of this name.

They still follow the same rule in 1992 (the Hebrew IDF edition) —

שם הוי”ה בא בספר בלא ניקוד, כדי למנוע חילול השם על ידי קריאה לא נכונה, לפי הניקוד.

I think most versions of scripture leave the vowels as is, but I presently lack other editions nearby to compare. Based on an informal survey I conducted, this is a mystery to even some scholars. I even found pocket editions of Psalms introduced with a guide to assist the reader in the correct vocalization of several “complex” instances of G-d’s names appearing in Psalms!

Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com

The Tiferes Yisrael on Laughter

Tiferes Yisrael Avos 6:6
 במיעוט שחוק – מלתא דבדיחותא ג”כ מיעוטו יפה, כדי לשמח הנפש ולהבריקה בחריצות וזכרון [פסחים קי”ז א’].

Some Offhand Thoughts as I Work on the Ebook

I am busy with my upcoming, free (about 20-page short) Ebook on surviving an encounter with an atheist*, so my thoughts are a bit more in that direction, even though this is isn’t our usual subject matter.

To subscribe, go here.

I just came across the following Wikipedia article titled “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” summarizing Richard Dawkins’ counter-argument to the Design Argument.

(If this doesn’t interest you, skip this.)

Here’s Wikipedia’s summary:

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to modern versions of the argument from design for the existence of God. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins in chapter 4 of his 2006 book The God Delusion, “Why there almost certainly is no God”.

The argument is a play on the notion of a “tornado sweeping through a junkyard to assemble a Boeing 747” employed to decry abiogenesis and evolution as vastly unlikely and better explained by the existence of a creator god. According to Dawkins, this logic is self-defeating as the theist must now account for the god’s existence and explain whether or how the god was created. In his view, if the existence of highly complex life on Earth is the equivalent of the implausible junkyard Boeing 747, the existence of a highly complex god is the “ultimate Boeing 747” that truly does require the seemingly impossible to explain its existence.

I didn’t read Dawkins’ book and don’t want to go into whether knowledge is an intrinsic “quality” of God, the anthropic principle, etc., but rather to point out that whether his counterargument follows or not is irrelevant, because, firstly, I don’t think there is any “proof” of God’s existence, secondly, because the Argument from Design is no good anyway, and thirdly, God is not a scientific explanation of anything (Yeshayahu Leibowitz).

Postulating a prime mover that is capable of indulging in intelligent design is, in Dawkins’s opinion, “a total abdication of the responsibility to find an explanation”…

But could an explanation be eventually found, even theoretically? If we speak, not of abiogenesis or evolution or the like, but of all everything; the “universe”, then since nothing can be said of the universe itself, the nihilistic quest is vain and misconceived.

Parenthetically, I assume the reason most all “Theist” debaters ignore this point is because they are actually Cursedian idolaters, not believers in one, transcendent God.

* Update: The ebook has already been sent to our present subscribers. If you have subscribed to our daily newsletter but did not yet receive the free ebook, please remind us here.

Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Are Not All They Seem

I didn’t read Marc Shapiro’s “Limits of Orthodox Theology”, but from the blurb, it sounds like the anonymous Hebrew pamphlet we recently posted here.

It is commonly asserted that Maimonides’ famous Thirteen Principles are the last word in Orthodox Jewish theology. This is a very popular notion, and is often repeated by scholars from all camps in Judaism. Yet such a position ignores the long history of Jewish theology in which Maimonides’ Principles have been subject to great dispute. The book begins with a discussion of the significance of the Principles and illustrates how they assumed such a central place in traditional Judaism. Each principle is then considered in turn: the reasons underlying Maimonides’ formulations are expounded and the disputes that have arisen concerning them are discussed in detail. Marc B. Shapiro’s authoritative analysis makes it quite clear that the notion that Maimonides’ Principles are the last word in traditional Jewish theology is a misconception, and that even Maimonides himself was not fully convinced of every aspect of his formulations. Although structured around Maimonides’ Principles, this book can also be seen as an encyclopedia of traditional Jewish thought concerning the central issues of Jewish theology.

The diversity of opinion in Jewish tradition on such issues as God, Creation, and the Revelation of the Torah is sure to surprise readers.

From book summaries I’ve seen (maybe somewhere here), not all of his points are valid, and some are self-admittedly conjectural, but enough suffices to make his point (and the book itself is probably even better).