שבועות 35 — Soncino English Talmud

¹For this reason Scripture wrote testimony near the oath of utterance and near [the laws of] uncleanness in connection with the Temple and the holy food thereof: for in all of them it is said, and it be hidden; and here it is not said, and it be hidden; in order to make him liable for wilful as for unwitting transgression. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT SO-AND-SO PROMISED TO GIVE ME TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, AND DID NOT GIVE ME’, THEY ARE EXEMPT, FOR THEY ARE LIABLE ONLY FOR A MONEY CLAIM AS [IN THE CASE OF] DEPOSIT. ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT, WHEN YOU KNOW ANY TESTIMONY FOR ME, YOU SHOULD COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME,’ THEY ARE EXEMPT, BECAUSE THE OATH PRECEDED THE TESTIMONY. [IF] HE STOOD IN THE SYNAGOGUE AND SAID, ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT IF YOU KNOW ANY TESTIMONY FOR ME YOU SHOULD COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME,’ THEY ARE EXEMPT UNLESS HE DIRECTS HIMSELF TO THEM. HE SAID TO TWO [PERSONS]. ‘I ADJURE YOU, SO-AND-SO AND SO-AND-SO, THAT IF YOU KNOW ANY TESTIMONY FOR ME YOU SHOULD COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME,’ [AND THEY REPLIED,] ‘WE SWEAR WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU;’ AND THEY DID KNOW TESTIMONY FOR HIM, [BUT IT WAS EVIDENCE OF] ‘ONE WITNESS FROM THE MOUTH OF ANOTHER WITNESS;’ OR IF ONE OF THEM WAS A RELATIVE OR [OTHERWISE] INELIGIBLE [AS A WITNESS], THEY ARE EXEMPT. IF HE SENT BY THE HAND OF HIS SERVANT; OR IF THE DEFENDANT SAID TO THEM, ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT IF YOU KNOW ANY TESTIMONY FOR HIM YOU SHOULD COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR HIM;’ THEY ARE EXEMPT, [BEING LIABLE ONLY] WHEN THEY HEAR [THE ADJURATION] FROM THE MOUTH OF THE CLAIMANT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught; [If a man says,] ‘I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that So-and-So promised to give me two hundred zuz, and did not give me’; I might think they should be liable, therefore it is said: [If any one] sin, [if any one] sin, for analogy; here it is said; ‘[if any one] Sin’, and there it is said: ‘[if any one] sin’; just as there it deals with a claim of money which is due to him, so here it deals with a claim of money which is due to him. ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT WHEN YOU KNOW ANY TESTIMONY FOR ME, etc.’ Our Sages taught: ‘I adjure you that when you know’ any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me’: I might think they should be liable, therefore it is said; and heard the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known — where the testimony precedes the oath, and not where the oath precedes the testimony. HE STOOD IN THE SYNAGOGUE AND SAID; ‘I ADJURE YOU, etc.’ Samuel said: Even if his witnesses are among them [they are exempt]. This is obvious! — It is not necessary [for him to tell us this except] where he stands next to them; you might have thought it is as though he said it to them [specifically], therefore he teaches us [that it is not so]. It was also taught likewise: If he saw a company of men standing, and his witnesses were among them, and he said to them, ‘I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me;’ I might think they should be liable, therefore it is said, he being a witness — and here he did not single out his witnesses. I might think that even if he said, ‘All who stand here [I adjure’, they are exempt], therefore it is said, ‘he being a witness’; and here he did single out his witnesses. HE SAID TO TWO [PERSONS]: ‘I ADJURE YOU, etc.’ Our Sages taught: If he said to two [persons]. ‘I adjure you, So-and-So and So-and-So, that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me’; and they knew testimony for him, but it was evidence of ‘one witness from the mouth of another witness’, or if one of them was a relative or [otherwise] ineligible [as a witness]; I might think they should be liable, therefore it is said, if he do not tell it, then he shall bear his iniquity — with those who are eligible to tell, the verse deals. IF HE SENT BY THE HAND OF HIS SERVANT, etc. Our Sages taught: If he sent by the hand of his servant; or if the defendant said to them, ‘I adjure you that if you know any testimony for him you should come and bear testimony for him;’ I might think they should be liable, therefore it is said, if he do not tell it, then he shall bear his iniquity. How is the deduction made? — R. Eleazar said: It is written: if he tell it not, [implying] if to him he tell it not, then he shall bear his iniquity; but if to another he tell it not, he is exempt. MISHNAH. [IF HE SAID.] ‘I ADJURE YOU’; ‘I COMMAND YOU’; ‘I BIND YOU’; THEY ARE LIABLE. ‘BY HEAVEN AND EARTH!’ THEY ARE EXEMPT. ‘BY ALEF DALETH’; ‘BY YOD HE’; ‘BY SHADDAI’; ‘BY ZEBAOTH’; ‘BY THE MERCIFUL AND GRACIOUS ONE’; ‘BY THE LONG SUFFERING ONE’; ‘BY THE ONE ABOUNDING IN KINDNESS’; OR BY ANY OF THE SUBSTITUTES [FOR THE NAME]: THEY ARE LIABLE. HE WHO BLASPHEMES BY ANY OF THEM IS LIABLE: THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR; BUT THE SAGES EXEMPT HIM. HE WHO CURSES HIS FATHER OR MOTHER BY ANY OF THEM IS LIABLE; THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR; BUT THE SAGES EXEMPT HIM. HE WHO CURSES HIMSELF OR HIS NEIGHBOUR BY ANY OF THEM TRANSGRESSES A NEGATIVE PRECEPT. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE LORD SMITE YOU’; OR ‘GOD SMITE YOU’; THESE ARE THE CURSES WRITTEN IN THE TORAH. ‘MAY [THE LORD] NOT SMITE YOU’; OR ‘MAY HE BLESS YOU’; OR ‘MAY HE DO GOOD UNTO YOU [IF YOU BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME]’: R. MEIR MAKES [THEM] LIABLE, BUT THE SAGES EXEMPT [THEM]. GEMARA. ‘I adjure you:’ what does he mean? Rab Judah said; Thus he means: ‘I adjure you by the oath stated in the Torah’; ‘I command you by the command stated in the Torah;’ ‘I bind you by the bond stated in the Torah’. Abaye said to him: But then what of R. Hiyya who taught; ‘I chain you’; they are liable. Is ‘chain’ then mentioned in Scripture? — Well, said Abaye. Thus he means: ‘I adjure you by oath’; ‘I command you by oath’, ‘I bind you by oath’; ‘I chain you by oath’. ‘BY ALEF DALETH’; ‘BY YOD HE, BY SHADDAI’; ‘BY ZEBAOTH’; ‘BY THE MERCIFUL AND GRACIOUS ONE’; ‘BY THE LONG SUFFERING ONE’; ‘BY THE ONE ABOUNDING IN KINDNESS’. Shall we say that Merciful and Gracious are Names? This is contradicted [from the following]: There are Names which may be erased; and there are Names which may not be erased. These are the Names which may not be erased, such as: ‘El’, ‘Eloha’, ‘Elohim’, ‘your God’, I am that I am, ‘Alef Daleth’, ‘Yod He’, ‘Shaddai’, ‘Zebaoth’ — these may not be erased; but the Great, the Mighty, the Revered, the Majestic, the Strong, the Powerful, the Potent, the Merciful and Gracious, the Long Suffering, the One Abounding in Kindness these may be erased! Abaye said: Our Mishnah means: ‘[I adjure you] by Him who is Gracious’;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ

^ᵃnote:In the case of testimony.
^ᵇnote:Therefore we do not deduce testimony from deposit though we have a vua vrzd, for it is as though Scripture had expressly stated (by the omission of okgbu) that in the case of testimony he is liable also for wilful transgression.
^ᶜnote:Where there is a definite liability; but here, even if the witnesses had given their testimony that he had promised the money, he would not have to pay, for he could say that he had changed his mind.
^ᵈnote:At the time of the oath there was no testimony to be given.
