The Gemara in Masechet Berachot (8) establishes the requirement of "Shenayim Mikra Ve’ehad Targum" – to review the Parasha each week, reading it twice in the Hebrew text, and once in the Aramaic translation of Onkelos. In stating this obligation, the Gemara emphasizes that it applies even to "Atarot Ve’Dibon…" – a verse in Parashat Matot (Bamidbar 32:3) that lists names of areas east of the Jordan River which Beneh Yisrael captured from the Emorites. Apparently, there was some reason why we might have assumed that one does not need to read this verse "Shenayim Mikra Ve’ehad Targum" like one is required to read every other verse of the weekly Torah portion.
Rashi explains that the Gemara specifies "even Atarot Ve’Dibon" because this verse contains nothing but names of places, such that there is no real translation of this verse. The translation is merely the original Hebrew words, since these words are all names of places. Therefore, one might have assumed that this verse does not have to be read in the Targum (translation), which adds nothing to the original Hebrew text. For this reason, the Gemara makes a point of emphasizing that even this verse must be read "Shenayim Mikra Ve’ehad Targum."
Tosafot (commentaries by Medieval French and German scholars) question this interpretation, noting that already earlier in the Torah, there are verses consisting entirely of names. Specifically, at the beginning of the Book of Shemot, we find several verses listing the names of Yaakob’s sons. These verses, too, have no translation, and thus the Gemara should, seemingly, have pointed to those verses, rather than the later verse of "Atarot Ve’Dibon." Tosafot therefore give a different explanation, noting the fact that although Onkelos does not translate the words "Atarot Ve’Dibon," a different Aramaic translation – the Targum Yerushalmi – does, in fact, give a translation to these words, rendering them as "Machlalta U’malbashta." Accordingly, Tosafot suggest that the Gemara instructs that when reading this verse, one must read the Targum Yerushalmi, in order to read a translation. Whereas normally Targum Onkelos is read as the translation when reviewing the Parasha "Shenayim Mikra Ve’ehad Targum," for this verse, one should read the Targum Yerushalmi, because Onkelos does not provide a translation of this verse. This view is brought by the Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933).
As it happens, common editions of Targum Onkelos in fact translate "Atarot Ve’Dibon" as "Machlalta U’malbashta," like the Talmud Yerushalmi. The Maharitz Chayut (Rav Tzvi Hirsch Chajes, 1805-1855) writes that a publisher of Targum Onkelos apparently inserted the Targum Yerushalmi’s translation of this verse so that we have this translation easily accessible when reviewing this Parasha "Shenayim Mikra Ve’ehad Targum" with Onkelos.
Rav Yehonatan Eibshutz (1690-1764), in Ya’arot Debash (vol. 2), offers a different explanation of the Gemara, one which yields practical Halachic implications regarding an entirely different matter. Hazal teach us that the original names of the locations mentioned in this verse were names of pagan gods. When Beneh Yisrael took possession of this territory, they changed the names of these areas, so the names of idols would no longer be used. This is indicated by the verse in Parashat Matot which says about these places, "Musabot Shem" – "whose names were changed" (Bamidbar 32:38). The names mentioned in the Targum Yerushalmi represent the original names, and so we might have assumed that one should not read this translation, as it makes reference to names of pagan gods. Therefore, the Gemara made a point of saying that although in general we must refrain from mentioning names of places which were named after pagan deities, the names in the Targum to this verse mark an exception. Apparently, these names also have other meanings, and so they may be read. Generally, however, it is forbidden to mention the names of places which have been named after pagan gods.
Indeed, the Shulhan Aruch (Yoreh De’a 147) rules explicitly that if a city or other geographic location is named after a pagan deity, it is forbidden to mention the name of that location. The Torah commands in the Book of Shemot (23:13), "Ve’shem Elohim Aherim…Lo Yishama Al Picha" – the name of pagan gods may not be mentioned by our mouths. Thus, for example, it would be forbidden to mention to somebody, "Meet me tomorrow morning at such-and-such place" if that place is named after a pagan deity.
A contemporary application of this prohibition relates to the city of Bombay, India, which, in 1995, was renamed "Mumbai." This is the name of a Hindu goddess, and therefore, it would seem, one would not be allowed to refer to the city by this name. (We mentioned the name here merely for the purpose of identifying it in presenting this Halacha.) Although it is permissible to mention the name of a god which is no longer worshipped (and thus the Gemara refers to money as "Mamon," which was an ancient pagan god of wealth), it appears that this goddess is still worshipped, and so the name may not be used.
This Halacha does not pertain to cities such as St. Louis, which are named after Christian saints. These saints were not worshipped as deities, but were rather people who were regarded as especially righteous. As such, there is no prohibition against mentioning these names. (Although, it is told the Satmar Rebbe would refer to the town where he served as Rebbe "Sakmar," instead of "Satmar," because "Satmar" stands for "St. Mary." The conventional Halacha, however, permits mentioning the names of Christian saints.)
Summary: It is forbidden to mention the name of a city that was named after a pagan deity which is still worshipped. A contemporary example is the city of Bombay, India, which in 1995 was renamed to "Mumbai," the name of a Hindu goddess which is still regarded by some as a deity, and it is therefore forbidden to say the name of this city. This prohibition does not apply to cities named after saints – such as St. Louis – because the saints are merely respected figures, and not worshipped as deities.
