Are You Allowed to Say ‘Today Is Wednesday’?

Uttering the Names of Idols

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly-released work God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

Idols in everyday speech

Most of us do not spend a lot of time discussing idols. Or do we? When talking about manned spacecraft, the name “Apollo” just rolls off our tongues. When discussing brand name footwear, we mention “Nike” without any second thoughts. And of course an old fashioned glass thermometer is a “mercury thermometer.” However, most of us have forgotten the idolatrous origins of these words: Apollo was the Greek god of the sun, Nike was the Greek god of victory, and Mercury was the Roman god of travel.

Are we halachically allowed to say these names, and if so, under what circumstances?

The prohibition of saying the names of idols

The Bible exhorts a Jew to be careful regarding everything I [G-d] have said to you. The name of the gods of others you shall not mention, nor shall your mouth cause it to be heard (Ex. 23:13). This is traditionally understood[1] to prohibit a Jew from causing the name of an idol to be uttered, whether by himself or by others.[2] One practical application of this law is that a Jew may not say, “Meet me next to such-and-such idol.”[3] Another corollary is that a Jew may not engage in a business partnership with an idolater, lest the Jew be required to take an oath and swear in the name of the idolater’s god.

The Talmud[4] offers two notable exceptions to this prohibition against saying the names of idols. Firstly, one is allowed to utter the names of idols if one does so mockingly.[5] Secondly, one is allowed to utter the names of idols that are explicitly mentioned in the Bible.[6]

Why saying the names of idols mentioned in the Bible is permitted

The commentators disagree about exactly why the Talmud allows one to say the names of idols mentioned in the Bible.

1. Achai Gaon (d. 752) understood that the Talmud allowed this because once explicit mention of the idol is allowed in one case, it is permitted in all cases.[7] In other words, since one is certainly allowed to pronounce those names when reading the Bible, then one may also utter those names in other contexts.[8]
2. Eliezer of Metz (d. 1175) writes that one is allowed to utter names of idols mentioned in the Bible because if the Bible was allowed to mention those names, then apparently those idols were already annulled. Then for the same reason that the Bible was allowed to use those names, individuals are also allowed to do so. In other words, the Bible’s use of an idol’s name does not intrinsically permit individuals to do so. The Bible’s usage merely proves the permissibility of such usage.[9]
3. Yehonatan Eyebschitz (1690–1764) writes in the name of the Zohar[10] that the reason that names of idols mentioned in the Bible may be said is that these idols have an element of holiness to them. In a nutshell, he compares these idols to the Tree of Knowledge, which has the potential to bring knowledge of good and knowledge of bad (see Gen. 2:17). This is symbolized by the ever-turning sword (Gen. 3:24) protecting the trees of Eden, which alternates its disposition between good and bad. In essence, he argues that the idols mentioned in the Bible have some aspect of good, so their names are allowed to be said. This stands in contrast to the names of idols not mentioned in the Bible, which are wholly evil as they are the root of all impurity, so uttering their names defiles one’s mouth and tongue.[11]

Questioning R. Eliezer of Metz’s explanation

1. Yair Chaim Bachrach (1639–1702) raises a difficulty with R. Eliezer of Metz’s approach: The reason for allowing one to utter the names of idols mentioned in the Bible cannot be that those idols were already annulled, because that is not always true. For example, Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 46:1) foretelling the future downfall of Bel and Nebo (two well-documented Babylonian deities) clearly implies that these deities still existed in Isaiah’s time. Thus one cannot say that if the Bible mentions a deity, it already ceased to be worshipped.[12]

Some suggest splitting R. Eliezer of Metz’s reasoning into two arguments. Accordingly, he means that the names of most idols mentioned in the Bible may be said because by now, they have already been annulled. As for the other idols, which have not yet been nullified, they may nonetheless be uttered for whatever, other reason the Bible was allowed to mention them.[13]

Names which preceded idolatrous usage

1. Yair Chaim Bachrach argues that there is another type of idol whose name may be said, even though it is not mentioned in the Bible. That is, if an entity existed before its name became associated with idolatry, then one is allowed to continue using its original name, despite its idolatrous association. He proves this assertion by noting that even though the seven astral forces (i.e. the sun, the moon, and the five closest planets) have historically been used for idol worship, Jews have not stopped using the names of those forces. That is, they continue to say Saturn for Shabtai, Jupiter for Zedek, and Lucifer (Venus) for Nogah, even though these entities have regretfully become associated with idolatry. He then notes that the seven astral forces are in any case not really idols because the gentiles do not view them as gods, per se, and even those who pray to these forces are only using them as intermediaries, not gods.[14]

Mentioning obsolete idols

1. Bachrach asks: how can the Talmud say that Rav and Shmuel did not go to the Temple of Netzrafi,[15] which was an idol,[16] if it is forbidden to mention the names of idols? He suggests that perhaps the prohibition only applies at the time that a given idol is still being actively worshipped. Once any idol becomes obsolete, one may utter its name—even if it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Nonetheless, he notes that according to this explanation, an incident in the Talmud becomes difficult to understand. The Amoraic sage Ulla was criticized for mentioning that he had lodged in Kal-Nebo, for Nebo was the name of an idol. One must, therefore, postulate that Nebo was still worshipped in Ulla’s time because otherwise, the Talmud’s criticism would be baseless.

However, this does not seem plausible because the joint downfall of Nebo and Bel is prophesied by Isaiah, and Bel had certainly already been eliminated by the time of Daniel (long before Ulla’s time). One would therefore assume that since Isaiah linked the downfall of Nebo and Bel, if Bel was no longer worshipped, neither was Nebo.[17] To resolve this, R. Bachrach posits that one must say that even after Daniel eliminated the idols of Bel and Nebo, they were later reinstituted, so that in the generation of Ulla, they were still worshipped.[18]

Idol names for studying Torah

1. Bachrach also suggests that one is permitted to say the name of an idol for the purposes of discussing and clarifying Torah. He bases himself on a Mishnah, which relates the following story about Rabban Gamliel:

Proclus, son of Plospus, asked Rabban Gamliel in Acre while he was bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite and he said to him: “Is it not written in your law, No part of the banned property may adhere to your hand (Deut. 13:18)? Why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite [the Greek goddess of love, whose idol should render the bathhouse banned property]?” He [Rabban Gamliel] said to him, “I did not enter her domain, she entered my domain. They did not say ‘let us make the bathhouse an ornamentation for Aphrodite’, rather they said, ‘let us make [the idol of] Aphrodite an ornament for the [preexisting] bathhouse’. Furthermore, even if they gave you a lot of money, you would never enter the temple of your idol while naked, or after a seminal emission, or urinate in front of the idol. This idol [of Aphrodite] stands atop the sewage duct and everyone urinates in front of her. It only says their gods, [this serves to limit the prohibition to actions] which are customary because that idol is treated as a god, [but actions done with an idol that are] not because it is treated as a god are permitted.[19]

1. Bachrach reasons that the Mishnah deemed it appropriate to mention the name Aphrodite—and did not just mention an “idol” in a vague way—because mentioning the names of idols is permitted for the purposes of clarifying the details of Torah and halacha.[20] The same idea is proposed by the fourteenth-century authority R. Menachem ha-Meiri (1249–1310),[21] who allows for mentioning names of idols which are not in the Bible if needed in order to learn and rule halachic matters. He cites, as an example, the case of the Roman god Marculus (Mercury), which is consistently mentioned by name in Rabbinic literature, even though it does not appear in the Bible.[22]

R. Tam disagrees with ha-Meiri

However, this allowance is not universally agreed upon. Rabbeinu Tam (1100–1171), the celebrated Tosafist and grandson of Rashi, writes in his explanation of the etymology of the name Marculus[23] that the name itself speaks disparagingly of the idol and is not its real name.[24]

Consequently, when R. Chaim Benveniste (1603–1673) compares the explanation of R. Tam with that of ha-Meiri, he explains that they both attempt to answer how the Rabbis were allowed to refer to the idol Marculus by name, if one is forbidden from uttering the names of idols. Ha-Meiri resolves this issue by explaining that when needed for the purposes of Torah study, one is allowed to mention the name of an idol.

However, R. Tam, as R. Benveniste understands, disagrees with this assumption and is instead forced to explicate the name Marculus, arguing that it is not the idol’s real name.[25] Thus, R. Tam’s engaging in onomastics shows that he rejected ha-Meiri’s approach. Therefore, R. Benveniste concludes that while ha-Meiri allows one to mention the names of idols if needed for Torah study, R. Tam disagrees.

Another commentator takes note of the disagreement between R. Tam and ha-Meiri and offers evidence supporting ha-Meiri’s view. The Talmud[26] lists by name several idols that are considered “permanent places of daily idolatry” even though those idols are not mentioned in the Bible. This implies that mentioning the name of an idol for the purposes of delineating its halachic status is permissible. On the other hand, he notes that the Talmud elsewhere[27] finds problematic the fact that a Tannaic source refers to the idol Gadyon by name even though it was in a halachic context.[28] Thus, the evidence remains inconclusive as to the final ruling in this dispute between R. Tam and ha-Meiri.

R. Tam agrees with ha-Meiri

Nonetheless, recently discovered Medieval sources attest to the notion that R. Tam himself agreed that one is, in fact, allowed to utter names of idols if needed for Torah study. R. Yehuda Sir-Leon (1166–1224) quotes the same passage of R. Tam as cited above. However, according to R. Sir-Leon’s version, R. Tam’s question was set up slightly differently: R. Tam asked how the Talmud could mention the name of Marculus, if uttering the name of an idol not mentioned in the Bible is forbidden. R. Tam qualifies his question by noting that in other places, the Talmud refers to different idols/idolatrous concepts by name (such as the Roman holidays Calanda and Saturnura[29]) because it was required to do so in order to teach about the halachot relating to them. R. Tam then asserts that the Talmud only forbids mentioning the name of an idol for the sake of Torah study when the actual name of the idol denotes a positive aspect of the idol.[30] Because of this, R. Tam found it difficult that the Talmud refers explicitly to Marculus even though its name has a positive association. To avoid this difficulty, R. Tam reinterpreted the name Marculus in an unflattering way.[31]

Given this version of the discussion, it seems clear that R. Tam agrees with ha-Meiri that one is allowed to mention the name of an idol as needed for Torah study; he only disallows doing so when the very name of the idol denotes a positive aspect of the deity.

