Shevuot 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

And he said:

He is referring to the One who is merciful

, and therefore it is as though he administered an oath in the Name itself, even though he did not mention the Name of God.

Rava said

to Abaye:

If so

, that it is possible to interpret the intention of the one administering the oath and the meaning of his words as referring to the One who is called by that designation, then when one administers an oath

by Heaven and earth, as well

let us say:

He is referring to the One to whom Heaven and earth belong

, and it follows that he administered an oath in the Name itself. Why, then, do we exempt him from bringing an offering for a false oath? And we answer:

How can these cases be compared? There

, when one administers an oath by the terms Merciful and Gracious,

since there is nothing else that is called Merciful and Gracious

[for everyone attributes these qualities to the Creator, may He be blessed],

he is certainly referring to the One who is gracious, and certainly to the One who is merciful

, and it is therefore as though he administered an oath in the Name itself. But

here, since there is Heaven and earth

by Heaven and earth

themselves

is what he is referring to

, and not to the One to whom Heaven and earth belong.

The Sages taught: If one wrote

the letters

aleph lamed mem

of the word

Elohim

, or the letters

yod

he mem

of the Tetragrammaton,

they may not be erased

, for these two letters themselves constitute an independent Name, even though his intention was to write another Name. But if he wrote

shin dalet of Shaddai

, or

aleph dalet of

Adonai

, or

tzadi bet of Tzevaot

they may be erased!

Rabbi Yosei says: The entire word “Tzevaot”

may be erased, for it is called Tzevaot only on account of Israel, as it is stated: “And I shall bring out My hosts, My people, the Children of Israel, from the land of Egypt.”

Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei!

The Sages taught: Any

letter

ancillary to the Name

of God

whether before it or after it may be erased.

Before it—for example: le-Adonai

—the letter

lamed may be erased; ba-Adonai

—the letter

bet may be erased; ve-Adonai

—the letter

vav may be erased; me-Adonai

the mem may be erased; she-Adonai

the shin may be erased; he-Adonai

the he may be erased; ke-Adonai

the kaf may be erased. After it—for example: E-loheinu

the

nun and vav may be erased; E-loheihem

—the letters

he mem may be erased; Eloheikhem

the he mem may be erased.

Others say

: The

letter after it may not be erased, for the Name has already been sanctified

, since these letters are associated with the Name after it has already been written, and therefore they acquired sanctity when they were written. This is not so with regard to the letters before it, which at the time they are written have not yet been sanctified, and their association with the Name occurs only after they have been written; consequently, they are not sanctified.

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with Others.

Abraham; the curse against Naboth; at Gibeah of Benjamin; Solomon; Daniel

a mnemonic!

All the Names mentioned in the Torah with regard to Abraham

in the episode of the angels

are sacred, except for this one, which is

a profane

name, as it is stated: “And he said: My lord, if I have now found favor in your eyes”

[Abraham said this to the angel Michael, addressing him as lord].

Ḥanina, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa'i, said: This one, too

, is a

sacred

name [as Abraham was addressing the Holy One, blessed be He, asking Him to wait until he brought in the guests].

In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence? In accordance with whose opinion

?

In accordance with that pair

, who said that the term Adonai mentioned in this passage is sacred. This teaches that Abraham addressed the Holy One, blessed be He, asking Him to wait until he brought in the guests; from here it follows that hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence.

All the Names mentioned with regard to Lot

are profane, except for this one,

which is sacred, as it is stated: “And Lot said to them

please, my

lord, behold now your servant has found favor in your eyes”

and so on [And this verse should be read as follows: “And Lot said to them,” to the angels: Please, do not do this! And he then turned to the Holy One, blessed be He, and said: “Adonai, behold now your servant has found favor in your eyes!”]. The proof that this is the meaning of the verse is that Lot asked for his life to be spared, and such a request must be addressed to

the One who has the power to kill and to give life

that is the Holy One, blessed be He!

All the Names mentioned with regard to Naboth

[“Naboth blessed God”]

are sacred

, but the Names mentioned in

the

description of

Micah

’s idol

are profane.

