[HANASHIR:8434] Re: Ivdu et ...

[Adrian Durlester <durleste...>]

I think Andy makes the point that most people forget-that, most often when
we use Ad-nai, it itself is a substitution for the tetragrammaton
yud-hey-vav-hey (there are places where Ad-nai is fully spelled out in the
bliblical text.) Since I think the impetus is to use Ad-nai because Hashem
is viewed as an outmoded and superstitious substitution by some liberal
Jews, the fact that Ad-nai itself is a substitution should negate that
impetus and render it a moot point.

Adrian
Adrian A. Durlester. M.T.S.
http://members.home.net/durleste/
Judaic/Ivrit and Music Teacher-Akiva School, Nashville, TN
Music & Choir Director, Congregation Micah, Nashville, TN
Editor, Bim Bam, Torah Aura Productions, Los Angeles, CA
Evening Program Chair, CAJE 26, Aug 5-9, 2001, Colorado state University.



 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org [mailto:owner-hanashir (at) 
shamash(dot)org]On
Behalf Of Andy Curry
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:02 PM
To: hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org
Subject: [HANASHIR:8431] Re: Ivdu et ...


  Rachelle,

  As Eric Simon pointed out, the "et" is grammatically necessary.

  As for your rabbi's point: I understand what he's saying, but "Adonai" and
"Hashem" are both indirections, substitutes for a real name. When we read
sacred texts and encounter the name spelled "yud hey vav hey", we don't try
to pronounce it. Hakadosh Baruch Hu has many "names" in our tradition(s), so
why do we insist on using one of them so much, especially considering it's
not really Harachaman's name?

  My $.02.

  Kol tuv,
  Andy