שבועות ל״ה

שבועות ל״ה

לְהָכִי כַּתְבַהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְעֵדוּת גַּבֵּי שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי וְגַבֵּי טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – דִּבְכוּלָּן נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״וְנֶעְלַם״, וְכָאן לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״וְנֶעְלַם״; לְחַיֵּיב עַל הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אִם לֹא תָבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִיתֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא נָתַן״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִים, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל תְּבִיעַת מָמוֹן כְּפִקָּדוֹן.

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.

״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּ לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁבוּעָה לְעֵדוּת.

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.

עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מִתְכַּוֵּין לָהֶם.

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.

אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת״; וְהֵם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין.

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.

שִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַנִּתְבָּע: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּהוּ״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַתּוֹבֵעַ.

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.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִיתֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא נָתַן״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תֶּחֱטָא״–״תֶּחֱטָא״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

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.

נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תֶּחֱטָא״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״תֶּחֱטָא״; מָה לְהַלָּן בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן – וְיֵשׁ לוֹ, אַף כָּאן בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן – וְיֵשׁ לוֹ.

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.

״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּ לִי עֵדוּת״ כּוּ׳.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּ לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדַע״ – מִי שֶׁקָּדְמָה עֵדוּת לִשְׁבוּעָה, וְלֹא שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁבוּעָה לְעֵדוּת.

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.

עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ עֵדָיו בֵּינֵיהֶן.

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.

פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאֵי עִילָּוַיְהוּ; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לְהוּ דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: רָאָה סִיעָה שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִין, וְעֵדָיו בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְאָמַר לָהֶן: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא עֵד״ – וַהֲרֵי לֹא יִיחֵד עֵדָיו. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״כׇּל הָעוֹמְדִין כָּאן״? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא עֵד״ – וַהֲרֵי יִיחֵד עֵדָיו.

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.

אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, אִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״; וְהֵן יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״ – בִּרְאוּיִן לְהַגָּדָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

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.

שִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַנִּתְבָּע: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּהוּ״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״.

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.

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד״ כְּתִיב; אִם לוֹ לֹא יַגִּיד – וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ, וְאִם לְאַחֵר לֹא יַגִּיד – פָּטוּר.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי (אֲנִי) עֲלֵיכֶם״; ״מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״; ״אוֹסֶרְכֶם אֲנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין.

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.

״בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין. ״בְּאָלֶף דָּלֶת״; ״בְּיוֹד הֵי״; ״בְּשַׁדַּי״; ״בִּצְבָאוֹת״; ״בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם״; ״בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם״; ״בְּרַב חֶסֶד״; וּבְכָל הַכִּנּוּיִין – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין.

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.

הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכוּלָּן – חַיָּיב; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

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.

הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְּכוּלָּן – חַיָּיב; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

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.

הַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּכוּלָּן – עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. ״יַכְּכָה ה׳ אֱלֹהִים״, וְכֵן ״יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים״ – זוֹ הִיא אָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה.

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.

״אַל יַכְּךָ״, וִ״יבָרֶכְךָ״ וְ״יֵיטִיב לָךְ״ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

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.

גְּמָ׳ ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״ – מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם בִּשְׁבוּעָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה״; ״מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם בְּצַוָּואָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה״; ״אוֹסֶרְכֶם אֲנִי בְּאִיסּוּר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה״.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, אֶלָּא הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״כּוֹבֶלְכֶם אֲנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין; כּוֹבֵל בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִי כְּתִיב?!

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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם בִּשְׁבוּעָה״; ״מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם בִּשְׁבוּעָה״; ״אוֹסֶרְכֶם אֲנִי בִּשְׁבוּעָה״; ״כּוֹבֶלְכֶם אֲנִי בִּשְׁבוּעָה״.

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.

״בְּאָלֶף דָּלֶת״; ״בְּיוֹד הֵי״; ״בְּשַׁדַּי״; ״בִּצְבָאוֹת״; ״בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם״; ״בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם״; ״בְּרַב חֶסֶד״.

§ 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.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם שֵׁמוֹת נִינְהוּ?! וּרְמִינְהִי: יֵשׁ שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁנִּמְחָקִין, וְיֵשׁ שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין נִמְחָקִין – אֵלּוּ הֵן שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין נִמְחָקִין: כְּגוֹן ״אֵל״, ״אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, ״אֱלֹהִים״, ״אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״, ״אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה״, ״אָלֶף דָּלֶת״ וְ״יוֹד הֵי״, ״שַׁדַּי״, ״צְבָאוֹת״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵין נִמְחָקִין.

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.

