Shevuot 35

להכי כתבה רחמנא לעדות גבי שבועת ביטוי וגבי טומאת מקדש וקדשיו דבכולן נאמר בהן ונעלם וכאן לא נאמר בהן ונעלם לחייב על המזיד כשוגג

The Gemara answers: For that reason, the Merciful One writes the verse with regard to an oath of testimony near the verse with regard to an oath on an utterance and near the verse with regard to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, as in all of those passages it is stated concerning them: “And it is hidden,” and here, with regard to an oath of testimony, it is not stated concerning them: And it is hidden. The Torah did so to underscore the contrast between them and to deem liable one who takes an intentional false oath of testimony like one who takes an unwitting false oath of testimony.

מתני׳ משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שאמר איש פלוני ליתן לי מאתים זוז ולא נתן הרי אלו פטורים שאין חייבין אלא על תביעת ממון כפקדון

MISHNA: If one said to witnesses: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so said he is going to give me two hundred dinars and he did not give them to me, and they take false oaths that they have no knowledge of the matter, they are exempt from liability to bring an offering for taking a false oath of testimony, as one is liable for taking a false oath of testimony only in a case involving a monetary claim like a deposit in the sense that were the witnesses to testify, the individual would be liable to pay. In the case of a promise to give a gift he could claim that he merely reconsidered.

משביע אני עליכם כשתדעו לי עדות שתבואו ותעידוני הרי אלו פטורים מפני שקדמה שבועה לעדות

If one said to witnesses: I administer an oath to you that when you will know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, these witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony even if they do not testify, due to the fact that the oath preceded their knowledge of the relevant testimony.

עמד בבית הכנסת ואמר משביע אני עליכם שאם אתם יודעין לי עדות שתבואו ותעידוני הרי אלו פטורין עד שיהא מתכוין להם

If one stood in the synagogue and said for all to hear: I administer an oath to you that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, these witnesses are exempt until he directs his demand to specific individuals.

אמר לשנים משביע אני עליכם איש פלוני ופלוני שאם אתם יודעין לי עדות שתבואו ותעידוני שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות והם יודעין לו עדות עד מפי עד או שהיה אחד מהן קרוב או פסול הרי אלו פטורין

If one said to two people: I administer an oath to you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, and they respond: On our oath we do not know any testimony relevant to you, and they know testimony relevant to him, not based on an incident they witnessed but based on hearsay testimony, which is not valid testimony, or if one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or disqualified, these witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony because they are unfit witnesses.

שלח ביד עבדו או שאמר להן הנתבע משביע אני עליכם שאם אתם יודעין לו עדות שתבואו ותעידוהו הרי אלו פטורין עד שישמעו מפי התובע

If the plaintiff sent the demand for their testimony by means of his slave, or in a case where the defendant said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you that if you know any testimony relevant to the plaintiff that you will come and testify on his behalf, and they took a false oath that they have no knowledge of the matter, these witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony until they will hear the demand to testify directly from the mouth of the plaintiff.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן משביעני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שאמר איש פלוני ליתן לי מאתים זוז ולא נתן יכול יהו חייבין תלמוד לומר תחטא תחטא לגזירה שוה

GEMARA: The Gemara cites proof for the halakhot in the mishna from verses in the Torah. The Sages taught: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so said that he is going to give me two hundred dinars and he did not give them to me; in such a case one might have thought that they would be liable. Therefore, the verse states the term “shall sin” with regard to an oath of testimony and “shall sin” with regard to an oath on a deposit in order to derive a verbal analogy.

נאמר כאן תחטא ונאמר להלן תחטא מה להלן בתביעת ממון ויש לו אף כאן בתביעת ממון ויש לו

Here, it is stated with regard to an oath of testimony “shall sin” (Leviticus 5:1), and there, it is stated with regard to an oath on a deposit “shall sin” (Leviticus 5:21). Just as there, with regard to an oath on a deposit, the verse is speaking only with regard to a monetary claim and in a case where the plaintiff has a legitimate claim, so too here, with regard to an oath of testimony, the verse is speaking only with regard to a monetary claim and in a case where the plaintiff has a legitimate claim. In the case cited in the baraita and in the first clause of the mishna, the plaintiff does not have a legitimate claim.

משביע אני עליכם כשתדעו לי עדות כו׳

The mishna teaches: I administer an oath to you that when you will know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf.

תנו רבנן משביע אני עליכם כשתדעו לי עדות שתבואו ותעידוני יכול יהו חייבין תלמוד לומר ושמעה קול אלה והוא עד או ראה או ידע מי שקדמה עדות לשבועה ולא שקדמה שבועה לעדות

The Sages taught: I administer an oath to you that when you will know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf; in such a case one might have thought that they would be liable. Therefore, the verse states: “And he heard the voice of an oath and he is a witness or he saw or he knew” (Leviticus 5:1). One is liable to bring an offering for a false oath only in a case where knowledge of the testimony preceded the oath, and not in a case where the oath preceded knowledge of the testimony.

עמד בבית הכנסת ואמר משביעני עליכם אמר שמואל אפילו עדיו ביניהן

The mishna continues: If one stood in the synagogue and said for all to hear: I administer an oath to you that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, these witnesses are exempt. Shmuel says: That is the halakha even if his witnesses were among the people in the synagogue.

פשיטא לא צריכא דקאי עילויהו מהו דתימא כמאן דאמר להו דמי קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Otherwise, there would be no novel element in this halakha of the mishna. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to cite this case only in a situation where he is standing right next to those witnesses. Lest you say he is comparable to one who spoke to them directly and those witnesses would be liable, the tanna teaches us that until he specifies to whom he is directing his demand, he does not render those witnesses obligated to take an oath of testimony.

תניא נמי הכי ראה סיעה של בני אדם עומדין ועדיו ביניהן ואמר להן משביעני עליכם אם אתם יודעין לי עדות שתבואו ותעידוני יכול יהו חייבין תלמוד לומר והוא עד והרי לא ייחד עדיו יכול אפילו אמר כל העומדין כאן תלמוד לומר והוא עד והרי ייחד עדיו

The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: If one saw a group of people standing, and his witnesses were among them, and he said to the entire group: I administer an oath to you that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, in such a case one might have thought that they would be liable. The verse states: “And he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1), and in this case he did not specify his witnesses; therefore, they are not liable. One might have thought that the halakha is the same even if he said: I administer an oath to everyone who is standing here that you will come and testify on my behalf. The verse states: “And he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1), and in this case, although he spoke to a group, he specified his witnesses; therefore, they are liable.

אמר לשנים משביע אני עליכם תנו רבנן אמר לשנים משביע אני עליכם פלוני ופלוני אם אתם יודעין לי עדות שתבואו ותעידוני והן יודעין לו עדות עד מפי עד או שהיה אחד מהן קרוב או פסול יכול יהו חייבין תלמוד לומר אם לוא יגיד ונשא עונו בראוין להגדה הכתוב מדבר

The mishna teaches that if one said to two individuals: I administer an oath to you, and they know testimony relevant to him based on hearsay, or if one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or disqualified, they are exempt. The Gemara cites that which the Sages taught: If one said to two individuals: I administer an oath to you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, and they know testimony relevant to him based on hearsay testimony, or if one of the witnesses is a relative or disqualified, in such a case one might have thought that they would be liable. The verse states: “If he does not state it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1), teaching that it is with regard to those eligible for the statement of testimony that the verse is speaking, not those who are ineligible.

שלח ביד עבדו וכו׳ תנו רבנן שלח ביד עבדו או שאמר להן הנתבע משביעני עליכם שאם אתם יודעין לו עדות שתבואו ותעידוהו יכול יהו חייבין תלמוד לומר אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו

The mishna teaches: If the plaintiff sent the demand for their testimony by means of his slave, etc. The Sages taught: If the plaintiff sent the demand for their testimony by means of his slave, or in a case where the defendant said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you that if you know any testimony relevant to the plaintiff that you will come and testify on his behalf, might one have thought that they would be liable? The verse states: “If he does not state it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1); therefore, they are not liable.

מאי תלמודא אמר רבי אלעזר אם לוא יגיד כתיב אם לו לא יגיד ונשא עונו ואם לאחר לא יגיד פטור

The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation that leads to that conclusion? Rabbi Elazar said: The derivation is based on the fact that it is written: Im lo yaggid. In the verse the word lo is spelled lamed, vav, alef and interpreted as both “not,” spelled lamed alef, and “to him,” spelled lamed vav. It is derived: If the witness who knows the testimony does not state it to the plaintiff, he shall bear his iniquity, and he is liable; but if he does not state it to another, he is exempt.

מתני׳ משביעני (אני) עליכם מצוה אני עליכם אוסרכם אני הרי אלו חייבין

MISHNA: The mishna discusses the formula of an oath of testimony. If the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf, or even if he said: I command you, or I bind you, although he did not employ an unequivocal formula of an oath, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

בשמים ובארץ הרי אלו פטורין באלף דלת ביוד הי בשדי בצבאות בחנון ורחום בארך אפים ברב חסד ובכל הכנויין הרי אלו חייבין

If one administered the oath to the witnesses in the name of heaven and in the name of earth, these witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony, as that is not an oath in the name of God. If one administered the oath to the witnesses in the name of alef dalet, i.e., Adonai; in the name of yod heh, the Tetragrammaton; in the name of the Almighty [Shaddai]; in the name of the Lord of Hosts [Tzevaot]; in the name of the Gracious and Compassionate One; in the name of He Who is Slow to Anger; in the name of He Who is Abounding in Loving-kindness; or in the name of any of the appellations of God, even though he did not mention the ineffable name of God, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

המקלל בכולן חייב דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים פוטרין

One who curses God employing any of these names or appellations of God is liable to be executed through stoning; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis deem him exempt, as they hold that one is liable for cursing God only if he employs the ineffable name of God.

המקלל אביו ואמו בכולן חייב דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים פוטרין

One who curses his father or his mother employing any of these names or appellations of God is liable to be executed through stoning; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis deem him exempt, as they hold that one is liable for cursing his father and his mother only if he employs the ineffable name of God.

המקלל עצמו וחבירו בכולן עובר בלא תעשה יככה ה׳ אלהים וכן יככה אלהים זו היא אלה הכתובה בתורה

One who curses himself or another employing any of these names or appellations of God violates a prohibition. If one says: The Lord God shall strike you (see Deuteronomy 28:22), and likewise if one says: God shall strike you if you do not come to testify, that is a curse that is written in the Torah, and in such a case one is certainly liable if he fails to testify.

אל יכך ויברכך וייטיב לך רבי מאיר מחייב וחכמים פוטרין

If one says to the witnesses: God shall not strike you, or: God shall bless you, or: God shall benefit you if you come and testify, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, as one may infer from that statement that if he fails to testify God will strike him, or will not bless or benefit him. And the Rabbis deem him exempt because the curse is not explicitly stated.

גמ׳ משביעני עליכם מאי קאמר אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר משביע אני עליכם בשבועה האמורה בתורה מצוה אני עליכם בצוואה האמורה בתורה אוסרכם אני באיסור האמור בתורה

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you, I command you, or I bind you, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony. The Gemara asks: What is the plaintiff saying? He merely said that he is administering an oath, but he did not say in the name of what he is administering the oath. Rav Yehuda said: This is what the plaintiff is saying: I administer an oath to you with the oath mentioned in the Torah, I command you with the command mentioned in the Torah, I bind you with the bond mentioned in the Torah, and in the Torah all of these include mention of the name of God.

אמר ליה אביי אלא הא דתני רבי חייא כובלכם אני הרי אלו חייבין כובל באורייתא מי כתיב

Abaye said to Rav Yehuda: But according to that interpretation, concerning that which Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches, that if the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I chain you, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony, is chaining written in the Torah? Apparently, the reference in the mishna and the baraita is not to similar language in the Torah.

אלא אמר אביי הכי קאמר משביע אני עליכם בשבועה מצוה אני עליכם בשבועה אוסרכם אני בשבועה כובלכם אני בשבועה

Rather, Abaye said that this is what the plaintiff is saying: I administer an oath to you with an oath, I command you with an oath, I bind you with an oath, I chain you with an oath. The witnesses are liable in all these cases provided that the plaintiff mentions an oath.

באלף דלת ביוד הי בשדי בצבאות בחנון ורחום בארך אפים ברב חסד

§ The mishna teaches: If one administered the oath to the witnesses in the name of alef dalet, in the name of yod heh, in the name of the Almighty [Shaddai], in the name of the Lord of Hosts [Tzevaot], in the name of the Gracious and Compassionate One, in the name of He Who is Slow to Anger, or in the name of He Who is Abounding in Loving-kindness, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

למימרא דחנון ורחום שמות נינהו ורמינהי יש שמות שנמחקין ויש שמות שאין נמחקין אלו הן שמות שאין נמחקין כגון אל אלהיך אלהים אלהיכם אהיה אשר אהיה אלף דלת ויוד הי שדי צבאות הרי אלו אין נמחקין

Is that to say that gracious and compassionate are sacred names? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: There are names of God that may be erased and there are names of God that may not be erased due to their inherent sanctity. These are names that may not be erased: For example, several variations of the name God [Elohim]: El, Elohekha with a second person singular suffix, Elohim, Eloheikhem with a second person plural suffix; I Shall Be As I Shall Be, alef dalet, yod heh, Almighty [Shaddai], Lord of Hosts [Tzevaot], these names may not be erased.

אבל הגדול הגבור הנורא האדיר והחזק והאמיץ העזוז חנון ורחום ארך אפים ורב חסד הרי אלו נמחקין

But adjectives that describe the Holy One, Blessed be He, e.g., the Great, the Mighty, the Awesome, the Prodigious, the Powerful, the Courageous, the Strong, gracious, compassionate, slow to anger, or abounding in loving-kindness; these may be erased. Apparently, gracious and compassionate are adjectives and not actual names of God; how, then, does an oath or a curse in the name of gracious and compassionate take effect?

אמר אביי מתניתין במי שהוא חנון

Abaye said: In the mishna, it is with regard to one who administers an oath or curses in the name of He Who is Gracious,

במי שהוא רחום קאמר

or in the name of He Who is compassionate, that the tanna is stating the halakha. Although gracious and compassionate are not names of God, the reference in the mishna is to an oath in the name of God.

אמר ליה רבא אי הכי בשמים ובארץ נמי במי שהשמים והארץ שלו קאמר

Rava said to Abaye: If so, in the case of one who administered the oath to the witnesses in the name of heaven and in the name of earth as well, say that it is with regard to an oath in the name of He for Whom the heaven and the earth are His that the tanna is stating the halakha. Why, then, does the mishna say that for an oath in the name of heaven and in the name of earth, these witnesses are exempt from liability?

הכי השתא התם כיון דליכא מידי אחרינא דאיקרי רחום וחנון ודאי במי שהוא חנון ודאי במי שהוא רחום קאמר הכא כיון דאיכא שמים וארץ בשמים ובארץ קאמר

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, since there is no other entity that is called gracious and compassionate, certainly it is in the name of He Who is gracious, and certainly it is in the name of He Who is compassionate that the tanna is speaking. By contrast, here, since there are heaven and earth that exist as independent entities, perhaps when he administers an oath in the name of heaven and in the name of earth, it is in the name of the actual heaven and in the name of the actual earth that he is speaking, and not in the name of He for Whom the heaven and the earth are His.

תנו רבנן כתב אלף למד מאלהים יה מיי הרי זה אינו נמחק שין דלת משדי אלף דלת מאדני צדי בית מצבאות הרי זה נמחק

§ Apropos the names of God that may be erased and those that may not be erased, the Gemara discusses the details of the matter. The Sages taught: If one wrote the letters alef lamed from the name Elohim, or yod heh from the Tetragrammaton, this pair of letters and that pair of letters may not be erased. But if one wrote the letters shin dalet from Shaddai, or alef dalet from Adonai, or tzadi beit from Tzevaot, this may be erased.

רבי יוסי אומר צבאות כולו נמחק שלא נקרא צבאות אלא על שם ישראל שנאמר והוצאתי את צבאתי את עמי בני ישראל מארץ מצרים אמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבי יוסי

Rabbi Yosei says: The word tzevaot may be erased in its entirety, as God is called Tzevaot only in the context of the children of Israel, and it is not an independent name of God, as it is stated: “And I shall bring forth My hosts [tzivotai], My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt” (Exodus 7:4). Shmuel says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

תנו רבנן כל הטפל לשם בין מלפניו ובין מלאחריו הרי זה נמחק לפניו כיצד ליי׳ ל׳ נמחק ביי׳ ב׳ נמחק ויי׳ ו׳ נמחק מיי׳ מ׳ נמחק שיי׳ ש׳ נמחק היי׳ ה׳ נמחק כיי׳ כ׳ נמחק

The Sages taught: Any letters ancillary to the name of God, whether as a prefix preceding the name or as a suffix succeeding the name, this addition may be erased. Preceding it, how so? If one wrote the Tetragrammaton with the prefix lamed, meaning: To the Lord, the lamed may be erased; the Tetragrammaton with the prefix beit, meaning: By the Lord, the beit may be erased; the Tetragrammaton with the prefix vav, meaning: And the Lord, the vav may be erased; the Tetragrammaton with the prefix mem, meaning: From the Lord, the mem may be erased; the Tetragrammaton with the prefix shin, meaning: That the Lord, the shin may be erased; the Tetragrammaton with the prefix heh, meaning: Is the Lord, the heh may be erased; the Tetragrammaton with the prefix kaf, meaning: Like the Lord, the kaf may be erased.

לאחריו כיצד אלהינו נו נמחק אלהיהם הם נמחק אלהיכם כם נמחק אחרים אומרים לאחריו אינו נמחק שכבר קדשו השם אמר רב הונא הלכה כאחרים

Succeeding it, how so? If one wrote Eloheinu, meaning: Our God, the nun vav suffix may be erased; Eloheihem, meaning: Their God, the heh mem suffix may be erased; Eloheikhem, meaning: Your God, second person plural, the kaf mem suffix may be erased. Aḥerim say: The suffix succeeding the name of God may not be erased as the name of God to which it is appended already sanctified it and it is considered as though it is part of the name. Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.

(אברהם דלטיא לנבות בגבעת בנימן שלמה דניאל סימן)

§ Abraham; who cursed Naboth; in Gibeah of Benjamin; Solomon; Daniel; this is a mnemonic for the halakhot that follow.

כל שמות האמורים בתורה באברהם קדש חוץ מזה שהוא חול שנאמר ויאמר אדני אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך

All names that could be understood as the name of God that are stated in the Torah with regard to Abraham are sacred and are referring to God, except for this name, which is non-sacred, as it is stated: “My lords, if I have found favor in your eyes” (Genesis 18:3). In that passage, Abraham is addressing the angels who appeared to him in the guise of men, not God.

חנינא בן אחי רבי יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה משום רבי אלעזר המודעי אמרו אף זה קדש כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב גדולה הכנסת אורחין יותר מהקבלת פני שכינה כמאן כאותו הזוג

Ḥanina, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, say: This too is sacred. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says: Hospitality accorded to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence? In accordance with whose opinion is that statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of that pair of tanna’im, Ḥanina, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who understood that Abraham was speaking to God.

כל שמות האמורים בלוט חול חוץ מזה שהוא קדש שנאמר ויאמר לוט אלהם אל נא אדני הנה נא מצא עבדך חן בעיניך וגו׳ מי שיש בידו להמית ולהחיות זה הקדוש ברוך הוא

All names that could be understood as the name of God that are stated in the Torah with regard to Lot are non-sacred and are referring to angels, except for this one, which is sacred, as it is stated: “And Lot said to them: Please, not so Adonai. Behold your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have magnified Your mercy that You have performed for me by saving my life” (Genesis 19:18–19). It is apparent from the context that Lot is addressing He Who has the capacity to kill and to vivify; that is the Holy One, Blessed be He.

כל שמות האמורים בנבות קדש במיכה חול רבי אליעזר אומר בנבות קדש במיכה יש מהן חול ויש מהן קדש אלף למד חול יוד הי קדש חוץ מזה שאלף למד והוא קדש כל ימי היות בית האלהים בשילה

All names that are stated with regard to Naboth are sacred, e.g., in the verse: “Naboth blasphemed Elohim and the king” (I Kings 21:13), and those stated with regard to Micah are non-sacred and are referring to the graven image that he fashioned (see Judges, chapters 17–18). Rabbi Eliezer says: Indeed, all names that are stated with regard to Naboth are sacred; but those stated with regard to Micah, some of them are non-sacred and some of them are sacred. The names beginning with the letters alef lamed, i.e., Elohim, are non-sacred, as the reference is to the idol that he crafted, and all the names beginning with the letters yod heh, i.e., the Tetragrammaton, are sacred, except for this name that begins with the letters alef lamed and it is sacred: “All the time that the house of Elohim was in Shiloh” (Judges 18:31).

כל שמות האמורים בגבעת בנימין רבי אליעזר אומר חול רבי יהושע אומר קדש

All names that are stated in the passage concerning Gibeah of Benjamin, where the rest of the tribes consulted God to determine whether they should go to war against the tribe of Benjamin (see Judges, chapter 20), Rabbi Eliezer says: They are non-sacred, as they were consulting an idol, not God. Rabbi Yehoshua says: They are sacred.

אמר לו רבי אליעזר וכי מבטיח ואינו עושה

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: How can you say that those names are sacred? Does God promise and not fulfill the promise? Twice the tribes received the response to go to war against Benjamin, and twice they were vanquished.

אמר לו רבי יהושע מה שהבטיח עשה והם לא ביחנו אם לנצוח אם לנצח באחרונה שביחנו הסכימו על ידן שנאמר ופנחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן (הכהן) עמד לפניו בימים ההם לאמר האוסף עוד לצאת למלחמה עם [בני] בנימן אחי אם אחדל וגו׳

Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: That which God promised, He fulfilled. In each case, He responded to their question. The first time they consulted God through the Urim VeTummim, but they did not seek to ascertain if they are to triumph in the war or if they are to be defeated. In the last time that they consulted God through the Urim VeTummim, where they sought to ascertain whether they would emerge triumphant, they consented in Heaven to their endeavor, as it is stated: “And Pinehas, son of Elazar, son of Aaron was standing 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, as tomorrow I will deliver them into your hand” (Judges 20:28).

כל שלמה האמורין בשיר השירים קדש שיר למי שהשלום שלו חוץ מזה כרמי שלי לפני האלף לך שלמה שלמה לדידיה ומאתים לנטרים את פריו רבנן ויש אומרים אף זה חול הנה מטתו שלשלמה ששים

All mentions of the name Shlomo that are stated in the Song of Songs, such as: “The song of songs that is Shlomo’s” (Song of Songs 1:1), are not references to King Solomon; rather, they are sacred, meaning a song to the One for Whom peace [shehashalom] is His, except for this mention: “My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; you, Solomon shall have the one thousand,” i.e., one thousand are for Solomon himself; “and two hundred for those who guard its fruit” (Song of Songs 8:12), which is a reference to the Sages. And some say: This verse too is non-sacred: “Behold, the bed of Solomon; sixty mighty men are around it” (Song of Songs 3:7).

אף זה ולא מיבעי האיך אלא הא דאמר שמואל מלכותא דקטלא חד משיתא בעלמא לא מיענשא שנאמר כרמי שלי לפני האלף לך שלמה למלכותא דרקיעא ומאתים לנטרים את פריו למלכותא דארעא שמואל לא כתנא קמא ולא כיש אומרים

The Gemara asks: Does this mean: This verse too is non-sacred, and it is not necessary to say that the verse cited earlier is non-sacred? But that which Shmuel says: A monarchy that kills one of every six individuals in the world is not punished for doing so, as that is the prerogative of a monarch, as it is stated: “My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; you, Shlomo shall have the one thousand,” this is a reference to the monarchy of Heaven; “and two hundred for those who guard its fruit,” this is a reference to the monarchy of earth. Of the 1,200 mentioned in the two parts of the verse, two hundred, or one-sixth, are the prerogative of the earthly monarch. Shmuel, who interprets the mention of Shlomo in this verse as referring to God, holds neither in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna nor in accordance with the opinion introduced with the term: Some say. Both tanna’im agree that the reference in the verse is to Solomon and not to the Holy One, Blessed be He.

אלא הכי קאמר ויש אומרים זה קדש וזה הוא חול דמטתו ושמואל דאמר כיש אומרים

Rather, Shmuel cites a different version of the opinion introduced with the term: Some say, according to which this is what it is saying. And some say: This Shlomo that appears in the verse with regard to the one thousand is sacred, and that Shlomo that appears in the verse with regard to the bed of Solomon is non-sacred, and it is Shmuel who states his opinion in accordance with the opinion introduced with the term: Some say.

כל מלכיא האמורים בדניאל חול חוץ מזה שהוא קדש אנת מלכא [מלך] מלכיא די אלה שמיא מלכותא חסנא ותקפא ויקרא יהב לך

All kings that are stated with regard to Daniel are non-sacred, except for this one, which is sacred: “You, O king, king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven has given you the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory” (Daniel 2:37).

ויש אומרים אף זה קדש שנאמר מרי חלמא לשנאך ופשרה לערך למאן קאמר אי סלקא דעתך לנבוכד נצר קאמר ליה שנאותיה מאי נינהו ישראל מילט קא לייט להו לישראל

And some say: This too is sacred, as it is stated: “My Lord, the dream shall be for your enemy and its interpretation for your foe” (Daniel 4:16). To whom is Daniel saying this? If it enters your mind that when Daniel says: “My lord,” it is to Nebuchadnezzar that he is saying it, his enemy, who are they? They are the Jewish people. Would Daniel curse the Jewish people?

ותנא קמא סבר שונאי ישראל איכא שונאי גוים ליכא

And the first tanna, who understands that Daniel is referring to Nebuchadnezzar, holds: Are there Jewish enemies for Nebuchadnezzar and there are no gentile enemies for him? Daniel was cursing the gentile enemies, not the Jewish enemies.

ובכל כנויין הרי אלו חייבין כו׳

§ The mishna teaches: Or if one administered the oath to the witnesses in the name of any of the appellations of God, even though he did not mention the ineffable name of God, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

ורמינהי יתן ה׳ אותך לאלה ולשבעה מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבעת האלה לפי שנאמר ושמעה קול אלה נאמר כאן אלה ונאמר להלן אלה מה להלן שבועה אף כאן שבועה מה להלן בשם אף כאן בשם

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita that cites the verse: “The Lord shall render you as a curse and as an oath” (Numbers 5:21). Why must the verse state this? Isn’t it already stated at the beginning of the verse: “And the priest shall administer to the woman with the oath of cursing”? Due to the fact that it is stated with regard to an oath of testimony: “And he heard the voice of an ala” (Leviticus 5:1), one may infer: Ala is stated here with regard to an oath of testimony and ala is stated there with regard to a sota; just as there, with regard to a sota, the reference is to an oath, so too here, with regard to an oath of testimony, the reference is to an oath. And just as there, the oath is administered in the name of God, so too here, the oath is administered in the name of God. This is contrary to the mishna, where the ruling is that an oath of testimony may be administered even in the name of appellations of God.

אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבי חנינא בר אידי הא רבנן דתניא רבי חנינא בר אידי אומר הואיל ואמרה תורה השבע ואל תשבע קלל ואל תקלל מה השבע בשם אף לא תשבע בשם מה קלל בשם אף לא תקלל בשם

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi, and that mishna is the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi says: Since the Torah says in some cases: Take an oath, and in some cases: Do not take an oath; and it says in some cases: Curse, and in some cases: Do not curse, just as when the Torah says: Take an oath, it is in the name of God, so too, when the Torah states: Do not take an oath, it is in the name of God. And just as when the Torah states: Curse, it is in the name of God, so too, when the Torah says: Do not curse, it is in the name of God.

ורבנן אי גמירי גזירה שוה ניבעי שם המיוחד אי לא גמירי גזירה שוה אלה דשבועה היא מנא להו

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis say: If they derive an oath of testimony from sota by means of a verbal analogy, let us require that both an oath of testimony and the curse will be specifically in the ineffable name of God. If they do not derive an oath of testimony from sota by means of a verbal analogy, from where do they derive that the instance of the word ala that is written with regard to an oath of testimony is an oath?

נפקא להו מדתניא אלה אין אלה אלא לשון שבועה וכן הוא אומר והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה

The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which is taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to an oath of testimony: “And he hears the voice of an ala” (Leviticus 5:1); ala is nothing other than an expression meaning oath. And likewise it says: “And the priest shall administer to the woman with the oath of cursing [ha’ala]” (Numbers 5:21).

התם שבועת האלה כתיב הכי קאמר אלה אין אלה אלא בשבועה וכן הוא אומר והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבעת האלה

The Gemara asks: It is not merely ala that is written there; the oath of an ala is written there. Apparently, ala alone does not mean oath. The Gemara explains that this is what the tanna is saying: “And he hears the voice of an ala”; ala is used only when accompanied by an oath. And likewise it says: “And the priest shall administer to the woman with the oath of cursing.”