Shevuot 35b — the Talmud in English

And

he said concerning One who is merciful,

and thereby he is like one who administers an oath in the Name Himself, even though he does not mention the Name of the Lord.

Rava said to him

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 saying that he administers an oath in the Name of Himself, who is so called, then the one administering an oath

by heaven and earth, also

let us say

he is speaking of One to whom heaven and earth belong,

and it turns out that he administers an oath in the Lord Himself; and why do we exempt them from the offering for an oath? And we answer:

How can these cases be compared? There,

in the case of one administering an oath by “merciful” and “gracious,”

since there is nothing else that is called “merciful” and “gracious”

[for everyone attributes this description to the Creator, may He be blessed],

certainly he is speaking of One who is gracious, certainly of One who is merciful,

and he is like one who administers an oath in the Name Himself. But

here, since there is heaven and earth—

“by heaven and earth”

themselves

he is speaking

and not of One to whom heaven and earth belong.

The Sages taught: If one wrote

the letters

aleph lamed from

the word

“God,”

or the letters

yod-

he from

the Tetragrammaton,

it may not be erased,

for these two letters themselves constitute a Name in its own right, even though his intention was to write another Name. But if he wrote

shin dalet from Shaddai

or

aleph dalet from—

nai,

or

tsadi bet from Hosts—

it may be erased!

Rabbi Yosei says: “Hosts”—

all of it may be erased, for “Hosts” is called 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.”

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

The Sages taught: Every

letter

that is ancillary to the Name

of the Lord

whether before it or after it, may be erased.

Before it—how so? “To the Lord”—

the letter

lamed may be erased; “in the Lord”—

the letter

bet may be erased; “and the Lord”—

the letter

vav may be erased; “from the Lord”—

the letter mem may be erased; “that the Lord”—

the letter shin may be erased; “the Lord”—

the letter he may be erased; “like the Lord”—

the letter kaf may be erased.

After it—how so? “Our God”—

the letters nun-vav may be erased. “Their God”—

—the letters

he mem may be erased; Eloheikhem

the letters he-mem may be erased. “Your God”—

the letters kaf-mem may be erased.

Others say:

A letter

that is after it may not be erased, for it has already sanctified the Name,

since these letters are related to the Name after it has already been written, and therefore they received sanctity at the time of their writing. This is not so with the letters before it, for at the time of their writing the Name had not yet been sanctified, and their entire relation to the Name was made only after their writing; at that point they are not sanctified.

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

Abraham, Delatya for Naboth in Gibeah of Benjamin, Solomon, Daniel—

a mnemonic!

All the Names mentioned in the Torah concerning Abraham

in the section of the angels

are sacred, except for this one which is

a profane name,

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

[which Abraham said to the angel Michael, calling him “lord”].

Hanina son of the brother of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa'i said: This one too

is a

sacred

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

In accordance with whom is that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Greater is hospitality to guests than receiving the Presence of the Divine Presence? In accordance with whom—

in accordance with that pair

who said that the “my lord” mentioned in the section is sacred. And it teaches us that Abraham addressed the Holy One, blessed be He, and asked Him to wait until he brought in the guests; from here that hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Presence of the Divine Presence.

All the Names mentioned concerning Lot—

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 not, my lord,

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

and so forth [and thus we must read this verse: “And Lot said to them,” to the angels—“Please do not do so!” And he turned again to the Holy One, blessed be He, and said—“My Lord, behold now your servant has found favor in your eyes!”]. And the proof that this is the meaning of the verse is that Lot pleaded for his life, and such a request is made before

One in whose hand is to kill and to give life—

this is the Holy One, blessed be He!

All the Names mentioned concerning Naboth

[“Naboth blessed God”]

are sacred,

but the Names mentioned

in

the description of the idol of

Micah

are

profane.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The Names mentioned

concerning Naboth

all are

sacred; concerning Micah—

some of them are profane and some of them are sacred:

the Names written

with aleph—

lamed—

he-yod-mem, are

profane.

And those written

with yod—

he—

vav-he, are

sacred. Except for this, that which is

written

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

All the Names mentioned

in the account of the concubine

in Gibeah of Benjamin—

Rabbi Eliezer says:

they are

profane!

Rabbi Joshua says:

they are

sacred!

Rabbi Eliezer said to him:

Behold, the verse says: “And the Children of Israel inquired of God and said: Who shall go up for us first to battle with the Children of Benjamin? And the Lord said: Judah first.” And according to you, that all the Names are sacred,

is it possible that

the Holy One, blessed be He,

promises

that they will succeed in the battle

and does not fulfill it?

Rabbi Joshua said to him: What He promised

the Holy One, blessed be He,

He did.

But

they did not test

[they did not put it to the test by asking through the Urim and the Tummim]

whether to triumph or whether to be defeated.

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

finally, when they tested through the Urim and the Tummim

and added to their question whether to go up also the question, “Whether I should cease?”

they agreed through them. As it is stated: “And Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron stood before it in those days, saying: Shall I continue again to go out to battle against the Children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease?”

and so forth.

