God’s names and “nicknames” TB Shavuot 35

Shavuot are such a serious matter because the person swears in God’s name. God’s name is holy and must be treated thusly. That’s why we just don’t discard used prayer books, but bury them. The Gemara on daf TB Shavuot 35 describes which of God’s names must be treated with the utmost respect and not be erased and which “nicknames” may be erased.

“There are names of God that may be erased and there are names of God that may not be erased due to their inherent sanctity. These are names that may not be erased: For example, several variations of the name God [Elohim]: El, Elohekha with a second person singular suffix, Elohim, Eloheikhem with a second person plural suffix; I Shall Be As I Shall Be, alef dalet, yod heh, Almighty [Shaddai], Lord of Hosts [Tzevaot], these names may not be erased.

“But adjectives that describe the Holy One, Blessed be He, e.g., the Great, the Mighty, the Awesome, the Prodigious, the Powerful, the Courageous, the Strong, gracious, compassionate, slow to anger, or abounding in loving-kindness; these may be erased. Apparently, gracious and compassionate are adjectives and not actual names of God; how, then, does an oath or a curse in the name of gracious and compassionate take effect?...

“§ 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…

“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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara also underscores context matters. Sometimes God’s names refer to God and sometimes the same word refers to god’s of others. Obviously pagan gods do not have any sanctity whatsoever.

In many frum printed materials, out of mistaken piety, the author will spell God as G-d in order so we will not have to bury that material. God is not God’s name, but His job description. Consequently, we don’t have to worry about erasing it. Once Gerson Cohen, the Chancellor of JTS, once jokingly told me that he wanted to be even extra pious and he spells God -o-!

By the way, do you know that God’s English name is Harold? We say so in our prayers. “Harold be thy holy name.”

 

Help facing our fears #Shavuot#devartorah

A phobia is defined as the “irrational fear” of certain things or situations. Arachnophobia is a fear of spiders (though some might argue that is a perfectly rational thing to be afraid of!). Then there’s globophobia and xocolatophobia. These and some 400 other phobias are real and documented. It seems we can become afraid of most anything.

On our holiday of Shavuot we shall read about the Revelation on Mount Sinai. Our Torah reading tells of the Israelites’ fear of receiving the 10 Commandments: “When the people saw the thunder and lightning… they trembled with fear” (Exodus 20:18) Moses comforted them saying, “Be not afraid (תִּירָ֒אוּ֒); for God has come only in order to test you, and in order that the fear (יִרְאָת֛וֹ) of God may be ever with you....” (Verse 20) Moses seems to contradict himself: “Don’t be afraid but be afraid.” In fact, the root of Hebrew word for fear “ירא” contains at least two meanings-a trembling terror of something or a reverent awe of God.

We may laugh to learn that globophobia is the fear balloons and xocolatophobia is a fear of chocolate. The more serious bottom line about phobias is that we can be afraid of all kinds of things. Fears creep into our lives like spiders, and the world can be a scary place. The rise of anti-Semitism throughout the world is real and well documented. As we face our fears and fight anti-Semitism in our midst, Shavuot reminds us that God is awesome. We trust in God’s love to give us strength for today and hope for tomorrow so that bitterness will be kept far from us and despair not overcome us in the midst of darkness.

 

When can I get a Mulligan? TB Makkot 28

In golf the golfer can ask for a Mulligan which is a do over. Similarly if a person regrets the shavuah he has taken, he can ask a Sage to release him from his vow. Today’s daf TB Makkot 28 discusses when it’s too late to be released from the vow. “Rava says: If one took an oath about a (whole-gg) loaf and then ate it, if he left an olive-bulk of it, he may request that his oath about the loaf be dissolved. If he ate the whole loaf, he may no longer request that his oath about it be dissolved.” (daf 27b, Sefaria.org translation) Obviously after the person has completely violated the vow, the opportunity to be released has passed. There’s no point of return.

What is that point of no return? As long as the “story” hasn’t come to a conclusion, a person can ask to be released from the oath. Ameimar defines the conclusion of the oath’s violation.

“Ameimar said, in contrast to the opinion of Rava: Even if he ate the entire loaf he may still request dissolution of the oath. If he ate it unwittingly, i.e., he forgot the oath, it is a situation where he has not yet brought the offering he is liable to bring. If he ate it intentionally, it is a situation where he has not yet received lashes. But if he was already tied to the stake in order to receive lashes, he can no longer request that his oath be dissolved, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: If one had already been tied to the stake in order to receive lashes, and he ran away from the court and escaped, he is exempt from receiving lashes, as being tied to the stake is regarded as the beginning of receiving the lashes; once he has escaped, he is treated as though he were already flogged.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rambam poskins like Ameimar. “When a person takes a sh'vuat bitui regarding the future and violated his oath, e.g., he took an oath that he would not eat a loaf of bread and ate it, if he changes his mind, he may ask a sage to repeal it after eating it before bringing his sacrifice if he [ate it] inadvertently or before he was lashed if he did so willingly. [If the sage] releases the oath, he is exempt from the sacrifice or from the lashes. Moreover, even if they bound him [in preparation for lashes], he asked for the repeal of the oath and it was released before they began to administer lashes, he is exempt.” (Mishneh Torah, Oaths 6:18, Sefaria.org translation)

 

More interesting facts about Shavuot TB Shavuot 25-27

Starting with daf TB Shavuot 25 the Gemara fine tunes the definition of a shavua (שְׁבוּעָה), an oath. What’s the difference between a neder and a shavuah? A person makes a neder on an item or object. For example, a neder would be “this apple is forbidden to me as if it were a sacrifice.” A shavuah applies to the person. For example, a shavuah would be “I make an oath that I will not derive any benefit from my neighbor.”