אֲבָל ״הַגָּדוֹל״, ״הַגִּבּוֹר״, ״הַנּוֹרָא״, ״הָאַדִּיר״ וְ״הֶחָזָק״ וְ״הָאַמִּיץ״, ״הָעִזּוּז״, ״חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם״, ״אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם״ וְ״רַב חֶסֶד״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִמְחָקִין.

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?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַתְנִיתִין ״בְּמִי שֶׁהוּא חַנּוּן״

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,

״בְּמִי שֶׁהוּא רַחוּם״ קָאָמַר.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, ״בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ״ נָמֵי – ״בְּמִי שֶׁהַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ שֶׁלּוֹ״ קָאָמַר!

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?

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא דְּאִיקְּרִי רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן – וַדַּאי ״בְּמִי שֶׁהוּא חַנּוּן״, וַדַּאי ״בְּמִי שֶׁהוּא רַחוּם״ קָאָמַר. הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ – ״בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ״ קָאָמַר.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כָּתַב אָלֶף לָמֶד מֵ״אֱלֹהִים״, ״יָהּ״ מֵ״יְיָ״ – הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נִמְחָק. שִׁין דָּלֶת מִ״שַּׁדַּי״, אָלֶף דָּלֶת מֵ״אֲדֹנָי״, צָדִי בֵּית מִ״צְּבָאוֹת״ – הֲרֵי זֶה נִמְחָק.

§ 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.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״צְבָאוֹת״ כּוּלּוֹ נִמְחָק – שֶׁלֹּא נִקְרָא צְבָאוֹת אֶלָּא עַל שֵׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶת צִבְאֹתַי אֶת עַמִּי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַטָּפֵל לַשֵּׁם, בֵּין מִלְּפָנָיו וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרָיו – הֲרֵי זֶה נִמְחָק. לְפָנָיו כֵּיצַד? ״לַייָ׳״ – ל׳ נִמְחָק; ״בַּייָ׳״ – ב׳ נִמְחָק; ״וַייָ׳״ – ו׳ נִמְחָק; ״מֵיְיָ׳״ – מ׳ נִמְחָק; ״שֶׁיְיָ׳״ – ש׳ נִמְחָק; ״הַיְיָ׳״ – ה׳ נִמְחָק; ״כַּייָ׳״ – כ׳ נִמְחָק.

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.

לְאַחֲרָיו כֵּיצַד? ״אֱלֹהֵינוּ״ – נוּ נִמְחָק, ״אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״ – הֶם נִמְחָק, ״אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״ – כֶם נִמְחָק. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: לְאַחֲרָיו אֵינוֹ נִמְחָק, שֶׁכְּבָר קִדְּשׁוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כַּאֲחֵרִים.

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.

(אַבְרָהָם, דְּלָטְיָא, לְנָבוֹת, בְּגִבְעַת בִּנְיָמִן, שְׁלֹמֹה, דָּנִיאֵל – סִימָן)

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

כׇּל שֵׁמוֹת הָאֲמוּרִים בַּתּוֹרָה בְּאַבְרָהָם – קֹדֶשׁ; חוּץ מִזֶּה שֶׁהוּא חוֹל – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמַר, אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ״.

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.

חֲנִינָא בֶּן אֲחִי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אָמְרוּ: אַף זֶה קֹדֶשׁ. כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: גְּדוֹלָה הַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִין יוֹתֵר מֵהַקְבָּלַת פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה – כְּמַאן? כְּאוֹתוֹ הַזּוּג.

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.

כָּל שֵׁמוֹת הָאֲמוּרִים בְּלוֹט – חוֹל; חוּץ מִזֶּה שֶׁהוּא קֹדֶשׁ – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם, אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי, הִנֵּה נָא מָצָא עַבְדְּךָ חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״ – מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לְהָמִית וּלְהַחֲיוֹת, זֶה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.

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.

כָּל שֵׁמוֹת הָאֲמוּרִים בְּנָבוֹת – קֹדֶשׁ, בְּמִיכָה – חוֹל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בְּנָבוֹת – קֹדֶשׁ, בְּמִיכָה – יֵשׁ מֵהֶן חוֹל וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן קֹדֶשׁ. אָלֶף לָמֶד – חוֹל, יוֹד הֵי – קֹדֶשׁ; חוּץ מִזֶּה, שֶׁאָלֶף לָמֶד וְהוּא קֹדֶשׁ: ״כׇּל יְמֵי הֱיוֹת בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים בְּשִׁילֹה״.

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).

כָּל שֵׁמוֹת הָאֲמוּרִים בְּגִבְעַת בִּנְיָמִין – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חוֹל, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: קֹדֶשׁ.

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.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וְכִי מַבְטִיחַ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה?!

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.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מַה שֶּׁהִבְטִיחַ עָשָׂה; וְהֵם לֹא בִּיחֲנוּ אִם לִנְצוֹחַ אִם לִנָּצֵחַ. בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁבִּיחֲנוּ – הִסְכִּימוּ עַל יָדָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּפִנְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן (הַכֹּהֵן) עֹמֵד לְפָנָיו בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם לֵאמֹר, הַאוֹסִף עוֹד לָצֵאת לַמִּלְחָמָה עִם [בְּנֵי] בִנְיָמִן אָחִי אִם אֶחְדָּל וְגוֹ׳״.

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).

כׇּל ״שְׁלֹמֹה״ הָאֲמוּרִין בְּשִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים – קֹדֶשׁ, שִׁיר לְמִי שֶׁהַשָּׁלוֹם שֶׁלּוֹ; חוּץ מִזֶּה: ״כַּרְמִי שֶׁלִּי לְפָנָי הָאֶלֶף לְךָ שְׁלֹמֹה״ – שְׁלֹמֹה לְדִידֵיהּ, ״וּמָאתַיִם לְנֹטְרִים אֶת פִּרְיוֹ״ – רַבָּנַן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, אַף זֶה חוֹל: ״הִנֵּה מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה שִׁשִּׁים״.

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).

אַף זֶה – וְלָא מִיבְּעֵי הַאיְךְ?! אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַלְכוּתָא דְּקָטְלָא חַד מִשִּׁיתָּא בְּעָלְמָא לָא מִיעַנְשָׁא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כַּרְמִי שֶׁלִּי לְפָנָי הָאֶלֶף לְךָ שְׁלֹמֹה״ – לְמַלְכוּתָא דִרְקִיעָא, ״וּמָאתַיִם לְנֹטְרִים אֶת פִּרְיוֹ״ – לְמַלְכוּתָא דְּאַרְעָא; שְׁמוּאֵל לָא כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְלָא כְּיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים?!

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.

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: זֶה – קֹדֶשׁ; וְזֶה הוּא חוֹל – דְּמִטָּתוֹ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר כְּיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים.

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.

כָּל מַלְכַיָּא הָאֲמוּרִים בְּדָנִיֵּאל – חוֹל; חוּץ מִזֶּה שֶׁהוּא קֹדֶשׁ: ״אַנְתְּ מַלְכָּא [מֶלֶךְ] מַלְכַיָּא דִּי אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא, מַלְכוּתָא חִסְנָא וְתׇקְפָּא וִיקָרָא יְהַב לָךְ״.

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).

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף זֶה קֹדֶשׁ – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מָרִי חֶלְמָא לְשָׂנְאָךְ וּפִשְׁרֵהּ לְעָרָךְ״ – לְמַאן קָאָמַר? אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לִנְבוּכַדְ נֶצַּר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, שָׂנְאוֹתֵיהּ מַאי נִינְהוּ – יִשְׂרָאֵל; מֵילָט קָא לָיֵיט לְהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל?!

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?

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: שׂוֹנְאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִיכָּא, שׂוֹנְאֵי גוֹיִם לֵיכָּא?!

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.

וּבְכָל כִּנּוּיִין – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין כּוּ׳.

§ 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.

וּרְמִינְהִי: ״יִתֵּן ה׳ אוֹתָךְ לְאָלָה וְלִשְׁבֻעָה״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבֻעַת הָאָלָה״! לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה״ – נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָלָה״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָלָה״; מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁבוּעָה, אַף כָּאן שְׁבוּעָה; מָה לְהַלָּן בַּשֵּׁם, אַף כָּאן בַּשֵּׁם.

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר אִידִי, הָא רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר אִידִי אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״הִשָּׁבַע״ וְ״אַל תִּשָּׁבַע״, ״קַלֵּל״ וְ״אַל תְּקַלֵּל״ – מָה ״הִשָּׁבַע״ בַּשֵּׁם, אַף ״לֹא תִּשָּׁבַע״ בַּשֵּׁם; מָה ״קַלֵּל״ בַּשֵּׁם, אַף ״לֹא תְּקַלֵּל״ בַּשֵּׁם.

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.

וְרַבָּנַן, אִי גְּמִירִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה – נִיבְעֵי שֵׁם הַמְיוּחָד! אִי לָא גְּמִירִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה – ״אָלָה״ דִּשְׁבוּעָה הִיא מְנָא לְהוּ?

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?

נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּתַנְיָא: ״אָלָה״ – אֵין ״אָלָה״ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבוּעַת הָאָלָה״.

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).

הָתָם ״שְׁבוּעַת הָאָלָה״ כְּתִיב! הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״אָלָה״ – אֵין ״אָלָה״ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבֻעַת הָאָלָה״.

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.”