^ᵉnote:Because he must single out particular witnesses.
^ᶠnote:[I.e., to some among them in particular. Some texts omit this clause.]
^ᵍnote:A technical phrase denoting indirect evidence. They had no direct evidence, but only what they had heard from others; they could not, in any case, offer that as testimony.
^ʰnote:Even if there were three witnesses, and only one was ineligible. Though there are two eligible witnesses left, they are also exempt, because as soon as one of the original three is found to be ineligible, the testimony of the other two is inadmissible; v. Tosaf.
^ⁱnote:He sent his servant to adjure them.
^ʲnote:Lev. V, 1.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. 21.
^ˡnote:With reference to oath of testimony.
^ᵐnote:With reference to oath of deposit.
^ⁿnote:Lev. V, 1, he being a witness implies that he already had evidence at the time of adjuration.
^ᵒnote:For if the witnesses were not there, of course they are exempt.
^ᵖnote:Lev. V, 1.
^ᵠnote:Ibid.
^ʳnote:The Heb. has tuk instead of tk; so that we may deduce: shdh tk uk ot.
^ˢnote:The claimant.
^ᵗnote:If he uses any of these forms when adjuring the witnesses, they are liable, if they deny knowledge of testimony.
^ᵘnote:If he adjures them by the Name Adonai.
^ᵛnote:The Tetragrammaton.
^ʷnote:The Almighty.
^ˣnote:(Lord of) Hosts.
^ʸnote:The Name.
^ᶻnote:Death by stoning, v. Sanh. VII, 5.
^ᵃᵃnote:If he uses the substitutes; holding that he is liable only if he uses the Names: Tetragrammaton, God, Lord, Almighty, Hosts.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Lev. XX, 9; Sanh. 66a; but the Sages hold that if he uses the substitutes he is exempt.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. infra 36a.
^ᵃᵈnote:[So MS.M. Cur. edd.: The Lord God. Var. lec. (v. Mishnah texts): God smite you; v. n. 7.]
^ᵃᵉnote:[If you do not come to testify for me. According to var. lec. given in previous note: or ‘Thus may God smite you.’ I.e., having heard some one reading the curses in Deut. XXVIII, he says, ‘Thus may God smite you if you do not come to testify for me.’]
^ᵃᶠnote:Deut. XXVIII, 22; e.g., ‘The Lord smite you with consumption if you do not bear testimony for me’.
^ᵃᵍnote:Because the opposite may be deduced: ‘May the Lord smite you if you do not bear testimony.
^ᵃʰnote:Using forms of adjuration mentioned in Scripture.
^ᵃⁱnote:I impose upon you the obligation like a chain to bear testimony.
^ᵃʲnote:In all cases invoking the Name.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., substitutes for the divine Name, and that therefore adjuration by these Names makes then, liable.
^ᵃˡnote:Because they are not used solely of the Deity, and are therefore not sacred.
^ᵃᵐnote:God.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Vilna Gaon, a.l.
^ᵃᵒnote:vhvt rat vhvt.
^ᵃᵖnote:Hence, Merciful and Gracious are not substitutes for the divine Name.

²‘by Him who is Merciful’. Raba said to him: If so, BY HEAVEN AND EARTH also [let us say] it means; ‘By Him to whom heaven and earth belong’! — That is no question! There, since there is nothing else which is called Merciful and Gracious, it is clear that he means, ‘By Him who is Gracious’, ‘By Him who is Merciful’; but here, since there are heaven and earth, he means, ‘By heaven and earth’. Our Sages taught: If he wrote alef lamed of Elohim, yod he of the Tetragrammaton, they may not be erased; shin daleth of Shaddai, alef daleth of Adonai, zadi beth of Zebaoth, they may be erased. R. Jose said: The whole word Zebaoth may be erased, because Zebaoth refers only to Israel, as it is said: And I will bring forth My hosts, My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt. Samuel said: The halachah is not in accordance with R. Jose. Our Sages taught: That which is joined to the Name, whether before it or after it, may be erased. Before it; how? To the Lord; the lamed [‘to’] may be erased; in the Lord: the beth [‘in’] may be erased; and the Lord: the vav [‘and’] may be erased; from the Lord; the mem [‘from’] may be erased; that the Lord; the shin [‘that’] may be erased; interrogative he before the Lord: the he may be erased; as the Lord: the kaph [‘as’] may be erased. After it: how? Our God: the suffix nu [‘our’] may be erased; their God: the suffix hem [‘their’] may be erased; your God: the suffix kem [‘your’] may be erased. Others say, the suffix may not be erased, for the Name has already hallowed it. R. Huna said: the halachah is in accordance with these others. (Mnemonic: Abraham, who cursed, Naboth, in Gibeah of Benjamin, Solomon, Daniel.) All the Names mentioned in Scripture in connection with Abraham are sacred, except this which is secular: it is said; And he said, ‘My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight’. Hanina, the son of R. Joshua's brother, and R. Eleazar b. Azariah in the name of R. Eliezer of Modin, said, this also is sacred. With whom will [the following] agree? Rab Judah said that Rab said: Greater is hospitality to wayfarers than receiving the Divine Presence. With whom [will this agree]? With this pair. All the Names mentioned in connection with Lot are secular, except this which is sacred: it is said: And Lot said unto them, ‘Oh, not so, my Lord: behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, [and thou hast magnified thy mercy which thou hast shown unto me in saving my life]’ — He in whose power it is to kill and to revive; that is the Holy One blessed be He. All the Names mentioned in connection with Naboth are sacred; in connection with Micah are secular. R. Eliezer said, in connection with Naboth [all are] sacred; in connection with Micah, some are secular, and some sacred: [the Name beginning] alef lamed is secular, yod he is sacred; except this which is alef lamed and is sacred: all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh. All the Names mentioned in connection with Gibeah of Benjamin, R. Eliezer said, are secular; R. Joshua said, are sacred. R. Eliezer said to him: Does He then promise, and not fulfil? — R. Joshua replied to him: What He promised. He fulfilled; but they did not inquire whether [the result would be] victory of defeat; later, when they did inquire [of the Urim and Tummim], they approved their action, as it is said; And Phineas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days — saying: ‘Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease?’ [And the Lord said: ‘Go up; for to-morrow I will deliver them into thy hand’]. Every Solomon mentioned in the Song of Songs is sacred: the Song to Him whose is the peace, except this: My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; thou, O Solomon, shalt have the thousand — Solomon for himself [shall have a thousand]; and two hundred for those that keep the fruit thereof — [viz.] Sages. And there are some who say this also is secular: Behold it is the bed of Solomon — ‘This also’, [implies] that the other is undoubtedly [secular]. But then what of Samuel who said: A Government which kills Only one out of six is not punished; for it is said: My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; thou, O Solomon, shalt have the thousand — for the Kingdom of Heaven; and two hundred for those that keep the fruit thereof — for the kingdom on earth. Now Samuel is not in agreement with the first Tanna nor with the ‘some who say’! — But this is what it means: And some there are who say this is sacred, and this is secular — [the verse] about his bed; and Samuel agrees with them. All Kings mentioned in Daniel are secular except this which is sacred: Thou, O king, king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory. And some say, this also is sacred; it is said: My Lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine adversaries. To whom does he say this? If it should enter your mind that he says it to Nebuchadnezzar — who are those who hate him? Israel! Then he is cursing Israel! And the first Tanna? — He holds: Are the enemies [of Nebuchadnezzar] only Israelites? Are there not enemies [too] who are heathens? OR BY ANY OF THE SUBSTITUTES [FOR THE NAME], THEY ARE LIABLE, etc. We may cite [the following] in contradiction: The Lord make thee a curse and an oath. Why is this stated? Is it not already said: The priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing? Because it is said: And hear the voice of alah [cursing]: here it is said ‘alah’, and there it is said ‘alah’; just as here it implies an oath, so there it implies an oath; just as here it must be by the Name, so there it must be by the Name. — Abaye said: It is no question. This is [the view of] R. Hanina b. Idi, and that is [the view of] the Rabbis; for we learnt: R. Hanina b. Idi said: Since the Torah said, ‘Thou shalt swear,’ and ‘thou shalt not swear’; ‘thou shalt curse’, and ‘thou shalt not curse’; [we deduce:] just as ‘thou shalt swear’ means by the Name, so thou shalt not swear’ means by the Name; and just as ‘thou shalt curse’ means by the Name, so ‘thou shalt not curse’ means by the Name. Now, the Rabbis, if they received on tradition this Gezerah shawah, let them require the actual Name; and if they did not receive on tradition this Gezerah shawah, how do they know that ‘alah’ implies an oath? — They deduce it front [the Baraitha in] which it was taught. ‘Alah’: ‘alah’ is nothing but the expression of an oath; and so it says: And the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of alah. But there it is written: the oath of alah! — Thus he means: ‘alah’; ‘alah’ can only be an oath, and thus it says: ‘and the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of alah.’^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ

^ᵃᵠnote:Why does the Mishnah say it is not a proper adjuration, and they are exempt?