Idols mentioned in the Targum

The Talmud states that one is obligated to read each week’s Torah portion twice in the original Hebrew Scripture and once in the Aramaic Targum. The Talmud then broadens this obligation by noting that even the verse Ataroth and Dibon and Jazer and Nimrah (Num. 32:3) should be recited in the above manner.[32] This particular verse simply lists names of several places in the Jewish-occupied Trans-Jordan, which the tribes of Reuben and Gad wished to secure for themselves. As proper nouns, these names are not translated by Targum. Thus, saying the verse in Targum amounts to repeating the exact same verse again verbatim without adding anything.[33]

However, R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai (1724–1806) notes that this is not entirely true. The cities Ataroth and Dibon are mentioned here twice: once in the initial request by Reuben and Gad, and once again when their request was granted and they built up those cities. Only in the latter instance does Targum Onkelos not translate these names (Num. 32:33). In the first instance, Onkelos translates Ataroth and Dibon as Machlelta (מכללתא) and Malbeshta (מלבשתא).[34] R. Azulai resolves this inconsistency by explaining that the original names of those cities were names of idols, which were replaced by Reuben and Gad with non-idolatrous names.[35] Thus, while the Torah consistently refers to the cities by their Jewish names Ataroth and Dibon, Onkelos translates the names of those cities into their original, idolatrous names Machlelta and Malbeshta. But later, when Onkelos translates the verses describing the execution of Reuben and Gad’s plan, he does not translate the city names mentioned in the Bible, since at that point the cities had already been re-named.

This begs the question: Why does the Talmud single out the verse about Ataroth and Dibon when it insists that Targum must be read for every verse? If the Targum added no explanation whatsoever, then this verse would indeed make the Talmud’s point well. Yet this is not the case, for Targum does add an explanation to the Scripture (by “translating” the city names into their original idolatrous names used before the conquest of Reuben and Gad). Why, then, did the Talmud single out this verse?

1. Bachaya answers this question by explaining that the Talmud was teaching a different law by citing this verse. As discussed, one may only say the names of idols which are mentioned in the Bible. Accordingly, explains R. Bachaya, one might think that the prohibition includes idols which are mentioned in the Targum, but not in the Bible. In order to pre-empt this argument, the Talmud makes a point of stating that one should read the entire Targum—even of the verse Ataroth and Dibon which contains the names of idols. This teaches that one is allowed to say the names of idols mentioned in the Targum just as one may say the names of those mentioned in the Bible itself.[36]
2. Azulai codifies this law into practice,[37] as does R. Emmanuel Chai Ricci (1687-1743).[38] R. Azulai writes elsewhere[39] that R. Yehonatan Eyebschitz[40] offers the same explanation, as does R. Menachem Azariah of Fanu (1548–1620)[41] in a then-unpublished manuscript.[42]

In short, if one is forbidden from uttering the names of all idols not mentioned in the Bible, even when necessary for Torah study, those names mentioned in the Targum are still allowed to be uttered.

The Rabbis corrupted the names of idols

As mentioned above, the Talmud[43] offers a list of “permanent places of daily idolatry”: the Temple of Bel in Babylon, the Temple of Nebo in Kursi, Tar’ata in Mapug, Zerifa in Ashkelon, and Nishtra in Arabia.[44] The Tosafist R. Yehuda b. Klonymous takes issue with this delineation of idolatrous names and asks how the Talmud could mention them if they are not found in the Bible (save for Bel and Nebo). He answers that the Talmud slightly altered their names in order to present these idols in a disparaging way. For example, the name Tar’ata conjures the word ‘arai (עראי, temporary), alluding to the “temporary existence” of this idol until its eventual downfall. The god Nishtra was spelled nishra, conjuring the word neshira (נשירה, falling/balding).[45]

Similarly, the Mishnah offers a list of pagan holidays celebrated in Roman times and includes in that list a holiday known as Saturnura (סטרנורא).[46] R. Yisrael Lipschitz (1782–1860) points out that the real name of this winter holiday was Saturnalia, the day which celebrates the astral force Shabtai (known in Latin as Saturn).[47] R. Lipschitz explains that the Rabbis purposely distorted the word Saturnalia in order to avoid the issue of explicitly using the name of an idol. They referred to it as Saturnura, which is a portmanteau of satar (סטר, far away) and nura (נורא, fire), a reference to the Earth’s distance from the sun during the winter period.[48] (In some ways, this follows R. Lipschitz’s general approach of explaining that while the Hebrew language does incorporate some elements of foreign languages, the Rabbis insured that it would not do so verbatim, but would slightly alter the meaning and/or pronunciation of adopted foreign words.[49])

A third instance of this phenomenon is found where the Talmud[50] mentions an Egyptian deity named Sar-apis (סר אפיס). The Talmud explains that this god is named after the Biblical Joseph, who was sar u-mefis (סר ומפיס, he disappeared and [then ended up] sustaining [the entire world during the years of famine]). R. Yaakov Emden (1697–1776) notes that in this case, the Talmud purposely split the god’s name Serapis into two words in order to disparage it. That is, the Talmud’s spelling of the Egyptian deity’s name is orthographically similar to Sar efes (שר אפס), which literally means “prince of nothing.”[51]

Using idol names in everyday life

1. Yitzchok Schmelkes of Lvov (1828–1905) discusses using the names of idols in everyday correspondence. He rules that it is unbefitting of the local Bikur Cholim chapter (an aid group which visits the sick and infirm) to bear the name Gaia, because Gaia was the name of a Greek goddess responsible for health. He notes that even though it seems that this idol has already been rendered obsolete, the possibility still exists that somewhere, someone believes in it. He also denounces using the Yiddish phrase gesundheit because the German word gesund (health) recalls the name of the Greek goddess Gaia, regardless of whether or not the German word preceded the establishment of the Greek pantheon. He then notes that even though the Hebrew word mammon (ממון, money) was derived from the pagan god of silver,[52] its usage as the term for money is somehow not connected to that god in any way, while the German word for health is, in fact, directly related to the Gaia.[53]

Maharal (1512–1609) writes that it is forbidden to mention certain well-known coins which were named after idols.[54]

Writing names of idols

1. Yosef Babad (1801–1874) writes that he is unsure about whether or not the prohibition of saying the names of idols also applies to writing them.[55] After discussing the matter, R. Schmelkes effectively rules that there is no prohibition to write the names of idols, a view upheld by R. Ezriel Hildesheimer (1820–1899), as well.[56] However, R. Schmelkes adds the caveat that one who wrote about an idol, “this is my god” has violated a capital prohibition in the same way as one who says those words.[57]
2. Menashe Klein (1924–2011) quotes these sources to allow writing the addresses of streets and towns named after idols. He further justifies his position by noting that according to R. Eliezer of Metz, one is allowed to say the name of any idol that is obsolete. Accordingly, since streets and towns[58] are usually named after obsolete forms of idolatry, there is generally no problem. Nonetheless, R. Klein concludes that, if possible, one should try to avoid directly writing the name of an idol when writing out a city or street name, and should instead purposely misspell the idolatrous name.[59]

Places named after idols

1. Moshe Sternbuch tolerates uttering the names of idols in situations that most people do not realize those names are actually of idolatrous origins. R. Sternbuch applies this reasoning to justify, for example, using the secular names for months which are named after idols (see below). He also uses this to permit saying the name of the Indian city Bombay, even though it is named after an idol. Regarding Bombay, R. Sternubuch also notes that the actual Indian goddess for whom the city is named was Mumbai and when the British occupied India, they changed the name of the city from Mumbai to Bombay,[60] thereby showing their disregard for the theistic implications of its name. Once this occurred, the name of the city can no longer be said to be associated with that idol.[61]

In discussing streets named after idols, R. Efrayim Greenblatt (1932–2014) notes that nowadays those streets only refer to the idols in name, but do not actually conjure their memory. Nonetheless, he writes that when one needs to mention the name of an idol when writing the address for a mail item, one should optimally abbreviate the idol’s name, instead of writing it out in full. R. Greenblatt also notes that in 1951, R. Moshe Feinstein (1895–1986) told him that, if possible, one should refrain from verbally mentioning street names that refer to idols (similar to R. Klein’s ruling), but if it cannot be avoided, one should express the name in a way that it is clear that he conveys no religious significance to the idol. When all is said and done, R. Greenblatt concludes that while some people are stringent in this matter, the norm is to be lenient.[62]

The late R. Avraham Weinfeld argues that places named after idols are allowed to be mentioned provided the idol itself is not located in that place. Nonetheless, if the place actually houses the idol for which it is named, uttering the place’s name would be forbidden.[63]

Names of idols in dates

There are several complicated issues that arise when referring to dates by the conventional Western system. The names of some components used in this system allude to elements of idolatry, leading to the possibility that a Jew is forbidden from using such a dating system:

1. Years: The secular calendar supposedly begins counting its years from the birth of the Christian man-god Jesus. By using that date as one’s point of reference, one lends significance to that religion, which may be forbidden. Nonetheless, after discussing the matter at great length, Ovadia Yosef (1918–2013) allows using the secular year in private letters. Interestingly, he proves that anyways the year 1 CE was not actually the year of Jesus’ birth.[64] Some authorities mention that if one wants to be especially stringent, he can use the Christian year in correspondence, but should note that such is the year “according to their calculation” to exclude himself from giving any significance to the Christian counting. Alternatively, if one omits the millennium and only counts the century and the year in the century (e.g. if in the year 1987 he simply writes 987), he is in the clear because he has sufficiently deviated from the Christian nomenclature. Nonetheless, R. Meir Amsel (1907–2007) proves from various rabbinic responsa that all of this is unnecessary.[65]
2. Months: The names of the first six months of the conventional calendar are derived from names of Greek and Roman gods (January=Janus, February=Februus, March=Mars, April=Aphrodite, May=Maia, June=Juno). Nonetheless, R. Sternbuch rules that this does not cause a problem in using those names, because since people do not realize their idolatrous origins, they may be uttered.[66] Another complicating factor is that using the numbers of the secular months (1 for January, 2 for February, 3 for March, et al.) may be considered a violation of the Biblical directive (Ex. 12:2) that Nissan should always be considered the first month.[67]
3. Days of the week: The conventional names for the days of the week are related to the idolatrous names of the seven astral forces. In English and German, most of those names are related to Norse gods, while in other Latin-based Romance languages (such as Spanish, French, and Italian) the days are named after Roman gods.[68] This raises an issue with using those names because they speak of idols. Furthermore, halacha calls for connecting the days of the week to the Sabbath: The fourth of the Ten Commandments commands the Jews to Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it… (Ex. 20:8). Mechilta de-Rashbi explains that this commandment entails remembering the Sabbath during the rest of the week by naming each day of the week as a function of the days elapsed since the previous Sabbath. Thus, Sunday is “the first day,” Monday is “the second day,” and so forth (see footnote[69]).
4. Yehuda Herzl Henkin[70] rules that one is permitted to say the names of foreign deities which are no longer worshipped nowadays because once the deity is no longer worshipped, its name can no longer be said to be a name of idolatry. Furthermore, he argues that the Torah only forbids uttering the name of a foreign god per se but does not prohibit uttering the names of places or the like which are named after foreign gods. With this in mind, he justifies using the names of Norse gods in the days of the week. However, he too notes that if the idol in question is located inside the city which bears its name, then uttering the city’s name is forbidden.

