התם שבועת האלה כתיב הכי קאמר אלה אין אלה אלא בשבועה וכן הוא אומר והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה
and if they did not receive on tradition this Gezerah shawah, how do they know that 'alah'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in Lev. V. 1.');"><sup>52</sup></span> implies an oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of adjuration, oath is not mentioned in the verse.');"><sup>53</sup></span> - They deduce it front [the Baraitha in] which it was taught.' Alah':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in Lev. V. 1.');"><sup>52</sup></span> 'alah' is nothing but the expression of an oath; and so it says: And the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of alah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 21. This proves that 'alah' implies an oath.');"><sup>54</sup></span> But there it is written: the oath of alah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is a new question: the phrase 'the oath of alah' indeed proves that 'alah' implies an oath, but whence do we know that an oath without an accompanying 'alah' (curse) is an oath? V. n. 7.]');"><sup>55</sup></span> - Thus he means: 'alah'; 'alah' can only be an oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So MS.M. V. Sifra on Lev. V, 1; cur. edd.: with an oath; cf. n. 7.]');"><sup>56</sup></span> and thus it says: 'and the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of alah.'
Tractate Soferim
All [divine] names mentioned in connection with Lot are secular38There is only one secular name in the Lot passages. The Tetragrammaton, which is of course sacred, occurs twice. The word ‘all’ is not intended to be taken literally (cf. N.Y.). except the last, viz. And Lot said unto them: Oh, not so my Lord.39Gen. 19, 18. Lot’s address to the angels is taken to end at not so, and then his petition to God begins, My Lord, behold, etc. [So the Targum and Shebu. 35b (Sonc. ed., pp. 205f).] All [divine] names mentioned in the story of Micah40Judg. 17f. are secular. R. Jose says: When they begin with Yod-he41The Tetragrammaton. they are sacred, but when with Alef-lamed42The word for ‘God’. they are secular except in the phrase the house of God was in Shiloh.43ibid. XVIII, 31. All the [divine] names which occur in the story of Naboth are sacred except in the sentence Naboth did curse god44Referring to one of the strange gods introduced by Jezebel. E.V. God.and king.451 Kings 21, 13. All the [divine] names which occur in the narrative of Gibeah of Benjamin46Judg. 20f. are secular according to R. Eliezer, but R. Joshua says: They are sacred. R. Eliezer said to him, ‘Is it possible that the Omnipresent would promise [victory]47According to Judg. 20, 18, 23 God told Israel to wage war against Benjamin, which implied that they would be victorious. and not fulfil?’48Israel was defeated on both occasions (ibid. 21, 25). R. Joshua replied, ‘The Omnipresent promises and fulfils’.49The Israelites did not appreciate that on the first two occasions God only told them that they may go to war but promised no victory. Only on the third occasion were they assured that Benjamin would be delivered into their hands (ibid. XX, 28). [37a]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tractate Soferim
All [divine] names mentioned in connection with Lot are secular38There is only one secular name in the Lot passages. The Tetragrammaton, which is of course sacred, occurs twice. The word ‘all’ is not intended to be taken literally (cf. N.Y.). except the last, viz. And Lot said unto them: Oh, not so my Lord.39Gen. 19, 18. Lot’s address to the angels is taken to end at not so, and then his petition to God begins, My Lord, behold, etc. [So the Targum and Shebu. 35b (Sonc. ed., pp. 205f).] All [divine] names mentioned in the story of Micah40Judg. 17f. are secular. R. Jose says: When they begin with Yod-he41The Tetragrammaton. they are sacred, but when with Alef-lamed42The word for ‘God’. they are secular except in the phrase the house of God was in Shiloh.43ibid. XVIII, 31. All the [divine] names which occur in the story of Naboth are sacred except in the sentence Naboth did curse god44Referring to one of the strange gods introduced by Jezebel. E.V. God.and king.451 Kings 21, 13. All the [divine] names which occur in the narrative of Gibeah of Benjamin46Judg. 20f. are secular according to R. Eliezer, but R. Joshua says: They are sacred. R. Eliezer said to him, ‘Is it possible that the Omnipresent would promise [victory]47According to Judg. 20, 18, 23 God told Israel to wage war against Benjamin, which implied that they would be victorious. and not fulfil?’48Israel was defeated on both occasions (ibid. 21, 25). R. Joshua replied, ‘The Omnipresent promises and fulfils’.49The Israelites did not appreciate that on the first two occasions God only told them that they may go to war but promised no victory. Only on the third occasion were they assured that Benjamin would be delivered into their hands (ibid. XX, 28). [37a]
