Re'eh Questions and Answers

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/730.html

Re’eh 5713

Alef.

דברים פרק יד

(כב) עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל־תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה:

(כג) וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ לְמַעַן תִּלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת־יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ כָּל־הַיָּמִים:

(כד) וְכִי־יִרְבֶּה מִמְּךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ כִּי לֹא תוּכַל שְׂאֵתוֹ כִּי־יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לָשׂוּם שְׁמוֹ שָׁם כִּי יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ:

(כה) וְנָתַתָּה בַּכָּסֶף וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בּוֹ:

(כו) וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁאָלְךָ נַפְשֶׁךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ שָּׁם לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ וְשָׂמַחְתָּ אַתָּה וּבֵיתֶךָ:

(כז) וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר־בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לֹא תַעַזְבֶנּוּ כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ: ס

Ma’aser Sheini.

(כח) מִקְצֵה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים תּוֹצִיא אֶת־כָּל־מַעְשַׂר תְּבוּאָתְךָ בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִוא וְהִנַּחְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:

(כט) וּבָא הַלֵּוִי כִּי אֵין־לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְאָכְלוּ וְשָׂבֵעוּ לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכָל־מַעֲשֵׂה יָדְךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה: ס

Bi’ur Ma’asrot.

דברים פרק טו

(א) מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע־שָׁנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה שְׁמִטָּה:

(ב) וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִטָּה שָׁמוֹט כָּל־בַּעַל מַשֵּׁה יָדוֹ אֲשֶׁר יַשֶּׁה בְּרֵעֵהוּ לֹא־יִגֹּשׂ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ וְאֶת־אָחִיו כִּי־ קָרָא שְׁמִטָּה לַיקֹוָק:

(ג) אֶת־הַנָּכְרִי תִּגֹּשׂ וַאֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֶת־אָחִיךָ תַּשְׁמֵט יָדֶךָ:

(ד) אֶפֶס כִּי לֹא יִהְיֶה־בְּךָ אֶבְיוֹן כִּי־בָרֵךְ יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵן־לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ:

(ה) רַק אִם־שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם:

(ו) כִּי־יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בֵּרַכְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר־לָךְ וְהַעֲבַטְתָּ גּוֹיִם רַבִּים וְאַתָּה לֹא תַעֲבֹט וּמָשַׁלְתָּ בְּגוֹיִם רַבִּים וּבְךָ לֹא יִמְשֹׁלוּ: ס

Shemitat Kesafim.

(ז) כִּי־יִהְיֶה בְךָ אֶבְיוֹן מֵאַחַד אַחֶיךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ בְּאַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר־יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ לֹא תְאַמֵּץ אֶת־ לְבָבְךָ וְלֹא תִקְפֹּץ אֶת־יָדְךָ מֵאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן:

(ח) כִּי־פָתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת־יָדְךָ לוֹ וְהַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ:

(ט) הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן־יִהְיֶה דָבָר עִם־לְבָבְךָ בְלִיַּעַל לֵאמֹר קָרְבָה שְׁנַת־הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה וְרָעָה עֵינְךָ בְּאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן וְלֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ וְקָרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל־יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא:

(י) נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא־יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכָל־מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ:

(יא) כִּי לֹא־יֶחְדַּל אֶבְיוֹן מִקֶּרֶב הָאָרֶץ עַל־כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ לֵאמֹר פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת־יָדְךָ לְאָחִיךָ לַעֲנִיֶּךָ וּלְאֶבְיֹנְךָ בְּאַרְצֶךָ: ס

Loans and gifts to the poor.

The common denominator in all four sections is that concern to the poor is being shown, even as the individual who has prospered is expected to restrain his material success.

Ma’aser Sheini. Even as you enjoy the fruits of your labors in Yerushalayim, don’t forget the Levi who does not have land and therefore is not in a position to fulfill the Mitzva of Ma’aser Sheini.

