Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah exempts witnesses from a Korban if they deny knowledge of Reuven's claim ...

1. ... that Shimon promised to give him two hundred Zuz - because Shimon would be under no obligation to pay, even if they wee to testify (seeing as he is permitted to retract).
2. ... against Shimon, assuming that Reuven had asked them to testify in advance, before he had even lent Shimon the money - because they are only Chayav if the testimony preceded the Shevu'ah (and not vice-versa, as we shall see).

(b) Our Mishnah also exempts them, in a regular case of Shevu'as Eidus, only where the witnesses ...

1. ... were sitting with many others in the Beis-Hamedrash when Reuven asked if anyone present knew that he lent Shimon money (because he did not designate them).
2. ... knew the testimony from the mouth of other witnesses ('Eid mi'Pi Eid' or ...
3. ... where one of them was a relative of his or of Shimon's or Pasul from testifying (because all of these are not eligible to testify, as we shall see).

(c) We have already learned that if a third party asks the witnesses to testify, they are not subject to a Shevu'as Eidus - and this includes a debtor who asks them to testify on behalf of the creditor.

(a) The Beraisa learn the first Din in our Mishnah (that if Reuven asked the witnesses to testify that Shimon promised to give him two hundred Zuz, they are Patur) - from "Secheta" "Secheta" from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, where the Torah specifically confines the Chiyuv Korban to a Shevu'ah which absolves the defendant from his obligation to pay.

(b) The Tana in our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah, ve'Hu Eid O Ra'ah O Yada" is - that if the Shevu'ah precedes the testimony, the witnesses are Patur.

(c) Regarding the case where Reuven addresses the people learning in the Beis-Hamedrash, Shmuel needs to inform us that the Tana speaks even where the witnesses are present when he makes the announcement - because the Tana is speaking where the witnesses are actually standing beside Reuven at the time (which we would otherwise have considered designation).

(a) We learned a Beraisa that supports Shmuel - where Reuven addressed a group of people including the two witnesses, and said 'Mashbi'ani Aleichem Im Atem Yod'in Li Eidus ... '.

(b) In the case in the Seifa, the Tana obligates them - where Reuven specifically announced 'Kol ha'Omdin *Ka'an*', which implies those who are standing beside him.

(c) We know that the Reisha too, is speaking when the witnesses are standing beside Reuven - because presumably, it is speaking in the same circumstances as the Seifa.

(a) The Beraisa learn that 'Eid mi'Pi Eid' and Pesulei Eidus are Patur - from "Im Lo Yagid ve'Nasa Avono", which implies that only witnesses who are eligible to testify are Chayav (as we explained in our Mishnah).

(b) Rebbi Elazar explains a second D'rashah "Im Lo Yagid ve'Nasa Avono" (from which the Beraisa also exempts the witnesses if it is a third party that calls them to testify) - based on the fact that "Lo" is spelt both with a 'Vav and with an 'Alef', implying that if the witnesses refuse to tell *him*, they are Chayav, but if they refuse to tell a third party, they are Patur.

(a) Our Mishnah ...

1. ... incorporates 'Mashbi'ani Ani Aleichem', 'Metzaveh Ani Aleichem', Osarchem Aleichem' in the Din of Shevu'as ha'Eidus.
2. ... precludes 'ba'Shamayim u'va'Aretz' - from the Chiyuv.
3. ... but includes Shevu'os made in the Name of 'Alef Daled', 'Yud Key', 'Shakai', 'Tzevakos', 'Chanun, 'Rachum' ... or any of the 'Kinuyin' (other minor Names of Hashem).

(b) If someone curses a fellow Jew using any of these names, Rebbi Meir renders him - Chayav Misah; the Chachamim say 'Patur'.

(c) With regard to someone who curses his father or mother with one of the above Kinuyin, Rebbi Meir (Chayav) and the Chachamim (Patur) - simply repeat the previous Machlokes.

(a) The Mishnah defines 'Yakcha Hashem' or 'Yakchem Elokim' as - an 'Alah', because it is included in the curses contained in the Torah.

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, if Reuven says to the witnesses 'Al Yakcha Im Te'iduni' or 'Yevarech'cha (or 'Yeitiv Lecha') Im Te'iduni', they are Chayav. The latter ruling is based on the principle - 'mi'Chelal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein (u'mi'Chelal Hein Atah Shome'a La'av' ['One implies the positive side of a negative satement, and vice-versa]).

(c) The Chachamim, who do not hold 'Mi'chelal La'av ... ', rule - 'Patur'.

(a) Initially, Rav Yehudah explains 'Mashbi'ani Aleichem - bi'Shevu'ah ha'Amurah ba'Torah', 'Metzaveh Ani Aleichem - be'Tzava'ah ha'Amurah ba'Torah' and 'Osrani Ani Aleichem - be Isur ha'Amur ba'Torah'?

(b) Abaye queries Rav Yehudah however, from a Beraisa quoted by Rebbi Chiya, which includes 'Kovalchem (which means to tie with fetters) Ani Aleichem' - and there is no such thing as a Koval in the Torah.

(c) So Abaye explains all the cases - in connection with a Shevu'ah ('Mashbi'ani, Metzaveh Ani, Osrani, Aleichem - bi'Shevu'ah ha'Amurah ba'Torah').

(a) The Beraisa lists ...

1. ... 'Keil', 'Elokecha', 'Elokeichem', 'Ehekeh Asher Ehekeh', 'Alef Daled', 'Yud Key', 'Shakay' and 'Tzevakos' - as Names of Hashem that one may not erase.
2. ... 'ha'Gadol, 'ha'Gibor' ... 'ha'Adir' 'ha'Chazak' ... 'Chanun' ve'Rachum' - as Names that one may erase.

(b) To reconcile this with our Mishnah, which reckons 'Chanun', 'Rachum', 'Erech Apayim' and 'Rav Chesed' among the Names of Hashem, Abaye explains - that our Mishnah is really referring to the One who is Chanun and Rachum ... ', but does consider 'Chanun' and 'Rachum' themselves to be Names of Hashem.

(c) Rava asked Abaye why, that case, we do not say the same S'vara with regard to 'Shamayim va'Aretz' - perhaps if someone says to two witnesses 'Mshbi'ani Aleichem ba'Shamayim u'va'Aretz', he also mean to make them swear by the One to whom Heaven and earth belong? Why does our then exempt them from a Korban?

(d) Abaye replied - that whereas 'Rachum ve'Chanun' are adjectives which describe Hashem exclusively, that is obviously what the Mshbi'a meant, Shamayim va'Aretz are nouns in their own right, and there is no reason to assume that he meant anything other than what he said.

9)

(a) The Beraisa rules that 'Alef Lamed' from 'Elokim' or 'Yud Hey' from Hashem's four-letter Name - may not be erased (since they spell Names of Hashem in their own right), whereas 'Shin Daled' from 'Shakai', 'Alef Hey' from 'Ehekeh', 'Alef Daled' from the Name of 'Adnus' or 'Tzadey Veis' from 'Tzevakos', which are meaningless, may be erased.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi however - the entire name 'Tzevakos' may be erased, because based on the Pasuk ''Ve'hotzeisi es Ami B'nei Yisrael me'Eretz Mitzrayim", it refers to Yisrael (and is not an intrinsic Name of Hashem).

(c) Shmuel rules like the Tana Kama.

(d) Another Beraisa - considers neither prefixes to Hashem's Name, such as 'la'Hashem' or 'ba'Hashem' nor suffixes, such as 'Elokeinu' or 'Elokeichem', to be holy, in which case both may be erased.

(e) Acherim, like whom Rav Huna rules, disagrees. In his opinion - suffixes are holy and may not be erased, because the Name that precedes them sanctifies them together with itself.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the only time that an ambiguous word denoting Hashem mentioned by Avraham is actually not Kodesh is 'Adonai' in the Pasuk in (in connection with the visit of the three angels) "Adonai, Im Na Matza'si Chein be'Einecha" - because it refer to Micha'el, the most senior of Avraham's three angelic guests.

(b) Chanina ben Achi Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in the name of Rebbi Elazar ha'Muda'i both maintain - that there too, it pertains to Hashem and is therefore Kodesh.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - extrapolates from Avraham's above words (asking "Ad-nai" to wait) that 'Hachnasas Orchim' takes precedence over welcoming the Shechinah', following the opinion of 'that pair'.

(d) The same Beraisa says that the word "Ad-nai" (in the Pasuk there [in connection with two of the same angels in S'dom] "Vayomer Lot Aleihem, Al Na *Ad-nai*, Hinei Na Matza Avd'cha Chein be'Einecha") is the only ambiguous one mentioned by Lot that actually denotes Hashem's Name (all the others simply refer to the angels, and are 'Chol). The Tana knows that - because Lot pleads there for his life, and the only one who is able to grant life is Hashem.

(a) The Tana Kama states that all the ambiguous names of Hashem mentioned in connection with ...

1. ... Navos alleged cursing of Hashem (in Melachim) - are Kodesh.
2. ... Michah, the idolatrous priest (in Shoftim) - are Chol.

(b) Rebbi Elazar disagrees with the latter ruling. In his opinion - the Name 'Alef' 'Lamed' ... is always Chol, and the Name 'Yud' Hey', Kodesh.

(c) The only exception to this rule, says Rebbi Elazar, is the Pasuk there in Shoftim "Kol Yemei Heyos Beis-*ha'Elokim* be'Shiloh', which is Kodesh.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer establishes all the names mentioned in connection with Giv'as Binyamin (Pilegesh be'Giv'ah [in Shoftim, in connection with Yisrael's war with Binyamin]) as Chol - because it is inconceivable, he says, that Hashem should order them to go and fight, and then allow them to lose.

(e) Rebbi Yehoshua replied - that this is only because they failed to ask Him whether they would win. In fact, when before the third and final battle, they did ask and Hashem replied that they would win, they did.

(a) The word "Sh'lomoh" in Shir Hashirim - (an acronym of 'Melech she'Ha'Shalom she'Lo') normally pertains to Hashem.

(b) The Tana Kama - lists "Sh'lomoh" in the Pasuk there "Karmi she'Li Lefanai. ha'Elef Lecha Sh'lomoh, u'Masayim le'Notrim es Piryo" as the sole exception ...

(c) ... and the Pasuk means - that for every thousand measures that Sh'lomoh picked for himself from his vineyard, he left two hundred (one sixth [of the total]) for the Talmidei-Chachamim, who are the 'Notrim es Piryo', referring to the Torah that they learn.

(a) Yesh Omrim (Rebbi Nasan) says that also the "Sh'lomoh" in the Pasuk there "Hinei Mitaso she'li'Sh'lomoh, Shishim Giborim Saviv Lah" refers to Sh'lomoh himself ...

(b) ... who required 'sixty strong men' (which refers, among other things, to the letters of Birchas Kohanim) to surround his bed - because of his fear of Ashmodai (king of the demons).

(c) Shmuel therefore interprets the Pasuk ''ha'Elef Lecha Sh'lomoh, u'Masayim le'Notrim es Piryo" to mean - that of every thousand men that dies by the Divine Hand, two hundred die as a result of the heavy work-tax that Sh'lomoh imposed on the people for the building of the Beis-Hamikdash)?

(d) The problem with this is - that 'Yesh Omrim's statement (with reference to the second Pasuk) '*Af* Zeh Chol' implies that according to both Tana'im, the first Pasuk "Karmi she'Li Lefanai. ha'Elef Lecha Sh'lomoh, u'Masayim le'Notrim es Piryo" refers to Sh'lomoh, in which case Shmuel will hold like neither Tana.

(e) We therefore erase the word 'Af' from the statement of 'Yesh Omrim' - amending it to read 'Zeh Chol' (but not the first Pasuk), in which case Shmuel will hold like Yesh Omrim.

(a) The reason that ...

1. ... the Tana establishes the Pasuk in Daniel "Ant Malka Melech Malchaya ... " as the only one there where "Melech" is Kodesh is - because Daniel would not have referred to Nevachednetzar (to whom all the others pertain) as ''Melech Malchaya''.
2. ... Yesh Omrim add to this the Pasuk there "Mari, Chelma le'San'ach u'Pishreih le'Arach" (meaning 'My Master, let the dream come true with regard to your enemies and its interpretation, with regard to your adversaries') is - because if here too, he was referring to Nevuchadnetzar, then, assuming that the enemies of Nevuchadnetzar were K'lal Yisrael, Daniel would not have cursed Yisrael in this way.

(b) The Tana Kama counters Yesh Omrim's argument however - inasmuch as Nevuchadnetzar had plenty of gentile enemies too, and it was to these to whom Daniel referred.

(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk (in connection with a Sotah) has already written "Vehishbi'a ha'Kohen es ha'Ishah bi'Shevu'as ha'Alah", the problem with the Pasuk "Yiten Hashem Osach le'Alah ve'li'Shevu'ah" is - why the Torah needs to repeat "le'Alah ve'li'Shevu'ah"? It should have continued 'Yiten Hashem es Yereichech Nofeles ... "?

(b) So the Beraisa learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Alah" "Alah") from Shevu'as ha'Eidus. Bearing in mind that the Torah writes ...

1. ... there "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah", the Tana learns from there that the Shevu'ah of a Sotah, like that of Shevu'as ha'Eidus, is Chayav for a Shevu'ah even without an Alah.
2. ... here (by Sotah) "Yiten Hashem Osach", we learn that Shevu'as ha'Eidus, like Shevu'as Sotah, requires the Name of Hashem.

(c) Based on this Beraisa, we ask on our Mishnah, which includes all the Kinuyin in Shevu'as ha'Eidus - seeing as the Beraisa requires specifically the Name of Hashem.

(d) We reply that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Chanina bar Idi, whilst our Mishnah goes according to the Rabbanan. Rebbi Chanina bar Idi (in another Beraisa) says - that just as ...

1. ... "Shevu'as Hashem Tiheyeh Bein Sheneihem" (in connection with a Shomer Pikadon) requires the Name of Hashem, so too does "Lo Sishava vi'Shemi la'Sheker" (in Kedoshim), in order to be Chayav.
2. ... "Yiten Hashem Oscha le'Alah" requires the Name of Hashem, so too does "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" (in Kedoshim).

(a) According to the Chachamim, the problem we now have with the Pasuk "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah" - that seeing as they don't Darshen the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (to require specifically the Name of Hashem in our Mishnah), then from where do they learn the Din of Shevu'ah by Shevu'as ha'Alah (which only mentions "Alah")?

(b) We reject the initial Lashon of the Beraisa 'Ein Alah Ela Shevu'ah; ve'Chein Hu Omer "ve'Hishbi'a ha'Kohen es ha'Ishah bi'Shevu'as ha'Alah" - since it makes no sense to interpret "Shevu'as ha'Alah" as a 'Shevu'ah' on its own.

(c) The Rabbanan extrapolate from "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah" (and not just 've'Sham'ah Alah'), that the Pasuk speaks when they heard either 'Kol' or 'Alah.

(d) So, assuming that ''Kol" there refers to Shevu'ah, we finally conclude - that this is the Rabbanan's source for the Din of Shevu'ah by Shevu'as ha'Eidus.