Both Rav and Shmuel agree for a shavuah to be valid it has to work in a positive statement as well as a negative statement. For example of such a shavuah would be “I take an oath that I will go to the synagogue tomorrow.” “I make a shavuah that I won’t go to the synagogue tomorrow.”

Shmuel adds another criteria for a shavuah to be valid. It has to work both in the future tense as well as the past tense. For example, “I take a shavuah that I did not go to the synagogue yesterday.” “I take a shavuah they won’t go to the synagogue tomorrow.”

They disagree about taking an oath involving another person. “With regard to one who says: On my oath so-and-so threw a stone into the sea, or: On my oath he did not throw it, Rav says: If it was later discovered that what he said was false, he is liable to bring an offering for his oath. And Shmuel says: He is exempt.” (daf 25a, Sefaria.org translation) Shmuel argues this is not a valid shavuah because the one taking the oath has no control over what the person will do in the future.

For a shavuah to take effect it has to be verbalized. “Shmuel says: Even after one decided to take an oath, he needs to express it with his lips for it to take effect, as it is stated in the verse: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4).” (daf 26b, Sefaria.org translation)

A shavuah only deals with things that are optional and volitional. Making a shavuah to observe a mitzvah or to annul a mitvah is an invalid shavuah. “The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that when one takes an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva and he does not refrain, he would be liable to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance. To counter this, the verse states: “To do evil, or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4). Just as doing good is referring to an oath about an optional action, so too, doing evil is referring to an oath about an optional action. I will therefore exclude from liability one who takes an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva and does not refrain, so that he is exempt from bringing the offering.” (Sefaria.org translation)  For example, one cannot make a valid shavuah saying “I will eat matza on Passover” or “I won’t eat matza on Passover.

“The baraita continues: One might have thought that when one takes an oath to perform a mitzva and does not perform it, that he would be liable. To counter this, the verse states: “To do evil, or to do good.” Just as doing evil is referring to an oath about an optional action, so too, doing good is referring to an oath about an optional action. I will therefore exclude from liability one who takes an oath to perform a mitzva and does not perform it, so that he is exempt from bringing the offering.”

According to TB Makkot 27a one may take an oath to harm himself! “One might have thought that when one takes an oath to harm himself and he does not harm himself, that he could be exempt from liability. The verse states: “To do evil, or to do good.” Just as doing good is referring to an oath about an optional action, so too, doing evil is referring to an oath about an optional action. I include as liable one who takes an oath to harm himself and does not harm himself, since it is his prerogative to harm himself or not.” (Sefaria.org translation) Tosefot ד"ה אָבִיא נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לְעַצְמוֹ cites the Gemara in TB Baba Batra 91b to show that this is not a universal position. Rambam poskins “If a person took an oath to harm himself, e.g., he took an oath to inflict injury upon himself, the oath takes effect even though he is not allowed to do so. If he does not harm himself, he is liable for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui.” (Mishneh Torah, Oaths 5:17)

 

 

 

The warning of the Jubilee year and all Trump’s big beautiful bill #Behar-Bekhokotai#devartorah#parashathashavua

“At the heart of the first half of week’s parasha, Behar-Bekhukotai, is the visionary concept of returning land to its original owner at the end of a 50-year cycle.  This prevents the polarization of society into two classes: wealthy, powerful landowners on the one hand and permanently impoverished people on the other. In an agrarian society, a farmer who sold all the land to pay debts had no prospect of being anything other than a servant…(One of the moral objectives of this law is that) no person should be condemned to permanent servitude.” (Etz Hayyim commentary below the line, page 738)

Unfortunately Israel did not always live up to this goal and our ancestors paid the price for their behavior. “The prophet Jeremiah predicted 70 years of exile in Babylonia to make up for the 70 sabbatical years the people neglected during their approximately 500 years of living in Israel as is written, ‘Those who survived the sword he exiled to Babylon, and they became his and his sons’ servants till the rise of the Persian kingdom, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, until the land paid back its sabbaths; as long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath, till seventy years were completed.’” (II Chronicles 36:20-21) (Ibid)

Today I am terribly concerned about continued growing economic gap between the very rich and the rest of our countrymen. The top 1% already owns 30% of our nation’s wealth. Pres. Trump’s and the GOP’s proposed budget continues the growing income disparity between the top 1% and the rest of us. “High-income households and profitable corporations would grow even wealthier under Republican proposals for trillions of dollars in new or extended tax cuts, even as Republican proposals for trillions of dollars of cuts to health assistance, food assistance, and other programs would leave more children in poverty, more families without stable housing, and more people without health coverage. Families would also face an additional burden: higher prices for many basic goods due to the tariffs that President Trump has begun to impose, which would act as a large tax increase on U.S. consumers.” (https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/2025-budget-stakes-high-income-tax-cuts-price-hiking-tariffs-would-harm) in the words of Robert Reisch, “It is reverse Robin Hood.”