Bi’ur Ma’asrot. When a person lives at a distance from Yerushalayim, he can transfer the holiness to money. The money cannot accumulate beyond three years. Not only is this important for the tither, but those who will benefit from charitable donations will also welcome the regular distribution of the Ma’aser Sheini funds. In this case, in addition to the Levi, there is mention also of the convert, the orphan and the widow. Whereas the Levi has his status of landlessness imposed upon him by the Tora in the sense that he is to be dedicated to working in the Tabernacle/Temple, the categories of   Yatom and Almana have not consciously chosen to be dependent upon charity; circumstances beyond their control have placed them in that position. While the convert did choose to become Jewish, s/he did not do so in order to be impoverished, although burning your bridges in terms of your family and society in a xenophobic context might very well create such a situation. The example of Ruth, who goes from a Moabite princess to just another gleaner with the rest of the poor is an abject case in point.

Shmitat Kesafim. This Mitzva is primarily focused upon the debtor, in contrast to the Mitzvot having to do with Ma’aser where there is a benefit to the farmer by virtue of his demonstrating that he realizes that essentially his produce does not belong to him. Although I suppose that if we wished to look at an indiviual’s monetary resources as also what he has accumulated with God’s Help, then this too does not belong to him outright, but there is an expectation that he will use at least a portion of what he has earned in order to help those less fortunate. However, the cycle of poverty if left unchecked could plunge the poor into ever-deeper debt. Consequently, the institution of Shemitat Kesafim is intended to prevent an individual from eternally being in debt by rescinding debts every few years. In contrast to the verses dealing with Ma’aser Sheini and Bi’ur Ma’asrot, these verses speak about one’s friend, brother, and simply a poor person, as opposed to some particular status or situation.

Loans and gifts to the poor. The most direct and intense support is when not only loans are made, but outright gifts are given in order to totally meet the needs of the poor. Ma’aser and loans usually have upper limits. But in this last section the principle is established that we should try to meet all of the needs of the poor. While this might be an unrealistic expectation, particularly if resources are limited and the poor are numerous, nevertheless it is the ideal to which we should aspire.

Beit.

1.  Ibn Ezra: If in fact all Jews will comply with Halacha, there in fact will be no poor among them. However, it is inevitable that there will be generations in which not everyone will behave properly.

RaMBaN: The Tora never says with absolute certainty that people will act sinfully. Therefore if dealing with the poor is mentioned in the Tora, it’s only considering a possibility rather than stating the situation’sinevitability.

Abrabanel: From a statistical point of view, regardless of how blessed the situation of the Jews may be, there will always be at least one poor person, and therefore an absolute statement to the effect that there will not be any poor simply can’t be made realistically.

2.  Abrabanel understands “Efes” as “nevertheless there will always be an exception”, and therefore in this context, “nevertheless there will always be an exception to the idea that there will no longer be any poor people in the population.

Gimel.

1.  If I read v. 7 literally, the universe of poor to whom I am obligated to help is extremely limited, i.e., someone who is my relative living in my gates in my country. So many qualifiers serve to eliminate the overwhelming majority of individuals who might require help. What happens if a poor person lives outside of Israel, or has no relatives? Is he simply ignored?

2.  The order in Bava Metzia allows for the greatest number of candidates. Not only members of your family, community, and land, but anyone who is Jewish is to be considered for help. The list also implies that if for some reason there are no Jewish poor, that does not mean that one ought not to help non-Jewish poor; it’s just that there is a prioritization that initially operates  until it is determined that those closest to you are not in need.

Daled.

1. The difficulty in the verse is the assumption that the natural tendency of a person will be not to give to those in need, and therefore special effort must be exerted against hardening one’s heart which is to be expected.

2.  HaEmek Davar would understand “Te’ametz” as “do not allow your natural tendency (to protect and hoard your monetary resources) overwhelm” the competing natural tendency to be merciful and kind.

eikev answers

Ekev 5719

Devarim 10:20

Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; Him shalt thou serve; and to Him shalt thou cleave, and by His Name shalt thou swear.

Alef.