Rabbi Eliezer says

: The Names mentioned

with regard to Naboth

are all

sacred; with regard to Micah

some of them are profane and some of them are sacred

: The Names written

with aleph

lamed

—he, yod, mem—are

profane. The ones written

with yod

he

—vav, he—are

sacred, except for this one, which is

written

with aleph lamed yet is sacred: “All the days that the House of God was in Shiloh!”

All the Names mentioned

in the account of the concubine

at Gibeah of Benjamin

—

Rabbi Eliezer says

: They are

profane! Rabbi Yehoshua says

: They are

sacred!

Rabbi Eliezer said to him

: The verse states: “And the Children of Israel inquired of God, and they said: Who shall go up for us first to battle against the Children of Benjamin? And God said: Judah first.” According to you, that all the Names are sacred,

is it conceivable

that the Holy One, blessed be He,

promised

that they would succeed in the war

and did not fulfill it?

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: What the Holy One, blessed be He, promised

He

did

. However,

they did not test

[they did not test Him by asking through the Urim VeTummim]

whether they would prevail or whether they would be defeated

. They asked only whether to go to war or not, and therefore they failed. But

in the end, when they tested Him through the Urim VeTummim

and added to their question whether to go up the question, “or shall I refrain?”

He agreed with them, as it is stated: “And Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, stood before it in those days, saying: Shall I again go out to battle against the Children of Benjamin, my brother, or shall I refrain?”

and so on.

Every mention of “Solomon” in the Song of Songs

is sacred.

The meaning of “A song of songs for Solomon” is

a song for the One to whom peace belongs! Except for this verse: “My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; you, Solomon, shall have the thousand.”

[The intention of the verse is to teach us that King Solomon had the right to take five-sixths of the population of Israel for the king’s service, while he had to release the remaining sixth so that they could engage in Torah study—Maharsha].

And this is what the verse says:

“You, Solomon, shall have the thousand”

—of every twelve hundred men, he takes

Solomon for himself

a thousand.

And two hundred

for those who guard its fruit,

who are

the Sages

, who engage in Torah study and thereby protect all Israel.

And some say

that even this

name is profane

:

“Behold, Solomon’s bed

sixty mighty men are around it ... because of the terror at night,” because King Solomon was terrified of Ashmedai.

The Gemara infers from the words of the latter opinion that they say

even

this

name is profane, and it is unnecessary to say so with regard to the other one,

in the preceding verse, concerning Solomon’s vineyard. If so, this presents a difficulty:

Rather, that which Shmuel said: A kingdom that kills

one-sixth of the world

is not punished

, for the government has the right to take its subjects for the king’s service, and even if one-sixth of the population is killed through their arduous labor and discretionary wars, the government is not punished for this,

as it is stated: “My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; you, Solomon, shall have the thousand”

refers to the heavenly kingdom

called “Solomon,”

“and two hundred for those who guard its fruit” refers to the earthly kingdom!

[And that is one-sixth].

And if so,

Shmuel

, who interprets this verse as saying that “Solomon” is sacred, is

neither in accordance with the first tanna nor with the latter opinion

, since according to both of them it is profane!?

And he resolved it:

Rather, this is what the tanna of the baraita is saying

:

And some say

that “Solomon” mentioned in the verse “You, Solomon, shall have the thousand”

is sacred. And this one is profane

—

his bed

of Solomon! And Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the latter opinion

, that “You, Solomon, shall have the thousand” is sacred.

All mentions of “king” in Daniel are profane, except for this one, which is sacred: “You, O king, king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, strength, power, and glory

has He given you!”

That is, the King of kings has given you strength, power, and glory.

And some say: This one, too, is sacred, as it is stated: “My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you, and its interpretation for your enemies!”

[Its translation is: My lord! The dream—for those who hate you; and its interpretation—for your enemies!

The plain meaning of the verse is that Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar: My lord, may this evil dream that you dreamed be for those who hate you, and may its interpretation befall your enemies. But according to this plain meaning, the verse presents a difficulty.]

To whom

, with regard to whom,

was Daniel referring

when he said “my lord”—“my master”?

If it enters your mind that he was saying this to Nebuchadnezzar

, telling him that the dream and its interpretation should befall his enemies, this cannot be so, for

who are

Nebuchadnezzar’s

enemies?