^ᵃʳnote:Although he had not yet finished the words, because the first two letters also constitute a Name: ktw vh.
^ᵃˢnote:Because cmw stw sa are not Names. [So Rashi; but MS.M. and R. Han. (v. Tosaf. a.l.) include Alef Daleth in the first group, i.e., among the Names that may not be erased, the reason being that st as well as vh and kt were commonly used as abbreviations for a Divine name, which was not the case with sa and cm which out of reference for the Divine Name were never used as abbreviations, the former two letters spelling a ‘demon’ (sa), the latter, a ‘great lizard’ (cm). V. Lauterbach, J.Z American Academy for Jewish Research, Proceedings, 1930-1931, pp. 43ff.]
^ᵃᵗnote:Ex. VII, 4.
^ᵃᵘnote:Prefix or suffix.
^ᵃᵛnote:The fifth letter of the Heb. alphabet, v.
^ᵃʷnote:[In aid of memory; consisting of key words of the statements that follow. ‘Who cursed’ thyks is a play on the word ‘Lot’ who figures in the second passage.]
^ᵃˣnote:Gen. XVIII, 3; Abraham was addressing the chief of the three men who came towards him: according to midrash they were the angels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.
^ᵃʸnote:He was addressing the Lord.
^ᵃᶻnote:R. Hanina and R. Eleazar who say that Abraham addressed the Lord, asking Him not to withdraw His Presence while he entertained the angels.
^ᵇᵃnote:Gen XIX, 18, 19; the verse is read thus: And Lot said unto them. ‘Oh, not so’; then turning to God: ‘My Lord, behold now, Thy servant etc.’ The ordinary interpretation is that Lot is addressing one of the angels.
^ᵇᵇnote:I Kings XXI, 10, 13.
^ᵇᶜnote:Judges XVII, XVIII.
^ᵇᵈnote:E.g., Judges XVII, 5. XVIII, 5, 10, 24.
^ᵇᵉnote:E.g., Judges XVII, 2, 3, 13; XVIII, 6.
^ᵇᶠnote:Judges XVIII, 31.
^ᵇᵍnote:Ibid. XX, 18-28.
^ᵇʰnote:If, as you say, God is intended, why did He tell the other tribes to make war on the tribe of Benjamin, and then allow them to be defeated?
^ᵇⁱnote:They merely enquired whether they should go to war against Benjamin, and which of their tribes should go to battle first.
^ᵇʲnote:Judges XX, 28, and this promise He fulfilled.
^ᵇᵏnote:vnka = His peace.
^ᵇˡnote:Cant. VIII, 12: homiletically interpreted the verse means this: God said: From My vineyard (Israel) Solomon shall have 1,000 men as soldiers out of every 1,200; and 200 shall be left to ‘keep the fruit’, i.e., study the Torah.
^ᵇᵐnote:Ibid.
^ᵇⁿnote:Ibid. III, 7.
^ᵇᵒnote:V. p. 206, n. 12.