בראשית פרק כב

(יב) וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל־הַנַּעַר וְאַל־תַּעַשׂ לוֹ מְאוּמָה כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־יְרֵא אֱלֹקים אַתָּה וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ מִמֶּנִּי:

רד"ק

כי ירא אלקים אתה - היראה הזאת היא אהבה, כי לא היתה יראת גופו אלא יראת נפשו שלא תאבד שהיה מוסר נפש בנו, שהיה אוהב יותר מנפשו, תחת נפשו שלא תאבד מהעולם הבא, שהיא האהבה לאל והדבקות בו:

תורה תמימה

1) (יב) ירא אלקים - תניא, רבי מאיר אומר, יראת אלקים שבאברהם - יראה מאהבה, שנאמר (ישעי' מ"א) זרע אברהם אוהבי^כב) [סוטה ל"א א']:

^כב) עיין מבאור ענין זה בעקרים פרק י"ד:

2) ירא אלקים - א"ר יוחנן, גדול הנאמר באיוב יותר ממה שנאמר באברהם, דאלו באברהם כתיב כי ירא אלקים אתה, ובאיוב כתיב (איוב א') איש תם וישר ירא אלקים וסר מרע^כג) [ב"ב ט"ו ב']:

^כג) יש להעיר לפי מ"ש בעירובין י"ח ב' אומרים מקצת שבחו של אדם בפניו וכולו שלא בפניו, א"כ הלא אין ראי' דגדולה מעלת איוב מאברהם, יען כי באברהם נאמר זה בפניו ולכן נאמר לו שבח מועט, משא"כ באיוב שנאמר עליו שלא בפניו. ואף גם זאת אין הדבר מבואר ברחבה,שאמנם תהי' גדולה מעלת איוב ממעלת אברהם שהי' בחיר ה' ואוהבו כמש"כ (ישעי' מ"א) זרע אברהם אוהבי, ואמרו (נדרים ל"ב א') אין לך מתעסק במצות כאברהם אבינו, ועמד בכמה נסיונות והכניס בני אדם תחת כנפי השכינה ופרסם שם ה' ויחודו בעולם [ע"ל ס"פ כ"א] ועודכמה וכמה ענינים נעלים שעשה, ואחרי כל אלה היתכן שתהי' מעלתו פחותה ממעלת איוב. וקרוב לומר דבדיוק נאמר הלשון גדול הנאמר באיוב וכו', ולא בקצור, גדולה מעלת איוב ממעלת אברהם, והכונה דממה שנאמרו באברהם תוארים מעט מבאיוב מזה ראי' שאברהם גדולמאיוב, והוא ע"פ מ"ש בברכות ל"ג ב' באחד שירד לפני התיבה ואמר האל הגדול הגבור והנורא והאדיר והעזוז והחזק והאמיץ והודאי והנכבד, והקפידו חכמים עליו משום דהי' במשמע שסיים לכולהו שבחיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא, אשר באמת אין להם גבול וקצבה, יעו"ש. ולפי"זאחרי דבאיוב נפרטו כל מעלותיו י"ל דסיים הכתוב לכל שבחיו, משא"כ באברהם באו שבחיו בקצור, וזה משום דלפרוט כולם אין שיעור וערך, וא"כ מבואר דמזה שנפרטו הרבה שבחים באיוב, זה גופא מורה על גדולתו היתירה של אברהם, ודו"ק. וע"ע השייך לדרשא זו בדרשאהבאה:

3) ירא אלקים - א"ר אבא, גדול מה שנאמר בעובדיהו ממה שנא' באברהם, דאלו באברהם כתיב כי ירא אלקים אתה, ובעובדיהו כתיב (מ"א י"ח) ועובדיהו היה ירא את ה' מאד^כד) [סנהד' ל"ט ב']:

^כד) עיין מש"כ בדרשא הקודמת. ונראה טעם השייכות וההשתוות מאברהם לעובדיה, משום דשניהם היו גרי צדק, וכ"מ במ"ר נשא ספ"ח דהתוארים יראי ה' נתייחסו ביחוד להם מפני שהיו גרים, וכמ"ש שם יאמרו נא יראי ה' אלו אברהם ועובדיה, וכעין זה צ"ל בענין ערך היחס שביןאברהם לאיוב [בדרשא הקודמת] מפני ששניהם חקרו באחדות ה' והשגחתו ועמדו על נקודת האמת וקדשו שמו הגדול יתברך:

איוב פרק א

(א) אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ־עוּץ אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא תָּם וְיָשָׁר וִירֵא אֱלֹקים וְסָר מֵרָע:

בראשית פרק מב

(יח) וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי זֹאת עֲשׂוּ וִחְיוּ אֶת־הָאֱלֹקים אֲנִי יָרֵא:

פנים יפות

(יח) את האלקים אני ירא. מכאן למדו חז"ל שמותר להתפאר א"ע במצות יראת ה', אף דבכל המצות כתיב [מיכה ו, ח] והצנע לכת עם אלקיך, שראוי לכל אדם להסתיר מעשה מצותיו, מ"מ גבי יראה יכול לפאר עצמו,כמו שמצינו גבי יוסף שאמר את האלקים אני ירא. וכן פירוש התרגום סוף ויחי [נ, יט] התחת אלקים אני, ארי דחלא דה' אנא, ואולי הטעם כי כל המצות הם בסיוע השי"ת כמ"ש [יומא לח ב] בא לטהר מסייעין אותו,משא"כ ביראה כדכתיב [דברים י, יב] מה ד' אלקיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה ואחז"ל [ברכות לג ב] הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים, ע"כ אין להתפאר בשאר המצות כיון שהם בסיועת השי"ת, כמ"ש בפסוק [תהיליםסב, יג] ולך ה' חסד כי אתה תשלם לאיש כמעשהו כי כל תשלום שכר של כל המצות הוא מצד החסד, כאלו הוא מעשה אדם עצמו, ובאמת הוא בסיועת השי"ת.

ואפשר לפרש בזה מה שאמרו [אבות א, ג] אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשים את הרב ע"מ לקבל פרס אלא וכו' שלא ע"מ לקבל פרס ויהי מורא שמים עליכם, דבכל הדברים שאדם עושה אין אצלו אלא תשלום מחציתהשכר כיון שהיה בסיועת השי"ת וזהו פרס לשון מחצה, משא"כ במה שיהא מורא שמים עליכם הוא דבר שלם שאין בו סיוע, כדכתיב מה ה' אלקיך שואל מעמך כנ"ל, וי"ל דהיינו דכתיב והצנע לכת עם אלקיך, כעניןשאמרו בנח [ב"ר ל, יא] את האלקים התהלך נח שהיה צריך סעד לתומכו, ע"כ אמר שראוי להצניע מעשיו לכת עם אלקיך, כיון שהיא הליכה בסיועת השי"ת, משא"כ ביראה, וכבר פירשנו בזה מה שאמר [ברכות יז א]לעולם יהא אדם ערום ביראה שבכל המצות ראוי להעלים ולהלביש שלא יראו ב"א מעשיו, משא"כ ביראה א"צ להעלים ולהלביש אפילו לפאר מותר והיינו לשון ערום בלי לבוש:

ועוד יש לפרש דרך רמז מה שאחז"ל [סוטה ה א] בגסות רוח שמותר לת"ח בשמיני שבשמינית, שרומז על שמונה פסוקים שבסוף התורה שכתבם משה בדמע, כדאיתא בפ"ק דב"ב [טו א] והנה מסיים בפסוקהשמיני ולכל המורא הגדול אשר עשה משה לעיני כל ישראל, הרי שמלת המורא הוא תיבה שמינית בסוף הפסוק, ורמזו על זה כי במצות המורא יכול לפאר את עצמו והוא רמז שמיני שבשמינית, ומה שאמרו [תדא"ר]לעולם יהא אדם ירא שמים בסתר הוא ענין מה שאמר ריב"ז לתלמידיו שתהא מורא שמים שלא יעבור עבירה בסתר ויאמר מי רואני [ברכות כח ב], אמנם עיקר הטעם כי היראה אין בו התפארות, אלא המאמין בה'ב"ה וב"ש מי לא יירא, כדכתיב [שמות ט, כא] הירא את דבר ה' מעבדי פרעה הניס את עבדיו ואת מקנהו, והמעלה בזה האמונה בה' ב"ה וב"ש שבידו לשלם לאיש כמפעלו, כדכתיב [שם יד, לא] וייראו העם את ה'ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, דזה ודאי מותר לפרסם שהוא מאמין בה' באמונה שלימה:

 1. By the Midrash seeing the three earlier elements in the verse, 

אֶת־יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ תִּירָא אֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ:

as prerequisites, in effect discourages the invocation of oaths including the Name of HaShem. Since so few individuals will be able to claim that they have achieved the levels necessary, no one in the end will swear.

RaMBaM sees the fourth element in the verse as a stand-alone concept, as valid in its own right and in the proper context (taking an oath in Beit Din when necessary) as any of the earlier elements, e.g., fearing God, etc. While such oaths should not needlessly be invoked, when appropriate it is a Mitzva to engage in them.

2.  From the opening statement in the Midrash, it sounds like one never should take an oath with the Name of HaShem, because it can lead to the serious offence of denying HaShem’s Existence. The verse in Yirmiyahu 4:2 therefore comes to mitigate that absolute position by suggesting that if the standards of אמת, משפט וצדקה can be maintained, then oaths with the Shem HaShem would be appropriate. (However, the implication is that this would be difficult to achieve from a practical perspective.)

3.  The conceptual difference between the Midrash and RaMBaM is the role of the Name of God when one takes an oath. According to the Midrash, the inclusion of the Name of God sets the bar impossibly high and serves as a basis to discourage the practice altogether. According to RaMBaM, the addition of the Shem HaShem creates a Hiddur Mitzva that makes the taking of an oath all the more spiritual and significant.

4.  The verse from the story of Yosef is the least convincing and therefore is cited last in the series. Whereas the verses describing Avraham and Iyov emanate from the neutral narrator and consequently take on an objective quality, the verse re Yosef is stated by himself, allowing for the reader to wonder whether such a description is earned. Furthermore, Yosef makes this statement in the guise of someone he wasn’t, i.e., an Egyptian, intending to strike fear into the hearts of his brothers who have yet to recognize him. Perhaps his saying this is simply part of his ongoing subterfuge rather than accurately portraying his inner spiritual nature. Finally, one could argue that someone who is truly God-fearing, not only would not keep all of the brothers imprisoned, but wouldn’t misrepresent himself to them in the first place in the spirit of the verse in Yirmiyahu, of being fair and truthful.

Beit.

From RaMBaM’s language, it would appear that mentioning God’s Name in an oath constitutes a way in which to beautify and enhance the act of taking an oath.

Chinuch’s explanation concerns itself with the deepening of belief on the part of the individual taking the oath, i.e., when one enunciates HaShem’s Name, he makes clear to himself the force of his belief in God’s Presence and Intervention in our personal lives.

Gimel.

השבע בשמי: דברים פרק י (כ) אֶת־יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ תִּירָא אֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ:

לא תשבע: דברים פרק ה (יא) לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת־שֵׁם־יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לַשָּׁוְא כִּי לֹא יְנַקֶּה יְקֹוָק אֵת אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׂא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ לַשָּׁוְא:

תרגום יונתן דברים פרשת ואתחנן פרק ה פסוק יא

(יא) עַמִּי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא יִשְׁתְּבַּע חָד מִנְכוֹן בְּשׁוּם מֵימְרֵיהּ דַה' אֱלָקכוֹן עַל מַגַן אֲרוּם לָא מְזַכֵּי ה' בְּיוֹם דִינָא רַבָּא יַת כָּל מַאן דְּמִשְׁתְּבַּע בִּשְׁמֵיהּ עַל מַגָן:

1.  R. Eliyahu Mizrachi disagrees with RaMBaM’s depiction of taking an oath with HaShem’s Name as a positive Mitzva. Since it is only a device to be invoked under a particular circumstance, i.e., during the course of a trial, when someone’s credibility is under scrutiny, taking an oath is a means by which an individual can support such credibility, that is not the same as a positive obligation and means for ideally serving HaShem. It is permitted under extenuating circumstances, but not something to go out of your way to perform as part of your Divine service. At best such an oath is optional and permissible, but not obligatory. (In fact, taking an oath with HaShem’s Name is intended to serve as a type of non-mechanical “lie-detector”, in the sense that someone not telling the truth will be loath to take God’s Name in vain, and therefore will be led to admit his malfeasance, rather than adding to it. In that sense this is parallel to the requirement in secular courts to swear on a bible to tell the truth during the course of one’s testimony. The avoidance on the part of observant Jews to “swear” and instead “attest” is also a reflection of a hesitancy to engage in anything that smacks of such an oath “under God”.)

2.  הוא אשר לימדנו דרכי המתחייבין—since the only context where making such an oath is permissible is during a court case when one of the litigants is suspected of not telling the truth and therefore is required to swear using God’s Name, i.e., a מתחייב, how can such a situation be used to determine an obligatory manner in which to serve God in general, when it is only someone who finds himself in an unfortunate positionof being suspected of lying who is required to undertake such an oath?

3.  Lev Sameach (see www.Hebrewbooks.org http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24105&st=%d7%9e%d7%a6%d7%95%d7%94+%d7%96'&pgnum=196      pp. 196-9) points out that Mizrachi’s assumption, i.e., that the two clauses that RaMBaM posits, a) when a Shevua is not necessary, there is a negative prohibition against taking one with God’s Name, and b) when a Shevua is necessary there is a positive Mitzva to invoke God’s Name, does not mean that the latter has to be optional rather than obligatory, and that the two aspects of Shevua are not comparable to the instructions given by a doctor to a patient regarding what he should not eat when he is ill and what he can resume eating once he is once again well, nor to the Pesach context in which Matza must be eaten and Chametz must be avoided.

Difference #1: In the case of Shevua, the two cases might in fact be obligatory, i.e., not only must one avoid taking a Shevua with God’s Name when it is unnecessary, but when a Shevua is required in court, it is an obligation to Davka invoke God’s Name as part of one’s Avoda. The comparable case with respect to a doctor and patient, would be instructions given once the patient is well regarding not what he is now able/permitted to eat, but what he must eat in order to maintain his state of health. With respect to the Pesach analogy, rather than saying that eating Matza is optional since one could just eat fruit or other non-breadlike items (this obviously is not the case on Leil HaSeder where there is an explicit Mitzva to eat Matza as part of the Seder ritual), that does not mean that there isn’t an obligation—at the very least a Kiyum, if not a Chiyuv—to eat Matza during the Pesach. Using Lev Sameach’s language, “if one wishes to eat something like bread during Pesach, then there is a positive Mitzva, obligation to eat Matza.”

Difference #2: In the case of the doctor and Pesach, the two clauses are two sides of the same issue, with one being dependent upon the other, i.e., the doctor tells his patient while you are ill you cannot eat certain things, which you will be able to eat once again when you recover your health; similarly in terms of Pesach, you cannot eat Chametz and therefore the only bread-like material that you can eat is Matza. However in the case of Shavua, the two clauses are independent of one another. On the one hand, there are the instances where a Shevua is unnecessary. And then there are the cases where it is necessary. If a person were never to be in court, or even if he is involved in a trial, he is never in a situation where it is he who must swear, then it never has to come about. (The contrast with Pesach is obvious; with respect to the patient, it is possible that the person will never recover his health, but the commentator appears to be taking a more optimistic view of his prognosis.)

Daled.

1.  RaMBaN:

#1: The verse inferentially is not stating a positive Commandment, but rather a negative prohibition, i.e., if you will invoke a Deity, it can only be the Name of HaShem, and not some other object of worship.

#2:  You can only rarely and optionally invoke an oath with the Name of HaShem since there are all sorts of high-level spiritual prerequisites before you can do so.

