I guess those who say "Ruach" or "Hashechinah" or "source of life" in a berachah or rely on these formulations are acting contrary to the Orthodox halachah.
I don't think הַשְּׁכִינָה is a problem in the above, as it's being used effectively as a (feminine) identifier of God. It might not be the Tetragrammaton, but neither was Benjamin's רַחֲמָנָא, and that was okay.
(In the Amidah, the sovereignty of God is not mentioned, which is quite interesting when you thing about it.)
Oh, that's interesting. <runs through the words> No, that's not true; the first בְּרָכָה ends מֶלֶךְ עוֹזֵר וּמוֹשִׁיעַ וּמָגֵן, and that obviously stands for subsequent בְּרָכוֹת in the same way the opening בא״י אמ״ה of a chain of בְּרָכוֹת (such as the Amida or bentshing) stands for the subsequent ones, which lack the opening and only have the terminal בא״י.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Shem u'malchot - mentioning the name and the sovereignty of God in a blessing
Date: 2015-07-22 06:07 am (UTC)I don't think הַשְּׁכִינָה is a problem in the above, as it's being used effectively as a (feminine) identifier of God. It might not be the Tetragrammaton, but neither was Benjamin's רַחֲמָנָא, and that was okay.
(In the Amidah, the sovereignty of God is not mentioned, which is quite interesting when you thing about it.)
Oh, that's interesting. <runs through the words> No, that's not true; the first בְּרָכָה ends מֶלֶךְ עוֹזֵר וּמוֹשִׁיעַ וּמָגֵן, and that obviously stands for subsequent בְּרָכוֹת in the same way the opening בא״י אמ״ה of a chain of בְּרָכוֹת (such as the Amida or bentshing) stands for the subsequent ones, which lack the opening and only have the terminal בא״י.