Source: http://bdld.info/tag/r-yonasan-eybeschutz/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:12:17+00:00

Document:
In parashas Re’eh, Hashem commands us to obliterate the names of other gods, but “You shall not do this to Hashem, your G-d.” (12:3-4) One interpretation of this verse is a prohibition against erasing Hashem’s Name (Rashi). It is even improper to write His Name in any ephemeral context, since this may result in it being discarded in a disrespectful manner (Rosh Ha’Shanah 18b, Rema YD 276:13). Based on this, R. Yonasan Eybeschütz is sharply critical of the practice of writing “ad-ieu”, meaning “to [or ‘with’] G-d”, in correspondence. He insists that this is a pernicious habit learned from the non-Jews, and it is based on the misconception that Hashem’s Name in a language other than Hebrew does not have the holiness of the Divine Name (Urim Ve’Tumim siman 27 urim #2). R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, however, defends the practice on the grounds that today “ad-ieu” has lost its original meaning and is used merely in the sense of a parting blessing (Achiezer end of III:32).
A practice that R. Chaim Ozer does recommend against on the grounds that it may cause the Divine Name to be discarded disrespectfully is the writing of it in newspapers, even in a language other than Hebrew. Ideally, a description of Hashem such as “the Eternal Creator” should be used instead, or the letters of the Name should be separated by a dash (as done throughout this article). If this is difficult, however, the Name may be written outright, at least in a newspaper containing words of Torah and Biblical verses in Hebrew, which will anyway not be treated disrespectfully. It is additionally appropriate to publicize in the newspaper itself that the paper should not be treated disrespectfully due to the Biblical verses and words of Torah, and if this is done, there is basis to permit the writing of the Divine Name in a language other than Hebrew.
ובעוונותינו הרבים רוב המוני עם אינם נזהרים, ואומרים בלשון אשכנז גאט זאל איהם שטראפין, גאט זאל איהם שלאגין, ועוברים לאו של תורה.
Q: Is using inappropriate language sinful?
A: A: Yes. Using inappropriate language is sinful. However, let’s look at each segment of the all encompassing term of “inappropriate language”. These segments include using G-d’s name in vain, cursing, blaspheming, and profanity.
David Carr of Zionsville, IN wondered why NPR bleeped out two words but not “g-ddamn,” which he found offensive.
Using “g-d damn it,” for example, is not “legally profane” according to the FCC.
But taking the L-rd’s name in vain — although not all see it that way — is more problematic for all mainstream media.
It turns out that NPR rarely airs those words g-d and damn together. A search showed 52 references in transcripts of the phrase “g-d damn” all the way back to 1990. When there’s no space between the two words (as in goddamn), there were 163 references since 1990.
When I asked CBS’ standards & practices editor, I got back a succinct email: “No gd on cbs,” wrote Linda Mason.
The Washington Post used the words “g-ddam” only twice in recent years. Post guidelines urge great caution in dealing with words or material that is profane or obscene, urging that it not be published except in cases where it’s essential (such as quoting from a court case on obscenity).
That said, why needlessly offend listeners? Bleeping out “g-ddamn” would have been so easy and lost nothing.
is not considered legally profane – but if meant seriously and literally, as an “imprecation of divine vengeance” or an “[implication of] divine condemnation”, it may very well be profane.
[T]he defendant having referred to an individual as “damned,” having used the expression “By G-d” irreverently, and having announced his intention to call down the curse of G-d upon certain individuals, was properly convicted of using profane language within the meaning of that term as used in the act of Congress prohibiting the use of profane language in radio broadcasting.
In that connection we will examine the following statements: “You’re the infernal gang that put in and turned the dairy industry over to that damn scoundrel. * * *” (We omit the name.) “You’re a fine example, by G-d, for the children of this school district.” “He will do anything, there’s nothing in G-d A-lmighty’s world that * * * wouldn’t do.” And, “Wait until I get through some of the trouble you’re getting an ex-convict to make for me and I’ll put on the mantle of the L-rd and call down the curse of G-d on you, that’s what I’ll do. You infamous harlot, you arch criminal, the people should tar and feather you and yours,” etc.
Appellant also contends that his motion of acquittal should have been granted because the language alleged to have been used was not “obscene, indecent, or profane.” The government concedes, and we agree, that the language alleged to have been used can in no way be considered “obscene” because the language as a whole can not be viewed as appealing to the prurient or calculated to arouse the animal passions, but rather was made during a moment of anger. Roth v. United States, supra; A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, supra; Duncan v. United States, 48 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1931).
Although the district court’s instruction defining “profane” is not criticized by appellant, the government does not contend that the words used were “profane.” Since the only words attributed to appellant which could even remotely be considered as being “profane” were “G-d damn it,” which were also uttered in anger, there is no basis for holding that the language was “profane” within the meaning of the statute. See Duncan v. United States, supra.
First, Sharp argues that licensee violated the statute by broadcasting the portion of “The West Wing” program wherein character President Bartlet “scream[ed] at G-d,” and made irreverent references toward the deity “[y]ou’re a sonofabitch, you know that?,” and “have I displeased you, you feckless thug?” Sharp cites FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919) as precedents that support a finding that the language at issue is legally profane.
However, the cases Sharp relies on are inapposite. The courts have held that material, such as the phrase “g-d damn it” uttered in anger, while offensive to some, is not legally profane for purposes of section 1464. Gagliardo v. United States, 366 F.2d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 1966) (CB radio transmission); see also Warren B. Appleton, 28 FCC 2d 36 (1971) (broadcast of “damn” is not profane). The United States Supreme Court has also struck down a state statute banning “sacrilegious” movies as violative of the First and Fourteenth amendments. Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952). In so ruling the court stated: “[i]t is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine. …” Id. at 505. Because we believe the language at issue here falls within the scope of Gagliardo and Burstyn, we do not believe it was actionably profane.
Note: Throughout this post, I have altered the names of G-d by the insertion of dashes, as per R. Chaim Ozer’s recommendation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.