Verse: את ה’ אלקיך תירא
Command: Fear G-d
Devarim 10:20
Type: Positive
SMG Mitzva # 4
Cross-Ref: {link}
SMG
There is a positive Mitzva to fear the honored and fearful (awesome) name [α] of G‑d as it says[i] את ה’ אלקיך תירא, and as our sages’ excerpt from the word את that the command to fear G‑d includes the requirement to fear the sages.
The Gemara[ii] relates the following:
Shimon the Amsuni determined that every word את in the Torah is not a grammatical affectation, but rather is there to hint at something additional that is included in the subject matter[1]. However, once he arrived at this verse, he ceased, because what could be added to the meaning of the verse that would be equal to the fear of G‑d?
His students asked him, but what about all the other times the word את is mentioned in the Torah, for which you provided an explanation as to what was being added – what will be with those words? Meaning, is the entire set of teachings invalid, or is there something that should be added to this verse as well, just like all the other verses, but for some reason you are refraining from teaching this.
He responded, just as he had been rewarded for searching for the meaning of all the other instances, in this verse he would be rewarded from refraining from searching out the meaning. In other words, there is an explanation, but he would not teach it.
This was how it remained until Rabbi Akiva came, and he ascribed the meaning to the word את as being inclusive of the Torah scholars, who must be feared just as G‑d is feared.
Elsewhere[iii] the Gemara relates the same story, except, there, Rashi states that Shimon did not know what could possibly be included. Similarly, in yet another place[iv], the Gemara relates the same story, except it acknowledges that some say it was Nechemia the Amsuni. (mosif Rashi states both reasons)
In addition to the Mitzva to fear the name of G‑d, which includes respecting the sages, this verse also serves to admonish against using G‑d’s name in vain.
Discussion by SMS
The Gemara[v] takes an entirely different approach to the same verse. It discusses at length whether oaths should be made using G‑d’s name. On the one hand in the verse states[vi] נשבעתי ואקימה לשמר משפאי צדקך but doing so needlessly is forbidden and for which the Torah provides[vii] the admonition ליראה את השם and punishment והפלא. False oaths, however, are also forbidden as it states in our verse. Alternatively, this might refer to cursing (not foul language but imprecations or maledictions) in the name of G‑d. Regardless, in order for punishment to be administered, there must be an admonishment from the Torah. The Gemara initially offers our verse את ה’ אלוקיך תירא as the source of admonishment but declines because the admonishment in this verse is a positive Mitzva. The Gemara concludes the discussion without providing the source of the admonishment for pronouncing G‑d’s name in vain, and instead – according to Rashi – establishes the verse ליראה את השם as being applicable to maledictions using G‑d’s name (which has its’ own verse[viii] admonishing against it – ויראת מאלקיך). We see from here, that the Gemara concludes without refutation, that the verse in את ה’ אלוקיך תירא is a positive Mitzva – albeit unclear as to what is being commanded.
- Why doesn’t the Gemara provide the obvious response that the admonishment against false oaths [negative Mitzva 238] is in the Ten Commandments[ix] לא תשא את שם ה’ אלוקיך לשוא.
SMG
The Gemara[x] provides that one who hears the pronouncement of G‑d’s name in vain must place the speaker in Niddui (at least temporarily). Failure to do so, places the hearer in Niddui. Rabbi Yaakov clarifies the level of Niddui required as being Shamta, not actual Niddui – and he proves this from Gemara[xi] concerning one who terms his friend a slave, where the Gemara states such a person is in Shamta, and proves it from the ברייתא ‘One who calls his friend a slave, is placed in Niddui,[β] and [one who calls his friend] a Mamzer, is punished with Malkos, [one who calls his friend] a Rasha, is dropped to his level’. The Gemara concludes that the requirement is to place him in Niddui, and he can then release the Niddui immediately upon propitiation [γ]. And if the Niddui was imposed in his presence, then the release is also in his presence.
The Mishna[xii] quotes Abba Shaul who states that one who ‘thinks’ the name [of G‑d] with its letters, does not have a portion in the world to come. (Accordingly, in the tractate of Shavuos – which deals with oaths – the Mishna[xiii] does not even spell out the full name of G‑d by which one might or might not swear.) This applies whether using a euphemism or even a different language [δ]; Rabbi Ĉanina ben Tradyon was punished for this, even though he did is to teach others as follows[xiv]:
The Gemara relates about Rabbi Ĉanina ben Tradyon who was asked ‘why are you studying Torah?’ He responded [xv] כאשר צוני ה’ אלוקי [presumably enunciating the names of G‑d]. Immediately [heaven] decreed that he would be burnt to death, his wife killed, and his daughter sent to work in a house of harlotry. Rashi expounds on the Gemara’s reasoning for this ‘because he would explicitly reflect on the full name of G‑d, teach the forty-two (42) letter name, and do with it that which he wanted[2]. (Tosafos calls out Rashi’s interpretation as being non-mainstream and concludes that the name Yud and Hey may not be explicitly pronounced – even though those two (2) letters do not spell out the full tetragrammaton – since they themselves compose one of the other names of G‑d, and therefore cannot be spelled out explicitly.) And the Gemara brings proof of this being forbidden from[xvi] לא תלמד לעשות [which lit. means ‘do not learn in order to do’] do not teach practical applications thereof. Rashi, both in the Gemara and on the Chumash comments that the use of this verse by the Gemara is incongruent with the actual meaning of the verse which relates to a prohibition against the study of pagan ways – and that the application of the verse in this circumstance is that G‑d is being exceedingly exacting with the righteous. Rashi offers two examples of the proper application of the verse.
- When Rabbi Eliezer became sick, Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues went to visit him… During the conversation, Rabbi Akiva learnt his death would be the most difficult of his colleagues, because he had failed to sufficiently study with Rabbi Eliezer. Further, Rabbi Eliezer lamented that he himself hadn’t been able to study from his teachers enough, and all he had learnt was like a dog drinking from the ocean – and he hadn’t been able to teach what he had learnt enough, and all he had taught was like a brush in a makeup tube. For example, I [Rabbi Eliezer] know three hundred laws concerning the Nega which is brilliantly white, and no one asked me about them. And I [Rabbi Eliezer] know three hundred (some say three thousand) laws concerning the planting of zucchini[3], and no one asked me about those except Akiva ben Yosef; Once, Rabbi Eliezer was walking with Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva said “Rabbi, teach me about the planting of zucchini”. Rabbi Eliezer said a word [of witchcraft] and the field filled with zucchini. Rabbi Akiva said, “You’re taught me how to plant zucchini, but how are they uprooted?” Rabbi Eliezer said another word [of witchcraft] and the zucchini were gathered to a single spot.
- The Gemara[xvii] relates that Rabban Gamliel had a series of moon engravings depicting the various phases and angles of the moon, from which he would ask witnesses for the new month to describe what shape of the moon they had seen – as compared to the engravings. The Gemara goes through various discussion points as to why it was permitted and concludes that it was only permissible because it had been engraved by non-Jews, for the purpose of teaching the public and / or the communal testimony needed for establishing the new month. Obviously, such engravings were not deemed idolatrous, but due to Rabban Gamliel’s high stature, extenuating circumstances needed to be stated as to why he allowed such things.
From all this, it is clear that respecting G‑d’s name is extended even to treating the spelling of the name with reverence.
Also, the Gemara there[xviii] provides that using words of Torah for medicine / superstitious reasons is forbidden. Even verses that do not contain the name of G‑d are forbidden to be used for this purpose. (Rashi comments on this that this prohibition is only against G‑d’s name in Hebrew. One may however use other languages.) In conclusion: this Mitzva depends on the intent of person and concerning any action [for which it could be permissible or forbidden, and that it] depends on the intent of the heart, the Torah says[xix] ויראת מאלוקיך.
Discussion by SMS
- (Fascinatingly, Rashi mentions that there used to be a practice to query demons concerning the whereabouts of lost objects. Doing so on Shabbos is forbidden, because that is a mundane / weekday practice and is inappropriate for Shabbos. The Gemara discusses this practice, and concludes that even Rabbi Yosi, who stated the practice is forbidden during the week, only forbade this for reasons of safety, not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with summoning demons and binding them to help locate lost objects.)
[1] The word את has no actual meaning. However, according to Shimon the Amsuni, who derived a meaning from each instance, perhaps the meaning is one of a notation – as in that which comes next is a general statement from Aleph to Tav, and that means that there is at least one other thing included in that general statement – similar to the dots on top of the word having the opposite interpretation, that something needs to be removed from the following general meaning.
[2] Implying the use of practical Kabbalah for personal reasons. Interestingly, the date on which this I am writing this, the 24th of Adar II 5782, the Hayom Yom writes that “When saying אנא בכח, look at – or picture in thought – the name(s) [of G‑d] formed by the acronyms of the words in the poem. But the [name(s)] are not to be said.”
[3] Presumably a euphemism for witchcraft as understood from the remainder of the Gemara. If incorrect, I beg Rabbi Eliezer’s forgiveness, may G‑d have mercy on me.
[i] Devarim 10:20
[ii] Gem. Kiddushin 57a
[iii] Gem. Bava Kama 41a
[iv] Gem. Pesaĉim 22b
[v] Gem. Temura 4a
[vi] Tehillim 119:106
[vii] Devarim 28:58-59
[viii] Vayikra 19:14
[ix] Shemos 20:7
[x] Gem. Nedarim 7b
[xi] Gem. Kiddushin 28a
[xii] Gem. Sanhedrin 91a
[xiii] Gem. Shavuos 35a
[xiv] Gem. Avoda Zara 17b -18a
[xv] Devarim 4:5
[xvi] Devarim 18:9
[xvii] Gem. Rosh Hashana 24a-24b
[xviii] Gem. Sanhedrin 101a
[xix] Vayikra 19:32
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] This title is used because of his honor; since he doesn’t take vengeance against people who do not fear him [for not fearing him. He does of course avenge wrong doings]. That’s why he is given the accolade of ‘honored’ – and therefore the verse ליראה is used as a source for this Mitzva.[1] However, G‑d wants that we should fear him even if there will be no reciprocal vengeance [for failing to hold him in awe], and accordingly, the SMG adds the requirement for a student to fear a master, even though the teacher does not have the capacity to take vengeance.
[β] The titles used are quid pro quo: [meaning] since a servant is cursed, as it says[i] ארור כנען. On the other hand, a Mamzer is prohibited from joining the community by a negative Mitzva [negative Mitzva 117] with the associated punishment of lashes. Therefore, when someone defines him as a Rasha, he is descending with him into [the Mamzer’s] life – as it says[ii] וחי אחיך עמך – your brother, and not a Rasha. [But this transgressor has defined the Mamzer as a Rasha] therefore, he is punished quid pro quo.
[γ] He can forgive immediately if he wants to, meaning the one who was placed in Niddui – excluding a person who did not feel what was said about him.
[δ] even though it was explained in gevulin[2] Rashi explained this excludes Yerushalayim, because the name of G‑d was [explicitly] enunciated in the Base Hamikdash. There is another explanation, that outside the Base Hamikdash; those who use other languages to [explicitly] state the name of G‑d, have no portion in the world to come. However, should they use Hebrew, they wouldn’t be so severely punished[3].
[1] Interestingly – as I noted in the translation of the SMG, that is not the verse which is the source of the Mitzva. At least that isn’t the one used by the SMG. It seems that Mishnah Torah [Shavuos 12:11] also uses either the same verse as the Amuday Shlomo, or a different one [but definitely one different than the SMG]. Unfortunately, the Amuday Shlomo does not provide more than the one word ליראה of the verse in the quotation – which is quite ubiquitous [there are at least eight examples in Chumash Devarim], and accordingly it is unclear exactly which verse is quoted.
[2] The word means borders, which has been extended to mean any places outside what was considered the ‘metropolis’ of Yerushalayim.
[3] Presumably because, at least the Hebrew language was used. Naming G‑d in a foreign tongue must be doubly insulting.
[i] Beraishis 9:25
[ii] Vayikra 25:36
RASHI
Rashi on את ה’ אלקיך תירא comments that the fear of G‑d is a prerequisite to the ability to vow in his Name. Very interesting, SMG ends with ויראת מאלקיך,[1] which Rashi states there as a general rule, that this term of ויראת מאלקיך is always an admonishment for anything which can only be discerned in the heart of the one doing it, and no one else might recognize it except the perpetrator. True fear of G‑d recognizes that the heart is an open book to him, and nothing is hidden.
From all this, several points emerge.
- The Gemara does not clearly state that this verse provides a positive Mitzva to fear G‑d. In each instance, the verse is expounded by the Gemara to refer to the admonishment against either uttering G‑d’s name in vain or doing so in connection with an imprecation.
- However, Rabbi Akiva did not expound on this verse to refer to oaths. He clearly felt that the words were taken literally, and out of context with the remainder of the verse. [Proof being that as a matter of course one may not swear in the name of a Talmud Ĉoĉom – not because of the slight to his honor, but because such an oath would be worthless. Similarly, we find when Yosef needed to swear falsely to keep up the pretense with his brothers that he was a stranger[i], he used the term חי פרעה by the life of Pharaoh.] Therefore, Rabbi Akiva felt this verse provides a requirement to fear G‑d.
How are these points reconciled? The only possible explanation is as Rashi states – fearing G‑d is a prerequisite for uttering a proper oath. In fact, the law is that one who is known to swear falsely, or one who does not fear G‑d as evidenced by his immoral actions [in other arenas] is prevented by the courts from taking oaths, even when telling the truth.
Rashi comments the duplication of the word לשוא in the second of the Ten Commandments, covers both possible meanings – false oaths and vain oaths (uttered for no reason). This is also explicitly stated in the Mishna[ii]. Therefore, according to Rashi, this verse, which the Gemara stipulates is a positive Mitzva, must be stating that – when one is required to take an oath, one must do so in G‑d’s name, and with the proper fear and respect.
This meshes with the teaching of Rabbi Akiva.
This also explains why the Commandment לא תשא can’t be used as the source for an admonishment against imprecations, since a malediction uttered using G‑d’s name is neither false nor in vain…
[1] [which is actually the source for the negative Mitzva 239]
[i] Beraishis 42:15
[ii] Gem. Shavous 29a