Interestingly, while the consensus seems to permit using secular dates, R. Ovadiah Yosef clearly writes that his lenient ruling does not allow for using secular dates on Jewish tombstones.[71]

Conclusion

In short, there are several common cases in which the Poskim allow for one to verbalize the names of idols. The first two cases—speaking of an idol disparagingly or saying a name mentioned in the Bible—are explicitly mentioned in the Talmud. As a corollary of the second case, many Poskim also allow for saying the names of idols mentioned in the Targumim, even if they are not mentioned explicitly in the Bible.

Some sources see a dispute between R. Tam and ha-Meiri about whether one is allowed to mention the names of idols not found in the Bible when doing so in the context of Torah study, with ha-Meiri ruling in the affirmative and R. Tam disagreeing. However, there is evidence that points to the contention that R. Tam himself actually agrees to ha-Meiri’s lenient ruling—as long as the idolatrous name is not overly flattering of the deity.

Another leniency is that it is permissible to say the names of idols which are no longer worshipped or to say their names in contexts outside of their existence as deities (i.e. things which are named after those gods). In practice, contemporary Poskim generally adopt lenient positions when the names of idols appear as street names, city names, and in other everyday uses. The consensus is to rule even more leniently when the matter concerns merely writing names of idols, as opposed to actually saying them.

[1] Nachmanides (there) understands that this prohibition is derived from the plain reading of the verse cited, implying that the prohibition of mentioning the name of an idol is Biblically-ordained. However, Maimonides (Sefer ha-Mitzvot, Negative Commandment #14 and in Laws of Avodah Zarah 5:10) understands that only swearing in the name of an idol is Biblically forbidden, while the prohibition of mentioning an idol’s name in other contexts is of Rabbinic origin. This approach is also adopted by Sefer ha-Chinuch (#86) and Gersonides (to Ex. 23:13).

[2] R. Yitzchak Luria (1534–1572), better known as Arizal, taught (see Likkutei Torah, Parshat Mishpatim) that this prohibition also includes saying any name of the Satan (Samael), including “Diablo”. The author of responsa Torah li-Shmah, ostensibly R. Yosef Chaim of Baghdad (1832–1909), writes (there §426) that he is careful to refer to the archangel by the first two letters of his name, Samech-Mem. R. David Grossman (the voice of the Shaspod) calls him “Sammy.”

[3] Piskei ha-Rosh (Sanhedrin §7:3) cites an opinion which maintains that this prohibition only applies to using the name of an idol for a utilitarian purpose, but to use the name for no practical reason is permitted. However, Piskei ha-Rosh rejects this view, arguing that mentioning a name of an idol for no real reason is worse than doing so for a practical reason. Piskei ha-Rosh’s rejection of that opinion is codified by the author’s son in the Tur Yoreh Deah §147 (see also Beit Yosef there) and Shulchan Aruch (there).

[4] Sanhedrin 63b.

[5] The Talmud (Sotah 42a) says that scoffers are amongst those who do not merit being greeted by G-d’s Holy Presence. Nonetheless, those who mock idolatry are an exception to this rule. Similarly, Maharsha (to Megillah 25b) writes that the notion of “clean language” does not apply to discussions about idolatry, so one may use crude expressions in deriding idols.

[6] R. Chaim Benveniste in Shiyarei Knesset ha-Gedolah, Yoreh Deah §147 points out that this dispensation applies even when not said mockingly.

[7] R. Yosef Engel (1859–1920) in Gilyonei ha-Shas (to Sanhedrin 63b) notes that the rule “once something is allowed in one case, it is permitted in all cases” is not universally accepted. Therefore, he argues that according to those who disagree with this rule, one is forbidden from uttering even the names of idols mentioned explicitly in the Bible.

[8] S. Mirsky (ed.), Sheiltot de-Rav Achai Gaon vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Yeshiva University/Mossad HaRav Kook, 1962), pg. 136.

[9] Sefer Yeraim, §75 [§245 in other editions].

[10] I am unable to locate the source of the Zohar cited by R. Eyebschitz.

[11] Yaarot Dvash (vol. 2, derush #2).

[12] Responsa Chavot Yair vol. 1, §1.

[13] This answer is proposed by R. Yosef David Zintzheim (1745–1812) in Yad David (to Sanhedrin 63b) and by Shem Chadash to Sefer Yeraim (there). R. Mordechai Yaffe (1530–1612), in his work Levush Ateret Zahav (Yoreh Deah §147:4), also notes that uttering names of idols mentioned in the Bible is permitted and simply writes, “just as the Torah mentioned them, we are also allowed to mention them.”

[14] Responsa Chavot Yair (vol. 1, §1).

[15] Shabbat 116a.

[16] M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1971) pg. 930 claims that the term Netzrafi is a cacophemistic disguise of the word Notzri (נוצרי, Christian).

