Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Since the previous chapter dealt with the desecration of God’s name, the Rambam continues with the description of a similar prohibition: the actual destruction of God’s name.

Generally, the Sages use the verb “erases” when referring to this prohibition. The Rambam employs the term “destroys” to include destroying an engraving of God’s name (Avodat HaMelech). Alternatively, he is using the language of his Biblical prooftext (Kin’at Eliyahu).

These names are mentioned in Halachah 2.

This is the minimum punishment given for the violation of a Torah prohibition. In Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 65) and in Halachah 6, the Rambam writes that this prohibition also includes removing a stone from the altar and destroying wood belonging to the Temple. In all these instances, one is destroying an article upon which the name of God is called.

I.e., destroy one of His names.

Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 437) include this in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot.

The Rambam’s definition of God’s names which cannot be erased appears to be based on Sh’vuot 35a. However, as will be explained, there are questions concerning the correct text of that Talmudic portion. It is significant to note that this Talmudic portion does not mention only seven names, and the source for the expression “the seven ineffable names [of God]” is the Zohar, Vol. III, 272b.

This name was to be pronounced only in the Temple (by the High Priest in the Yom Kippur confessions and by the priests in the Priestly Blessings). In the later years of the second Temple, even this practice was discontinued, and this name was never pronounced.

Our version follows the printed text of the Mishneh Torah, which considers both Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey and Alef-Daled-Nun-Yud as a single name of God. Support for this text can be taken from Kiddushin 71a, which states: “I am not referred to as [My name] is written. My name is written Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey, and it is pronounced אדני.” (See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:7.) Nevertheless, other authorities consider the above as two separate names and eliminate one of the others mentioned by the Rambam. For example, the Radbaz (Vol. 5, Responsum 1407) states that the name Elo’ah should not be included as a name in its own right, for it is the singular form of the name Elohim. Other opinions (Kessef Mishneh) include Elo’ah, but omit Eil. (There are manuscript and printed editions of the Mishneh Torah which support these different views.) When mentioning this prohibition, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 276:9) counts Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey and Alef-Daled-Nun-Yud as separate names, eliminating the name Elohai. Alef-Daled-Nun-Yud — Adonai — means “My Lord.” This name refers to God as He manifests Himself as Lord of the world.

This word also means ‘power’ (See Genesis 31:29). Thus, as a name for God, it is translated as ‘the Almighty.’

Generally, this name is translated simply as “God.” Since, as explained above, it is also the singular form of Elohim, the meanings of that name are also appropriate. As mentioned, some editions of the Mishneh Torah do not include it as one of God’s seven names.

This name is also applied to judges and thus can be understood to refer to God as the Supreme Judge (Shmot Rabbah 3:6). Our Sages also associate this name, like the name Eil, with power. Thus, it refers to God as “the source of all power and potential.”

This term means ‘my God.’

In the Guide for the Perplexed (loc. cit.), the Rambam translates this name as “Who has enough” — i.e., it expresses the concept that God does not require any other entity for His existence.

Shmot Rabbah (loc. cit.) explains that this refers to God as He wages war.

We are liable not only for erasing an entire name, but for erasing any one letter. The rationale is that once a single letter is erased, the original meaning of the name is no longer preserved

Sh’vuot 35b quotes one opinion which forbids erasing them, but concludes that it is permitted to do so.

Rav Kapach’s Yemenite manuscripts state בקדושת השם, rather than כקדושת השם. According to that version, this sentence would translate, “They are not sanctified with the holiness of [God’s] name.”

As explained below, there is a question if this prohibition stems from the Torah itself or is Rabbinic in origin.

Since they follow God’s name without interruption, the holiness of God’s name is also transmitted to them.

The punishment given for transgressing a Rabbinic command. The Rambam’s statements appear to imply that the prohibition against erasing these letters is Rabbinic in origin, and many authorities share that view. Nevertheless, others compare this situation to a person who eats less than an olive’s size of most of the foods forbidden by the Torah. Although he receives only “stripes for rebelliousness” and is not punished by lashes, he is considered to have violated a Torah prohibition.

I.e., he wrote those letters with the intention of completing these names, but was prevented from doing so.

Even though one did not write the entire name, the letters that one did write refer to

Because these combinations of letters have no meaning or significance in their own right, no holiness is attached to them. Note Rama (Yoreh De’ah 276:10), who states that it is also improper to erase the letters אד from the name Adonai, or the letters אה from the name Eh’yeh.

In the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. 1, ch. 63), the Rambam writes that the name י-ה reflects God’s eternality.

There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. The initial clause of this sentence states that י-ה is considered a name in its own right, but the concluding clause implies that its holiness stems from the fact that it is part of God’s explicit name, and not that it possesses any intrinsic holiness in its own right. Also, the question has been raised: If it is a name in its own right, why is it not included among the seven names which cannot be erased? The Ben Yedid quotes our Sages’ statement that the name י-ה comes about because, until the elimination of Amalek, God’s name will not be complete (i.e., it will be read as י-ה, rather than Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey). Thus, although י-ה is itself a name of God, its holiness stems from the name Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey.

Because these combinations of letters have no meaning or significance in their own right, no holiness is attached to them.

Sh’vuot 35a, the source for this halachah, mentions other adjectives. Perhaps the Rambam limited himself to these for they are all mentioned in the Torah or in the works of the prophets (Rav Kapach).

And, therefore, must be treated with respect, as mentioned in Halachah 8.

For they are not considered to be on the same level of holiness as the names of God.

This law applies, not only when one desires to destroy the utensil, but even when one wants to continue using it.

For engraving is considered as writing.

And thus destroys the name which is engraved.

As one is for erasing a name of God which is written.

In ink, without tattooing.

Lest one cause the name to be erased.

For it is forbidden to bring God’s name into such a place (see Hilchot Kri’at Shema 3:4-5).

This entire clause is somewhat superfluous, for there is no difference between reeds and clothes. It has, therefore, attracted the attention of many commentaries. The Seder Mishneh notes that according to the authoritative manuscripts, the clause should read, “If he does not find reeds, he should search for them,” quoting, albeit in slightly different phraseology, Shabbat 120b, the source for this halachah.

Between one’s flesh and the water. Such intervention nullifies an immersion, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Mikva’ot 1:12. (Note the Kessef Mishneh, which cites Shabbat [loc. cit.], which states that there are times when the ink in which the name is written would itself be considered a separation.)

Even though water will penetrate and reach the name of God.

Since the person does not intentionally make an erasure and it is possible that, in fact, God’s name will not be erased, the Sages did not forbid an immersion associated with a mitzvah. Shabbat (ibid.) differentiates between an instance where the person’s activity is merely גרמא — “a cause” for the name being erased — and does not hold him liable, and the melting of a name engraved on metal, in which he is considered to have “destroyed” the name of God.

Note Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:17, where the Rambam specifies that this applies only to the area of the Temple courtyard between the Temple building and the altar.

However, it is permitted to tear down the Temple with the intent of rebuilding it. Note Bava Batra 3a, which describes how the Sage Bava ben Buta advised Herod to tear down the Second Temple in order to rebuild it in a more beautiful manner.

Though the Rambam restates this law in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah (“The Laws of the Temple”), he also mentions it here, since the Biblical prohibition that forbids this activity is the same as that which forbids erasing God’s name. In Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 65), the Rambam states that this prohibition also includes “destroying God’s houses of worship.” However, the fact that this prohibition is not mentioned in this halachah appears to indicate that the Rambam does not include the destruction of synagogues in this prohibition. (See also Hilchot Tefillah 11:12, which mentions the prohibition against destroying a synagogue, without defining it as a Biblical prohibition.)

Destroy the altar.

In one of his responsa, the Rambam specifies that this refers to beams dedicated for the purpose of construction, and not wood to be burned on the altar.

Avodat HaMelech notes that, in contrast to the two laws mentioned in this halachah, with regard to erasing God’s name, the Rambam does not mention the need for a destructive intent. Thus, he concludes that it is forbidden to erase God’s name under all circumstances. Other authorities, however, maintain that if one’s intent is not destructive, but instead, he seeks to correct a text, he is permitted to erase some of the letters of God’s name and write them correctly. See Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah, Responsum 267.

Trees which are worshiped.

Destroy wood that was consecrated.

The term כתבי קדש particularly refers to the books of the Bible (Rashi, Shabbat 115a).

The commentaries note the apparent contradiction to the statements concerning divrei kodesh in Halachah 5. There are authorities who note that the Talmud or the other early works of Torah law do not mention the need to entomb any sacred texts aside from a Torah scroll. As the Rambam mentions in Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:5, we may not treat any holy text, even books of the Oral Law, with disrespect. According to their view, there is, however, no prohibition against leaving them neatly piled for a gentile to dispose of them. All that is forbidden is to burn or to destroy by direct action. The Magen Avraham 154:9 and the Aruch HaShulchan, Yoreh De’ah 282:23 differ and require all sacred texts to be entombed. Their opinion is followed almost universally today.

