3

Would usage of Zephaniah 3:8 solely as a pangram – it being the only option with both finals and cantillation – constitute shemos, and therefore require genizah?

לָכֵ֤ן חַכּוּ־לִי֙ נְאֻם־יְהוָ֔ה לְי֖וֹם קוּמִ֣י לְעַ֑ד כִּ֣י מִשְׁפָּטִי֩ לֶֽאֱסֹ֨ף גּוֹיִ֜ם לְקָבְצִ֣י מַמְלָכ֗וֹת לִשְׁפֹּ֨ךְ עֲלֵיהֶ֤ם זַעְמִי֙ כֹּ֚ל חֲר֣וֹן אַפִּ֔י כִּ֚י בְּאֵ֣שׁ קִנְאָתִ֔י תֵּֽאָכֵ֖ל כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃‏

  • Wouldn't the presence of God's name make it literally Shemos regardless of what you want to use it for? – Isaac Moses Aug 27 '14 at 17:46
  • @IsaacMoses No. We burn a Torah written by a Mumar, for instance. judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/33584/… and judaism.stackexchange.com/q/44200/759 are further indicators to that effect. – Double AA Aug 27 '14 at 17:53
  • @IsaacMoses See here that if the intention is not God's name – even though it is the same four letters in that specific order – it does not constitute a Shem. Maybe here too, since the intention is only to display the letter-forms, and the specific order of letters is incidental, it wouldn't either. – Adám Aug 27 '14 at 17:55
  • 1
    @NBZ If the "specific order of letters is incidental," then it could have simply been written in alphabetical order. The point of using a verse as a pangram is that the letters written in this order do in fact have meaning. – Fred Dec 20 '15 at 19:27
  • @Fred Typographers generally use real text because the "look" of a font is not so apparent when the letters are just in alphabetical order. – Adám Dec 21 '15 at 2:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .