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.

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?

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.”