Every “Solomon” mentioned in Song of Songs—

is sacred.

For the meaning of “Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s” is

a song for Him to whom peace belongs! Except for this: “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 was entitled to take from all Israel five-sixths of the population for the service of the king, and he had to release the remaining sixth so that they could engage in Torah—Maharsha].

And thus the verse says:

“You, Solomon, shall have the thousand”—

from every thousand and two hundred men

Solomon for himself

takes one thousand.

“And two hundred”—

“for those who guard its fruit,”

who are

the Sages,

who engage in Torah and thereby protect all Israel.

And some say

even this Name

is profane

:

“Behold, Solomon’s couch”

with sixty warriors around it... “because of fear at night,” since King Solomon was terrified of Ashmedai.

And the Gemara infers from the words of the Sages who say that

even

there

this one is profane, and it is not necessary to say the other one,

in the preceding verse, concerning Solomon’s vineyard. And if so, this is difficult—

Rather, that which Samuel said: “A kingdom that kills

one-sixth of the world—

is not punished,”

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

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

Solomon”—for the heavenly kingdom

called “Solomon,”

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

[That is one-sixth].

And if so,

Samuel,

who interprets in this verse that “Solomon” is sacred, is

neither like the first tan­ na nor like the Sages,

for according to all of them it is profane!?

And he answered:

Rather, this is what

the tan­ na of the Mishna

is saying:

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

this is sacred. And this one is profane—

his couch

of Solomon

! And Samuel said in accordance with the Sages,

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

All the “kings” mentioned 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, might, and glory

has given you!”

That is, the King of kings has given you strength, might, 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: “My lord! The dream—for those who hate you. And its interpretation—for your enemies!”

And 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 apply to your enemy.” But according to this plain meaning of the verse, this will be difficult]

For whom,

toward whom

is Daniel speaking

when he says “my lord”—“my master”?

If it enters your mind that he said it to Nebuchadnezzar,

saying to him that the dream and its interpretation should apply to his enemies, this is impossible, for

his haters

of Nebuchadnezzar

who are they?—

Israel.

And did Daniel

curse them

—did Daniel curse

Israel

that the evil dream that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed should apply to them?

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

And the first tan­ na,

who said that this Name is profane,

held:

But does Nebuchadnezzar have

haters of Israel

alone,

and does he not have haters of the idolaters?

Therefore, the meaning of the verse is that Daniel addressed Nebuchadnezzar and said to him: “My lord, may this evil dream apply to your hater and your enemy!” And Daniel intended the haters of Nebuchadnezzar among the nations.

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

And we raise a contradiction

to this from a beraita: For it was taught: It is written in the section of the sota

“The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath.”

And it is to be discussed:

What does the verse come to teach

in this verse?

But it has already been stated: “And the priest shall administer to the woman an oath of the curse”?

Rather, the verse comes to teach us:

Since it is stated

concerning the oath of testimony,

“And she hears the sound of the curse.”

And I do not know what this curse in the section of testimony is. From now we can learn from the superfluous verse concerning the sota—

It is stated here,

in testimony,

“curse.” And it is stated there,

in the administration of the sota’s oath,

“curse.” Just as there,

concerning the sota, “curse” is

an oath,

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

so here,

in testimony, “curse” is

an oath!

And likewise you learn from that same superfluous verse concerning the sota—

just as there

he administers an oath

by the Name,

as it is stated: “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath.”

So here too,

in testimony, he must administer an oath to the witness

by the Name!

And it is proven from this beraita that he must administer an oath in the Name Himself. But our Mishna says that it is possible to administer an oath also by appellations!?

Abaye said: It is not difficult. This one is Rabbi Hanina bar Idi,

who requires an oath by the Name.

This one is the Sages,

who do not require the oath by the Name, but it is sufficient for us to administer it by appellations.

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

concerning 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”

by My Name falsely. And likewise the Torah said:

“Curse”

the sota,

“and do not curse,”

not the Lord and not your fellow. Therefore we say as follows:

Just as “administer an oath by the Name,”

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

so “do not swear”—

by the Name!

And likewise,

just as “curse by the Name,”

as it is stated: “The Lord shall make you a curse,” so

“do not curse,”

its prohibition is

by the Name!

And we raised it:

And the Sages,

who impose liability even for one who administers an oath by appellations—

if they learned the gzera shava

of “curse”—“curse” from sota to testimony,

they should require the explicit Name

as in the sota.

And if they did not learn it

the gzera shava from sota,

“curse”

mentioned in testimony, “and she hears the sound of the curse,”

that it is an oath, from where do they derive it?

And we answer:

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

mentioned in testimony

means nothing other than the language of an oath,

for this is the meaning of the verse itself

! And likewise it says

in the sota,

“And the priest shall administer to the woman an oath of the curse”!

And we refute:

There,

in the sota,

“an oath of the curse” is written,

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

And we answer:

This is what it is saying: “Curse”

[a curse]

is only with an oath

that joins with it.

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