As in the case of ancient Israel, I shudder the price our country will pay if this trend continues.

 

 

 

 

 

What is Ravin’s definition of a shevua? TB Shavuot 21

Yesterday we learned when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia he cites Rabbi Yoḥanan’s definition of a shevua.

Shevuat Sheker (שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר) “When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one takes an oath, saying: I will eat, or: I will not eat, relating to the future, and does not fulfill it, it is a false oath. And its prohibition in the Torah is from here: “And you shall not take an oath by My name falsely, so that you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:12). ” (Sefaria.org translation) The shevua deals with something the future.

Shevuat Shav (שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא) “(the continuation Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement-gg) “. If one takes an oath, saying: I ate, or: I did not eat, relating to past actions, and it is a lie, it is an oath taken in vain, and its prohibition in the Torah is from here: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not absolve of guilt he that takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).” (Sefaria.org translation) The shevua deals with something the future.

Today’s daf TB Shavuot 21 we learned when Ravina came to Babylonia he cites a different version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s definition of a shevua.

Shevuat Sheker (שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר) “When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one takes an oath, saying: I ate, or: I did not eat, it is a false oath if it is not true. And its prohibition in the Torah is from: “And you shall not take an oath by My name falsely, so that you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:12).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Shevuat Shav (שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא) “(the continuation Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement-gg) “And which oath is an oath taken in vain? It is when one takes an oath to deny that which is known to people to be true.” An example of this would be: I swear that this is a gold bar when everybody can easily see that it is a lead bar.

Rambam defines a Shevuat Sheker: “If a person takes an oath concerning one of these four categories and does the opposite, he has taken a false oath (שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר). For example, he took an oath not to eat and he ate, that he would eat and he did not eat, that he ate, when he did not or that he did not eat, when he had eaten. With regard to these matters, [Leviticus 19:12] states: "Do not swear falsely in My name." If he willfully swears falsely, he is liable for lashes. If he does so inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt offering, as [ibid. 5:4] states: "And it became concealed from him and he did not know and became guilty." (Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1:3)

He defines Shevuat Shav: “[The prohibition against taking] a sh'vuat shav (שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא), an oath taken in vain, also subdivides into four categories: the first, a person took an oath concerning a known matter that was not true, e.g., he took an oath that a man was a woman, a woman was a man, that a marble pillar was gold, or concerning other similar factors.” (Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1:4)  (Sefaria.org translation)

 

 

What is a shevua and what is a neder? TB Shavuot 20

Today we begin the third chapter of our massekhet with TB Shavuot 20. We have studied almost 48% of our massekhet without learning anything about shavuot (the plural of shevua)! That changes now. To best understand today’s daf and going forward, I think we need a short introduction of the terms we shall come across as we study.

Shevua (שְׁבוּעָה)-an oath. A shevua is binding on the person taking the oath. For example, I take an oath I take a shevua not to eat this loaf of bread. The prohibition is going on the individual. If he transgresses his shevua intentionally, he is punished with lashes. If he transgresses his shevua unintentionally, he brings to the Temple a sliding scale sacrifice (קרבן עולה ויורד). The person cannot make a shevua what is already prohibited in the Torah since all of Israel took a vow to uphold the laws in the Torah. “וַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאׇזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע: -Then he took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. And they said, “All that YHVH  has spoken we will faithfully do!” (Exodus 24:7)

Neder (נֶדֶר)-a vow. A neder is on the object itself. For example, the contents of this coffee cup is prohibited to me. There are no legal consequences for violating a neder. One can make a neder on a mitzvah because is on the mitzvah and not the individual.

Shevuat Sheker (שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר) “When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one takes an oath, saying: I will eat, or: I will not eat, relating to the future, and does not fulfill it, it is a false oath. And its prohibition in the Torah is from here: “And you shall not take an oath by My name falsely, so that you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:12). ” (Sefaria.org translation) The shevua deals with something the future.

Shevuat Shav (שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא) “(the continuation Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement-gg) “. If one takes an oath, saying: I ate, or: I did not eat, relating to past actions, and it is a lie, it is an oath taken in vain, and its prohibition in the Torah is from here: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not absolve of guilt he that takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).” (Sefaria.org translation) The shevua deals with something the future.

Association (הַתְפָּסָה) only works according to Rava with nedarim (the plural of neder will will). (As Shmuel teaches) “The verse states: “When a man vows a vow to the Lord” (Numbers 30:3). The redundancy in the phrase “vows a vow” teaches that when one associates a vow with another prohibition, it does not take effect unless he vows by associating it with an item forbidden by means of a vow. Association is derived from this verse and is limited to vows.” (Sefaria.org translation) The halakha follows Rava.