^ᵇᵖnote:By going to war. [So according to reading of Rashi and R. Han. Cur. edd.: ‘one-sixth of the world;’ this was probably said by him with reference to Shapur's military campaigns in Asia: v. Krochmal, Hechalutz, I, p. 89.]
^ᵇᵠnote:Taking Solomon as referring to God.
^ᵇʳnote:Serving the king; 200 for the king, and 1,000 for God = 1,200 altogether; the king is thus permitted one sixth for his army.
^ᵇˢnote:For they all hold that the word Solomon in the verse My vineyard, etc. is secular.
^ᵇᵗnote:My vineyard, etc.
^ᵇᵘnote:Dan. II, 37: Daniel would nor have called Nebuchadnezzar King of Kings; the verse is therefore interpreted thus: Thou, O king (Nebuchadnezzar), unto whom the King of Kings, the God of heaven hath given, etc.
^ᵇᵛnote:Dan IV. 16.
^ᵇʷnote:Hence, we must say that Daniel in saying, ‘My lord, the dream, etc.’ is addressing God, whose enemies are the heathens.
^ᵇˣnote:Who holds that ‘My Lord’ is secular, and that it is addressed to Nebuchadnezzar.
^ᵇʸnote:When Daniel said: ‘My lord [Nebuchadnezzar], the dream be to them that hate thee’, he referred to the heathens who hated him.
^ᵇᶻnote:Num. V, 21.
^ᶜᵃnote:Ibid.; this implies that she shall be for a curse and an oath. It would suffice if the verse now merely stated the curse: the Lord make thy thigh to fill away.
^ᶜᵇnote:Lev. V, 1; i.e., adjuration.
^ᶜᶜnote:Num. V, 21.
^ᶜᵈnote:Lev. V, 1.
^ᶜᵉnote:Because it is said: the priest shall cause . . . to swear.
^ᶜᶠnote:For it is said: The Lord (Tetragrammaton) make thee a curse.
^ᶜᵍnote:Hence, adjuration of witnesses must be by the Name, and not by substitutes.
^ᶜʰnote:The Baraitha which states that an oath must be by the Name.
^ᶜⁱnote:The Mishnah which states that the substitutes are of equal potency.
^ᶜʲnote:There are occasions when an oath is obligatory, e.g., the oath of the Lord shall be between them both (Ex. XXII, 10).
^ᶜᵏnote:E.g., ye shall not swear by My name falsely (Lev. XIX, 12).
^ᶜˡnote:E.g., the Lord make thee a curse (Num. V, 21).
^ᶜᵐnote:E.g., thou shalt not curse the deaf (Lev. XIX, 14).
^ᶜⁿnote:V. Glos. The analogy deriving adjuration from sotah. Adjuration (Lev. V, I): and hear the voice of vkt (cursing); sotah (Num. V, 21): the Lord make thee a vkt (curse) and an oath. Just as vkt used in connection with sotah implies oath (for oath is explicitly mentioned in the verse), so vkt used in connection with adjuration means oath. But if we deduce adjuration from sotah we must carry the deduction further: just as in the case of sotah, the oath was by the Name (for the verse states: the Lord make thee a curse and an oath), so in the case of adjuration it should be by the Name, and not by any substitute. [It is a well established principle that no man may draw a conclusion from a Gezerah shawah unless he received it on tradition from his teacher. Pes. 66a; Nid. 19b.]
^ᶜᵒnote:sjuhnv oa, the ‘Distinguishing Name’, the Tetragrammaton; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 408, n. 1.
^ᶜᵖnote:Mentioned in Lev. V. 1.
^ᶜᵠnote:For in the case of adjuration, oath is not mentioned in the verse.
^ᶜʳnote:Num. V, 21. This proves that ‘alah’ implies an oath.
^ᶜˢnote:[This is a new question: the phrase ‘the oath of alah’ indeed proves that ‘alah’ implies an oath, but whence do we know that an oath without an accompanying ‘alah’ (curse) is an oath? V. n. 7.]
^ᶜᵗnote:[So MS.M. V. Sifra on Lev. V, 1; cur. edd.: with an oath; cf. n. 7.]