[17] R. Bachrach does not reveal his source for the assertion that Daniel eliminated the Babylonian idol Bel. Nonetheless, this idea is found in two early sources: Yanai, an early payytan (poet) who lived in the Holy Land wrote a poem about different miraculous feats which had historically occurred at night. This poem, popularly recited towards the conclusion of the Passover Seder, mentions the destruction of Bel between mentioning the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib’s army and Daniel miraculously interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. This placement implies that the idol’s destruction happened in the time of Daniel and Nebuchadnazzar. Additionally, Yossiphon (Book I, Ch. 3), a Hebrew work loosely based on Josephus’ writings, relates the story of Daniel proving to an unnamed Babylonian king that Bel itself does not eat the sacrifices offered to it, but rather its priests eat those sacrifices and pretend like the idol ate it. The priests of Bel admitted to perpetuating this ploy, prompting the Babylonian king to destroy the Temple of Bel.

[18] R. Yaakov Emden (1697–1776) in his glosses to Avodah Zarah 11b also makes this suggestion about Bel. Archeology suggests that this restoration of the idol happened sooner rather than later because the Alexander Chronicle (BM 36304) records that Bel-worship existed at the time of King Darius’ downfall (although, scholars disagree about whether this refers to King Darius I or Darius II). See A. Hool, The Challenge of Jewish History (Mosaica Press, 2014), pgs. 53–54.

[19] Avodah Zarah 3:4.

[20] Responsa Chavot Yair (vol. 1, §1).

[21] Beit ha-Bechirah to Sanhedrin 63b.

[22] Although ha-Meiri does not expressly use this position to justify the Mishnah invoking the name Aphrodite, R. Avraham Sofer (1897–1982), who was the first to publish many volumes of ha-Meiri’s work, notes that his ruling also explains that phenomenon; see A. Sofer (ed.), Beit ha-Bechira, Sanhedrin (Jerusalem: Kedem Publishing, 1971), pg. 239. R. Yaakov Yakub Ettlinger (1798–1871) also asks how the Mishnah was allowed to mention the name Aphrodite, but does not offer a conclusive answer, see his Aruch la-Ner (to Sanhedrin 63b).

[23] R. Tam contends that the idol’s proper name was Cilus (קילוס) which means “high praise” in Hebrew. In order to counter the positive meaning of the idol’s name, the Rabbis nicknamed it Culus, which is related to the Hebrew word keles (קלס, disgrace). They also prefixed to the name the word Mar (מר) which means “replace”. Thus, the final name of the idol in Rabbinic eyes is Marculus, “[He whose ‘positive’ name should be] replaced [with] disgrace.” Similarly, R. Isaiah of Trani (1180–1250) in Piskei Rid (to Sanhedrin 63b) explains that the original name of the idol was Ramculus (רמקוליס), meaning “the exalted Culus,” which the Rabbis changed to Marculus, “the bitter Culus”.

See Maharam (to Sanhedrin 64a) who explains why according to R. Tam the Rabbis had to add the word Mar and did not simply call the idol Culus, which itself means disgrace. He also discusses why the Rabbis did not name the idol Marcilus, “Replacing Cilus.” See also Maharshal’s commentary to Smag (Negative Commandment #32) and R. Benveniste’s commentary there (Chamra de-Chayei to Smag).

Interestingly, R. Yaakov Yakub Ettlinger (Aruch la-Ner to Sanhedrin 64a) writes that he is unsure whether one is now allowed to say the name Cilos because that idol is no longer worshipped or if even nowadays it may not be verbally mentioned because it is the name of an idol. R. Ettlinger notes that according to the latter understanding when Tosafot quote in the name of R. Tam that the idol’s name was really Cilus, that name should only be written, but not read. Remarkably, Tosafot preface their quote of R. Tam with the words “R. Tam said…,” which implies that this explanation was said by R. Tam (as opposed to being only written by him).

[24] Tosafot to Sanhedrin 64a and Avodah Zarah 50a.

[25] Shiyarei Knesset ha-Gedolah, Yoreh Deah §147, also cited by Darkei Teshuvah (there).

[26] Avodah Zarah 11b.

[27] Sanhedrin 63b.

[28] Parashat ha-Kesef to Maimonides’ Laws of Avodah Zarah 5:10.

[29] Mentioned in the Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:3.

[30] Interestingly, ha-Meiri in a bevy of locations (see his commentary to Brachos 57b, Kiddushin 7b, Sanhedrin 40a, 60b, 63b, Avodah Zarah 42a, 42b, 49b, 50a, 50b, 51a, 51b, 52b, 64b) consistently refers to the idol as Marcilus (מרקילוס), using the positive name that R. Tam found objectionable (see above). My colleague R. Zvi Mordechai Libber of Milwaukee informed me that in almost all extant manuscripts of the Talmud, the name of this idol is consistently spelled מרקוליס, with the exception of MS Escorial G-I-3 to Bava Metziah 25b, which twice spells it מרקילוס (like ha-Meiri), even though that manuscript otherwise uses the more common spelling.

[31] This passage appears at least twice in R. Sir-Leon’s relatively-recently published writings: M. Y. Blau (ed.), Tosafot Rabbeinu Yehudah mi-Paris, Avodah Zarah (New York, 1929), pgs. 250–251 and N. Zaks (ed.), Tosafot Rabbeinu Yehudah, Brachot vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Machon HaTalmud HaYisraeli HaShalem, 1972), pg. 618. It also appears in Tosafot ha-Rosh (to Avodah Zarah 50a and Bava Metzia 25b).

