Shevuot 70

by Him who is Merciful'. Raba said to him: If so, BY HEAVEN AND EARTH also [let us say] it means; 'By Him to whom heaven and earth belong'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does the Mishnah say it is not a proper adjuration, and they are exempt? ktw vh');">¹</span> - That is no question! There, since there is nothing else which is called Merciful and Gracious, it is clear that he means, 'By Him who is Gracious', 'By Him who is Merciful'; but here, since there are heaven and earth, he means, 'By heaven and earth'.

Our Sages taught: If he wrote alef lamed of Elohim, yod he of the Tetragrammaton, they may not be erased;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although he had not yet finished the words, because the first two letters also constitute a Name: . cmw stw sa');">²</span> shin daleth of Shaddai, alef daleth of Adonai, zadi beth of Zebaoth, they may be erased.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because are not Names. [So Rashi; but MS.M. and R. Han. (v. Tosaf. a.l.) include Alef Daleth in the first group, i.e., among the st vh kt Names that may not be erased, the reason being that as well as and were commonly used as abbreviations for a Divine name, which sa cm was not the case with and which out of reference for the Divine Name were never used as abbreviations, the former two letters spelling a sa cm 'demon' () , the latter, a 'great lizard') . V. Lauterbach, J.Z American Academy for Jewish Research, Proceedings, 1930-1931, pp. 43ff.]');">³</span> R'Jose said: The whole word Zebaoth may be erased, because Zebaoth refers only to Israel, as it is said: And I will bring forth My hosts, My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. VII, 4.');">⁴</span>

Samuel said: The halachah is not in accordance with R'Jose. Our Sages taught: That which is joined to the Name, whether before it or after it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prefix or suffix. v');">⁵</span> may be erased.

Before it; how? To the Lord; the lamed ['to'] may be erased; in the Lord: the beth ['in'] may be erased; and the Lord: the vav ['and'] may be erased; from the Lord; the mem ['from'] may be erased; that the Lord; the shin ['that'] may be erased; interrogative he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fifth letter of the Heb. alphabet, . thyks');">⁶</span> before the Lord: the he may be erased; as the Lord: the kaph ['as'] may be erased.

After it: how? Our God: the suffix nu ['our'] may be erased; their God: the suffix hem ['their'] may be erased; your God: the suffix kem ['your'] may be erased. Others say, the suffix may not be erased, for the Name has already hallowed it.

R'Huna said: the halachah is in accordance with these others. <br>(Mnemonic:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In aid of memory; consisting of key words of the statements that follow. 'Who cursed' is a play on the word 'Lot' who figures in the second passage.]');">⁷</span> Abraham, who cursed, Naboth, in Gibeah of Benjamin, Solomon, Daniel.)

All the Names mentioned in Scripture in connection with Abraham are sacred, except this which is secular: it is said; And he said, 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XVIII, 3; Abraham was addressing the chief of the three men who came towards him: according to midrash they were the angels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.');">⁸</span> Hanina, the son of R'Joshua's brother, and R'Eleazar B'Azariah in the name of R'Eliezer of Modin, said, this also is sacred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was addressing the Lord.');">⁹</span> With whom will [the following] agree?

Rab Judah said that Rab said: Greater is hospitality to wayfarers than receiving the Divine Presence. With whom [will this agree]? With this pair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hanina and R. Eleazar who say that Abraham addressed the Lord, asking Him not to withdraw His Presence while he entertained the angels.');">¹⁰</span>