#3:  In order that everything you do be for the sake of Heaven, you should think of all of your actions as if they are Shevuot that mention HaShem’s Name. In this manner you can sanctify even the most mundane of your daily actions.

2.  In his third interpretation, RaMBaN avoids the problems encountered by Tanchuma and RaMBaM entailed when one follows the Peshat, and simply understands the phrase “ובשמו תשבע” as referring to non-Shevua activities. One should think of all of those activities as if  they constitute Shevuot with Shem HaShem.

3. 

תהלים פרק קמו (ב) אֲהַלְלָה יְקֹוָק בְּחַיָּי אֲזַמְּרָה לֵאלֹקי בְּעוֹדִי:

I will praise the LORD while I live; I will sing praises unto my God while I have my being.

The literal interpretation of the verse would describe the Psalmist as regularly engaging in uttering praises to HaShem, like the Pesukei D’Zimra section of Shacharit. RaMBaN applies the verse metaphorically, just as he views “ובשמו תשבע” metaphorically, i.e., in both cases what is being referenced are mundane actions that are carried out for the sake of Heaven, rather than overt oaths and songs of praise.

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות ברכת הפירות סימן רלא

שכל כוונותיו יהיו לשם שמים, ובו סעיף אחד.

סעיף א

(א) אם אי אפשר לו ללמוד בלא שינת הצהרים, יישן. הגה: (ב) וכשניעור משנתו א"צ לברך אלקי נשמה (ב"י); וי"א שיקרא קודם שיישן: (ג) א ויהי נועם (תהילים צ, יז) (כל בו); ובלבד שלא יאריך בה, שאסור לישן ביום (ד) יותר משינתהסוס שהוא שתין נשמי, ואף בזה המעט לא תהא כוונתו להנאת גופו, אלא להחזיק גופו לעבודת השי"ת; וכן בכל מה שיהנה בעולם הזה, לא יכוין להנאתו, אלא לעבודת הבורא יתברך, כדכתיב: * בכל דרכיך דעהו (משלי ג, ו) ואמרוחכמים: כל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים, שאפילו דברים של רשות, כגון האכילה והשתיה וההליכה והישיבה והקימה והתשמיש והשיחה וכל צרכי גופך, יהיו כולם לעבודת בוראך, או לדבר הגורם עבודתו, שאפילו היה צמא ורעב, אם אכלושתה להנאתו אינו משובח, (ה) אלא יתכוין שיאכל וישתה כפי חיותו, לעבוד את בוראו; וכן אפילו לישב (ו) ב בסוד ישרים, ולעמוד במקום צדיקים, ולילך בעצת תמימים, אם עשה להנאת עצמו והשלים חפצו ותאותו, אינו משובח אלא א"כעשה לשם שמים; וכן בשכיבה, א"צ לומר שבזמן שיכול לעסוק בתורה ובמצות לא יתגרה בשינה לענג עצמו, אלא אפילו בזמן שהוא יגע וצריך לישן כדי לנוח מיגיעתו, אם עשה להנאת גופו אינו משובח, אלא יתכוין לתת שינה לעיניו ולגופומנוחה לצורך הבריאות שלא תטרף דעתו בתורה מחמת מניעת השינה; וכן בתשמיש האמורה בתורה, אם עשה להשלים תאותו או להנאת גופו ה"ז מגונה, ואפי' אם נתכוין כדי שיהיו לו בנים שישמשו אותו וימלאו מקומו אינו משובח,אלא (ז) יתכוין שיהיו לו בנים לעבודת בוראו או שיתכוין לקיים מצות עונה כאדם הפורע חובו; וכן בשיחה, (ח) אפי' לספר בדברי חכמה צריך שתהיה כונתו לעבודת הבורא או לדבר המביא לעבודתו. כללו של דבר, חייב אדם לשום עיניוולבו על דרכיו ולשקול כל מעשיו במאזני שכלו, וכשרואה דבר שיביא לידי עבודת הבורא יתברך יעשהו, ואם לאו לא יעשהו; ומי שנוהג כן, עובד את בוראו תמיד.