A third version of R. Tam’s discussion reveals another factor in why R. Tam assumed that the idol’s real name was Culus, not Marculus. The Talmud (Bava Metziah 25b) refers to the “stones of the Temple of Culus”. Tosafot (there) note that because of this, R. Tam understood that the real name of the idol was Culus, not Marculus. According to this version, it seems that R. Tam was not at all bothered by the Talmud using the name Marculus and only assumes that Marculus was not its real name simply because the Talmud itself refers to the idols of Culus. See also Sefer ha-Yashar le-Rabbeinu Tam (Chiddushim, §699).

[32] Brachot 8a–8b.

[33] Rashi (to Brachot 8b) writes that Onkelos does not translate this verse at all. This assumption is shared by Tosafot (there) who write that while Onkelos does not translate this verse, Targum Yerushalmi does. Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah (to Alfasi Brachot 4b) note that the Targumic translations cited below are from Targum Yerushalmi, not Targum Onkelos. See the glosses of R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes (1805–1855) and R. Elazar Landau (1778–1831) there who suggest emending the text of the Talmud to refer to a different passage that mentions the names Ataroth and Dibon or that perhaps some passages printed within Targum Onkelos are really copied from Targum Yerushalmi.

Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah explain that the Talmud singled out the verse in question to teach that even though it does not have Targum Onkelos, one is still obligated to recite its Targum Yerushalmi. Nachmanides (or an early scholar who might be confused for Nachmanides) writes that the Talmud singled out this verse because the Targum to this seemingly mundane verse includes the Kabbalistic secrets to the system of the High Chariot; see C. D. Chavel (ed.) Kitvei Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1964), pg. 468.

1. Elazar Moshe Horowitz of Pinsk (1817–1890) notes in his glosses to the Talmud that this verse is special because in Targum’s rendition, it translates the name of a place based on something which had not yet happened at the time being described, thus it cannot be considered a simple translation of the Bible. As a result, the Talmud singles out this verse to teach that even when the Targum deviates from simply translating the Bible, it should still be recited.

[34] Alternate versions of Onkelos read שכלילתא  or מכלכלתא for the first city and מלבישתא for the second. Other Targumim read: מכללתא and מדבשתא (see Targum pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Yerushalmi). FTV Num. reads דובשתא for the second city.

[35] This follows the approach of Rashi (to Num. 32:38) who understood that when the Bible mentioned and Nebo and Baal Meon with altered names amongst the cities inhabited by the tribe of Reuben this means that the original names of those cities were Nebo and Baal Meon. Rashi explains that since those names are names of idols, the Reubenites changed the names of those cities. Nachmanides, on the other hand, disagrees with Rashi’s approach and explains (there) that Nebo and Baal Meon were the original names of those cities under Moabite rule and the Amorites who conquered them altered their names, until they were later restored by the Reubenites.

[36] To Num. 32:3.

[37] Birkei Yosef to Yoreh Deah §147 and Orach Chaim §285.

[38] Aderet Eliyahu to Brachot 8b.

[39] Responsa Tov Ayin §18:59.

[40] Yaarot Dvash (vol. 2, drush #2) and Tiferet Yehonatan (to Num. 32:3).

[41] Sefer Maamarei ha-Rama mi-Fanu vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Yismach Lev-Torat Moshe, 2003), pg. 177.

[42] R. Azulai cites this in his Kuntres Acharon to Birkei Yosef, Orach Chaim (above).

[43] Avodah Zarah 11b.

[44] See Harkavy (ed.), Zichron la-Rishonim ve-gam la-Acharonim vol. 1 (Petersburg, 1879), pg. 22 for a Geonic responsum that discusses the somewhat-related issue of which ancient Persian holidays mentioned by the Talmud (there) were still practiced.

[45] See Y. Maimon (ed.), Yechusei Tanaim ve-Amoraim (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1963), pg. 161.

[46] Avodah Zarah 1:3.

[47] The Italian scholar R. Chananiah Elchanan Chai Cohen (1750–1834) in Bamot Baal (Reggio, 1809), pg. 36a answers this discrepancy differently. He posits that for some reason when transliterating the name of the Roman holiday from Latin to Hebrew, the l-sound of the word saturnalia switched to an r-sound to produce saturnura. He notes that the inverse phenomenon is found in the name of the Roman god Mercury in which the second r-sound was switched into an l-sound in Hebrew to produce the name Marculus. Indeed, Egyptologists also see the interchangeability of these two sounds in the Ancient Egyptian language. Linguists recognize that both the r-sound and the l-sound are considered liquids and are therefore somewhat interchangeable.

[48] Tiferet Yisrael to Avodah Zarah 1:3, Yachin §8.

[49] See R. C. Klein, Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2015), pg. 159.

[50] Avodah Zarah 43a.

[51] Hagahot Yaavetz to Avodah Zarah 43a.

[52] I have not found any source for this assertion. R. Reuven Margolis in Mekor Chesed to Sefer Chassidim §427 points out that the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah §22:8) offers another explanation of the Hebrew word mammon: It is an abbreviation of the phrase mah atah moneh kelum (מה אתה מונה כלום, what are you counting– nothing).

[53] Responsa Beit Yitzchak, Yoreh Deah vol. 1, §152.

[54] Gur Aryeh to Ex. 23:13.