All the Names mentioned in connection with Lot are secular, except this which is sacred: it is said: And Lot said unto them, 'Oh, not so, my Lord: behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, [and thou hast magnified thy mercy which thou hast shown unto me in saving my life]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen XIX, 18, 19; the verse is read thus: And Lot said unto them. 'Oh, not so'; then turning to God: 'My Lord, behold now, Thy servant etc.' The ordinary interpretation is that Lot is addressing one of the angels.');">¹¹</span> - He in whose power it is to kill and to revive; that is the Holy One blessed be He. All the Names mentioned in connection with Naboth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings XXI, 10, 13.');">¹²</span>

are sacred; in connection with Micah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges XVII, XVIII.');">¹³</span> are secular. R'Eliezer said, in connection with Naboth [all are] sacred; in connection with Micah, some are secular, and some sacred: [the Name beginning] alef lamed is secular,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., Judges XVII, 5. XVIII, 5, 10, 24.');">¹⁴</span>

yod he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., Judges XVII, 2, 3, 13; XVIII, 6.');">¹⁵</span> is sacred; except this which is alef lamed and is sacred: all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges XVIII, 31.');">¹⁶</span> All the Names mentioned in connection with Gibeah of Benjamin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 18-28.');">¹⁷</span>

R'Eliezer said, are secular; R'Joshua said, are sacred. R'Eliezer said to him: Does He then promise, and not fulfil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, as you say, God is intended, why did He tell the other tribes to make war on the tribe of Benjamin, and then allow them to be defeated?');">¹⁸</span> - R'Joshua replied to him: What He promised.

He fulfilled; but they did not inquire whether [the result would be] victory of defeat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They merely enquired whether they should go to war against Benjamin, and which of their tribes should go to battle first.');">¹⁹</span> later, when they did inquire [of the Urim and Tummim], they approved their action, as it is said; And Phineas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days - saying: 'Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? ' [And the Lord said: 'Go up; for to-morrow I will deliver them into thy hand'].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges XX, 28, and this promise He fulfilled. vnka');">²⁰</span> Every Solomon mentioned in the Song of Songs is sacred: the Song to Him whose is the peace,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' = His peace.');">²¹</span>

except this: My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; thou, O Solomon, shalt have the thousand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cant. VIII, 12: homiletically interpreted the verse means this: God said: From My vineyard (Israel) Solomon shall have 1,000 men as soldiers out of every 1,200; and 200 shall be left to 'keep the fruit', i.e., study the Torah.');">²²</span> - Solomon for himself [shall have a thousand]; and two hundred for those that keep the fruit thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">²³</span> - [viz.] Sages.

And there are some who say this also is secular: Behold it is the bed of Solomon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. III, 7.');">²⁴</span> - 'This also', [implies] that the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 206, n. 12.');">²⁵</span> is undoubtedly [secular].

But then what of Samuel who said: A Government which kills Only one out of six<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By going to war. [So according to reading of Rashi and R. Han. Cur. edd.: 'one-sixth of the world;' this was probably said by him with reference to Shapur's military campaigns in Asia: v. Krochmal, Hechalutz, I, p. 89.]');">²⁶</span> is not punished; for it is said: My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; thou, O Solomon, shalt have the thousand - for the Kingdom of Heaven;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taking Solomon as referring to God.');">²⁷</span> and two hundred for those that keep the fruit thereof - for the kingdom on earth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Serving the king; 200 for the king, and 1,000 for God = 1,200 altogether; the king is thus permitted one sixth for his army.');">²⁸</span>

Now Samuel is not in agreement with the first Tanna nor with the 'some who say'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they all hold that the word Solomon in the verse My vineyard, etc. is secular.');">²⁹</span> - But this is what it means: And some there are who say this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' My vineyard, etc.');">³⁰</span> is sacred, and this is secular - [the verse] about his bed; and Samuel agrees with them.

All Kings mentioned in Daniel are secular except this which is sacred: Thou, O king, king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dan. II, 37: Daniel would nor have called Nebuchadnezzar King of Kings; the verse is therefore interpreted thus: Thou, O king');">³¹</span> And some say, this also is sacred; it is said: My Lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation there to thine adversaries.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dan IV. 16.');">³²</span> To whom does he say this?

