In the Name of Gd

[Please read: White House cleanses Israel from website (h/t Life in Israel)]

A few months ago, I received an email asking why I don't write out G O D when referring to the Creator. In case the question is on anyone's mind, or in case anyone is thinking about this in terms of their own writing, here's the reply I sent:

I have three reasons for writing "Gd". None of them have the force of law, of course, but I find each of them compelling in its own right. In no particular order:

1. The status of a Name written in a language other than Hebrew is not entirely clear; significant halachic authorities, such as the Tashbetz and R' Akiva Eiger, ruled that it is, indeed, invested with sanctity. A classic example is R' Yonatan Eibschitz's ruling that one may not write "Adieu". If you are interested in researching this, I'd be glad to provide references. Classic sources are the Shulchan Aruch's comments in Yoreh Deah 276 and the commentaries there, and Rabbi J. David Bleich wrote on the topic in Tradition 11:3.

2. As someone who spends a lot of time on "Gd matters", I am concerned about desensitization to what Torah really means, what it's "about", so I take extra steps to try (not always successfully) to remind myself that Judaism is not my career, it's my religion. I try to be careful about conversing in a shul or beis medrash, for example. I don't use the Name in songs on Shabbos, although I believe it is entirely permissible. This spelling is another example.

3. The fourth perek in Pesachim teaches that one may not permit that which people normally prohibit (דבר שהציבור נהגו בו איסור). Certainly, there must be boundaries to this, for this maxim cannot be sanction to perpetuate every foolish trend to pop up, but I do think it applies to well-meaning practices which are designed along halachic lines and don't overburden the community.

My questioner also noted the halachic principle of "אין לדבר סוף", that we do not create decrees which will create endless problems. As an example: The kohen gadol of Yom Kippur is supposed to be married, but, per the beginning of Masechet Yoma, we did not establish a 'backup wife' in the event that something happen to his wife just before Yom Kippur, lest we then need backups for backups.

However, I'm not sure that this case qualifies. אין לדבר סוף is a concern for creating obligations which cannot be met because they are too broad in scope. The kohen gadol's wife is a perfect example - Once you require a second backup, you require a millionth backup automatically. On the other hand, here the law would apply to any word created to refer to Gd, but the scope depends on the number of words you invest with that meaning.

So those are my thoughts on the topic. What are yours?