Israel.

And did

he curse them

—did Daniel curse

Israel

that the evil dream Nebuchadnezzar dreamed should befall them?

Rather, necessarily Daniel raised his eyes toward the Holy One, blessed be He, and said to Him: “My lord, master of dreams! May this dream and its interpretation be fulfilled with regard to Nebuchadnezzar, who hates You and is Your enemy!” Therefore, “my lord, master of dreams” is evidently a sacred Name.

And the first tanna

, who said that this name is profane,

held

: Is it the case that Nebuchadnezzar had only

enemies who hated Israel

?

Did he have no enemies among the gentiles?

Therefore, the intention of the verse is that Daniel addressed Nebuchadnezzar and said to him: My lord, may this evil dream befall those who hate you and are your enemies! Daniel was referring to Nebuchadnezzar’s enemies among the gentiles.

We learned in the Mishna: “I administer an oath to you ... by all the appellations”—they are liable!

And we raise a contradiction

from a baraita: For it was taught: It is written in the passage concerning a sota:

“May the Lord make you a curse and an oath.”

And one must analyze:

Why do I need

this phrase in the verse?

Was it not already stated: “And the koen shall administer the oath to the woman with the oath of the curse”?

Rather, the verse comes to teach us:

Since it is stated

with regard to an oath of testimony:

“And he hears the voice of an oath.”

Yet I do not know what this oath mentioned in the passage concerning testimony is. We may therefore learn from the apparently superfluous verse concerning the sota:

It is stated here

, with regard to testimony,

“oath.” And it is stated there

, with regard to the oath administered to a sota,

“oath.” Just as there

, with regard to the sota, the “oath” is

an oath

, as it is stated: “And the koen shall administer the oath to the woman with the oath of the curse,”

so too here

, with regard to testimony, the “oath” is

an oath!

And likewise, you learn from that apparently superfluous verse concerning the sota:

Just as there

she is administered an oath

in the Name

, as it is stated: “May the Lord make you a curse and an oath,”

so too here

, with regard to testimony, the witness must be administered an oath

in the Name!

It is demonstrated from this baraita that one must administer an oath in the Name itself, whereas our Mishna says that one may administer an oath even by appellations!?

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This

is the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi, who requires an oath in the Name.

This

is the opinion of the Sages, who do not require an oath in the Name; administering an oath by appellations is sufficient.

As it was taught: Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi says: Since the Torah said, “Administer an oath,”

with regard to an oath between litigants, as it is stated: “The oath of the Lord shall be between them,” and the Torah also said:

“Do not swear”

falsely by My Name. And likewise the Torah said:

“Curse”

the sota,

“and do not curse”

, neither God nor your fellow. Therefore, we say as follows:

Just as “administer an oath” is in the Name

, as it is stated: “The oath of the Lord shall be between them,”

so too “do not swear”

—in the Name!

And likewise,

just as “curse” is in the Name

, as it is stated: “May the Lord make you a curse,” so too

“do not curse”

—its prohibition applies

in the Name!

We raise a difficulty:

And the Sages

, who hold one liable even for administering an oath by appellations—

if they learned the verbal analogy

of “oath” from the passage concerning the sota to testimony,

they should require the distinctive Name

, as in the case of the sota.

And if they did not learn it

by means of the verbal analogy from the sota,

“oath”

mentioned with regard to testimony—“and he hears the voice of an oath”—

from where do they derive that it refers to an oath?

And we answer:

They derive it from that which was taught: “Oath”

mentioned with regard to testimony—

“oath” means only an expression of an oath

, as this is the meaning of the verse itself.

And likewise it says

with regard to the sota:

“And the koen shall administer the oath to the woman with the oath of the curse”!

And we challenge this:

There

, with regard to the sota,

it is written, “the oath of the curse,”

and therefore the meaning of the verse is that “oath” is an oath accompanied by a curse. But here, where only “oath” is written, from where do we know that it refers to an oath?

And we answer:

This is what it means: There is no oath

[curse]

without an oath

that accompanies it.

And likewise it says: “And the koen shall administer the oath to the woman with the oath of the curse”!