This punishment is given for violating a Rabbinic commandment and, therefore, the Kessef Mishneh places the prohibition against destroying sacred texts in that category. Nevertheless, in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 65, where the Rambam describes the scope of the Torah prohibition), he also mentions the destruction of sacred texts.

Our text of Shabbat 116a, the source for this halachah, uses the term min (“nonbeliever”) rather than apikoros. Rav Kapach writes that the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah also use that term. He explains that though at times the two terms are used interchangeably, in this instance the substitution of one term for the other is significant: In Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7, the Rambam defines a min as a person who does not believe in God. In Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8, he defines an apikoros as one who denies the Torah and/or the prophetic tradition. When a min writes a Torah scroll, the names of God it contains do not possess any holiness, because he does not believe in God at all. In contrast, were an apikoros to write a Torah scroll, since he believes in God, the names he writes would possess a dimension of holiness. Support for this distinction can be brought from Hilchot Tefillin UM’zuzah V’Sefer Torah 1:13, which states that a Torah scroll written by a min must be burned, but one written by a apostate Jew should be buried. (Note that the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 281:1 uses the term apikoros. See also the commentary of the Turei Zahav 281:1.)

. Shabbat (loc. cit.) relates that just as we see that God allows His name to be erased to preserve peace between a husband and his wife (in the process of the trial of a sotah), so, too, will He allow His name to be destroyed because of these people who disturb the peace between Him and His people.

These statements imply that the holiness of the name depends on the intent of the person writing it. On this basis, the commentaries question the status of a name of God which a believing Jew wrote casually or by mistake, without intending that it become holy. Note Hilchot Tefillin 1:15 where the Rambam writes: “When a person writes a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah without having [the proper] intention, should he write one of God’s names without the desired intent, they are not acceptable.” Similarly, in ch. 10 of those halachot, he includes a lack of intent when writing God’s names as a factor that can disqualify a Torah scroll.

Shabbat (loc. cit.) states that such heretics are worse than gentiles, for the heretics have been raised within the Jewish tradition and have rebelled against it.

In Hilchot Tefillin UMezuzah V’Sefer Torah 1:13, the Rambam quotes Gittin 45b, which states that tefillin, mezuzot, and Torah scrolls may be written only by those who believe in what they state and observe the precepts they contain.

Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:3 states that a worn Torah scroll should be placed in an earthenware container and buried next to a Torah sage.

And, therefore, may not be erased. Sh’vuot 35b explains that Abraham was asking God not to depart while he tended to the guests. This teaches us that receiving guests properly is greater than having an audience with the Divine Presence.

Sh’vuot 35b explains that Abraham was asking God not to depart while he tended to the guests. This teaches us that receiving guests properly is greater than having an audience with the Divine Presence.The word adonai here means “my lords,” referring to the angels.

The word adonai here means “my lords,” referring to the angels. Lot addresses his request to God, the One who has the power to save his life (Sh’vuot, ibid.).

Lot addresses his request to God, the One who has the power to save his life (Sh’vuot, ibid.).

Where the Jewish people waged war against the tribe of Benjamin because of the sin of the concubine of the hill [Judges, Chapter 20].

The fact that initially, after enquiring whether to wage war, the Jews met with defeat, might lead to the conclusion that their initial enquiries had been to idols. However, Sh’vuot (ibid.) explains that even these inquiries had been directed to God.

Who served as a priest to an idol (Judges, Chapters 16 and 17).

But rather refer to Michah’s idol.

Who owned a vineyard coveted by King Achav (I Kings, Chapter 21). Izevel, Achav’s wife, framed Navot for blaspheming against God.And refer to the true God.

And refer to the true God.

Which refers to King Solomon.

And refers to ‘the One who possesses peace’ (Sh’vuot, loc. cit.).

But rather, refers to the Babylonian kings whom Daniel served.

Though this phrase was apparently addressed to Nebuchadnezzar, it is unlikely that Daniel would refer to a mortal king in this fashion (Rashi, Sh’vuot, ibid.).

E.g., ‘Gracious’ or ‘Merciful,’ as mentioned in Halachah 5