[55] Minchat Chinuch, §86.

[56] Responsa Rabbi Ezriel (Yoreh Deah §180).

[57] Responsa Beit Yitzchak, Yoreh Deah vol. 1, §152.

[58] R. Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793–1876) is reputed to have refrained from pronouncing the given names of cities because he suspected that they contained allusions to idolatry. Instead, he would purposely mispronounce the name of the city or give use some other way of identifying the city besides its name. Nonetheless, R. Meir Amsel dismisses the story about R. Chaim Sanzer as an unsourced rumor and points to several halachic responsa where R. Chaim Sanzer himself uses the gentile names of cities. See Responsa Hamaor vol. 1 (New York, 1967), pgs. 493–494 and ha-Ish ha-Domeh le-Malach (Bene Barak, 2002), pg. 62.

Similarly, the town known in Hungarian as Szatmárnémeti and in Romanian as Satu Mare was historically known amongst Jews as Sakmar/Sakmir. In fact, its own rabbis such as R. Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar referred to the town as such. The phenomenon was likely due to an urban legend which argued that Satu Mare refers to “Saint Mary”. Nonetheless, others point out that the name Satu Mare simply means “large city” in Romanian.

[59] Responsa Mishnah Halachot vol. 9, §169.

[60] When asked by my colleague R. Dovi Leibowitz of Givat Zev HaChadashah about the 1995 legislation in India that restored the name Mumbai to the city, R. Sternbuch responded that even so, people still continue to call the city Bombay, so his ruling remains. Furthermore, noted R. Sternbuch, even if the name Mumbai catches on, since most people do not realize that it is the name of an idol, it is still permitted to be mentioned.

[61] Responsa Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot vol. 6, Yoreh Deah §178.

[62] Responsa Rivevot Efrayim vol. 8, §556.

[63] M. Amsel (ed.), Kovetz Hamaor vol. 18 (Brooklyn, 1951), pg. 9 and Kovetz Chachmei Lev (Jerusalem: Yeshivat Lev Avraham, 1998), pgs. 75–78.

[64] Responsa Yabia Omer vol. 3 Yoreh Deah §9 and vol. 7 Yoreh Deah §32.

[65] See Responsa Hamaor vol. 1 (New York, 1967), pgs. 490–491.

[66] Responsa Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot vol. 6, Yoreh Deah  §178.

[67] See R. Yaakov Yerucham Warschner’s Seder Yaakov vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 2010), pgs. 373–375 who offers a survey of the various opinions on this matter.

[68] Interestingly, Portuguese is the only Romantic language in which the days of the week (except Saturday and Sunday) are named ordinally, not nominally (see below).

[69] Mechilta de-Rabbi Yishmael (there) simply quotes the Tannaic sage Rav Yitzchak who said, “you should not count in the way that others count; rather you should count for the sake of the Sabbath.” Nachmanides (to Ex. 20:8) and Ritva (to Rosh HaShanah 3a) explain that this means that the days of the week should not be given nominally, but rather ordinally in relation to how many days passed since the previous Sabbath. Their explanation bridges the statements of Mechilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and Mechilta de-Rashbi.

Yosef Elbo (1380–1444) in Sefer ha-Ikkarim (9:33) quotes Nachmanides and adds that this means that one should not use the names Lunis, Martis, Marculus (the respective Spanish words for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday) to refer to the days of the week. R. Yosef Teomim (1727–1792), better known as the Pri Megadim, in Sefer Notrikon (Bilguriya, 1910), pg. 10 also quotes Nachmanides and adds that this means that one should not use the German/Yiddish names Sonntag (Sunday), Montag (Monday), et al., for the days of the week.

This begs the question: How can the Jewish community at large use the names for the days of the week in their respective languages, if they really should name the days of the week in the above manner? R. Baruch Epstein (1860–1941) writes in Baruch she-Amar Al Haggada Shel Pesach (Tel Aviv, 1965), pg. 84 that because of the bitter exile, Jews have become caught in the general custom of giving pagan names for each day of the week. He notes that they retain the Jewish custom of dating days of the week to the Sabbath in religious documents such as Gittin (ritual bills of divorce) and Ketubot (marriage documents). Thus, while R. Epstein raises the issue, he fails to offer an adequate solution, instead attributing the phenomenon post facto to outside causes.

An answer is proposed by both R. Yoel Teitelbaum (1887–1979) in responsa Divrei Yoel (vol. 1 §15) and R. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shleimah vol. 11, pg. 181). They explain that Mechilta’s requirement to correlate the names of the days of the week to the Sabbath does not require one to always refer to the days of the week vis-à-vis the previous Sabbath. That is, if one mentions the day of the week as it relates to the Sabbath once a day, he has already fulfilled the requirement of the Mechilta and this allows him to continue referring to that day in other ways. In the daily liturgy, the Song of the Day is prefaced with an introduction, “Today is the x^th day of the week and on it, the Levites would sing in the Holy Temple…” Simply reciting this declaration allows one to fulfill the Mechilta’s obligation, permitting him to use other means of referring to the day afterwards. [This does not entirely solve the problem according to those who follow the custom of the Vilna Gaon who recited different Psalms on special days because those Psalms are not prefaced with a declaration mentioning the day of the week.]

[70] Responsa Bnei Banim vol. 3 §35.

[71] Responsa Yabia Omer vol. 3, Yoreh Deah §9 and vol. 7, Yoreh Deah §32.