If it should enter your mind that he says it to Nebuchadnezzar - who are those who hate him? Israel! Then he is cursing Israel!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, we must say that Daniel in saying, 'My lord, the dream, etc.' is addressing God, whose enemies are the heathens.');">³³</span> And the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that 'My Lord' is secular, and that it is addressed to Nebuchadnezzar.');">³⁴</span>

- He holds: Are the enemies [of Nebuchadnezzar] only Israelites? Are there not enemies [too] who are heathens?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When Daniel said: 'My lord [Nebuchadnezzar], the dream be to them that hate thee', he referred to the heathens who hated him.');">³⁵</span> OR BY ANY OF THE SUBSTITUTES [FOR THE NAME], THEY ARE LIABLE, etc. We may cite [the following] in contradiction: The Lord make thee a curse and an oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 21.');">³⁶</span>

Why is this stated? Is it not already said: The priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.; this implies that she shall be for a curse and an oath. It would suffice if the verse now merely stated the curse: the Lord make thy thigh to fill away.');">³⁷</span> Because it is said: And hear the voice of alah [cursing]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 1; i.e., adjuration.');">³⁸</span>

here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 21.');">³⁹</span> it is said 'alah', and there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 1.');">⁴⁰</span> it is said 'alah'; just as here it implies an oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is said: the priest shall cause . . to swear.');">⁴¹</span>

so there it implies an oath; just as here it must be by the Name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is said: The Lord (Tetragrammaton) make thee a curse.');">⁴²</span> so there it must be by the Name.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, adjuration of witnesses must be by the Name, and not by substitutes.');">⁴³</span> - Abaye said: It is no question.

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha which states that an oath must be by the Name.');">⁴⁴</span> is [the view of] R'Hanina B'Idi, and that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah which states that the substitutes are of equal potency.');">⁴⁵</span> is [the view of] the Rabbis; for we learnt: R'Hanina B'Idi said: Since the Torah said, 'Thou shalt swear,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There are occasions when an oath is obligatory, e.g., the oath of the Lord shall be between them both (Ex. XXII, 10) .');">⁴⁶</span>

and 'thou shalt not swear';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., ye shall not swear by My name falsely (Lev. XIX, 12) .');">⁴⁷</span> 'thou shalt curse',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the Lord make thee a curse (Num. V, 21) .');">⁴⁸</span> and 'thou shalt not curse';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., thou shalt not curse the deaf (Lev. XIX, 14) . vkt');">⁴⁹</span>

[we deduce:] just as 'thou shalt swear' means by the Name, so thou shalt not swear' means by the Name; and just as 'thou shalt curse' means by the Name, so 'thou shalt not curse' means by the Name. Now, the Rabbis, if they received on tradition this Gezerah shawah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The analogy deriving adjuration from sotah. Adjuration (Lev. V, I) : and hear the voice of (cursing) ; sotah (Num. V, 21) : the Lord vkt vkt make thee a (curse) and an oath. Just as used in connection with sotah implies oath (for oath is explicitly mentioned in the verse) , so vkt used in connection with adjuration means oath. But if we deduce adjuration from sotah we must carry the deduction further: just as in the case of sotah, the oath was by the Name (for the verse states: the Lord make thee a curse and an oath) , so in the case of adjuration it should be by the Name, and not by any substitute. [It is a well established principle that no man may draw a conclusion from a Gezerah shawah unless he received it on tradition from his teacher. Pes. 66a; Nid. 19b.] sjuhnv oa');">⁵⁰</span> let them require the actual Name;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , the 'Distinguishing Name', the Tetragrammaton; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 408, n. 1.');">⁵¹</span>

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.');">⁵²</span> implies an oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of adjuration, oath is not mentioned in the verse.');">⁵³</span> - They deduce it front [the Baraitha in] which it was taught.' Alah':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in Lev. V. 1.');">⁵²</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.');">⁵⁴</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.]');">⁵⁵</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.]');">⁵⁶</span> and thus it says: 'and the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of alah.'