Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 6 – The Prohibition of Erasing the Holy Names

Introduction: The Place of Chapter 6 in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah

Speaker 1: Good day, we are going to learn the sixth chapter, the sixth chapter of the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah.

I want to give a sense of what the context is. We have been learning the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah – it means "foundations of the Torah" – but in the first four chapters and also the last three chapters, these are matters of fundamental beliefs, and also the entire universe that we learned about in the first four chapters. After that, there are two chapters in the middle, 5 and 6, which deal with matters of commandments (mitzvos). Chapter 5 we already learned in the shiur – the topic of sanctification of God's Name (kiddush Hashem) and desecration of God's Name (chillul Hashem), and now we are going to learn another matter, which is the topic of destroying things upon which His Name is called (l'abed devarim sh'nikra shemo aleihem).

We can see here in the commandments – I'll bring the commandments here:

- The first five commandments – that is the first four chapters.

- Then "to sanctify His Name and not to desecrate His Name" – that is the fifth chapter.

- Then we learn 9 and 10 – that is the Laws of Prophecy, from the seventh and ninth and subsequent chapters.

- "Not to destroy things upon which His Name is called" – that is another commandment that has to do with... you can see that it's connected to desecration of God's Name, "to desecrate His Name," something like that... but this is already really a practical law, really a...

Speaker 2: They are all laws, but what you mean to say is that "to know that there is a God" requires learning deep topics about what a Creator means and so forth. But later it will be about what prophecy means – prophecy is an amazing thing, how God speaks to people. These are more straightforward technical matters – not erasing the holy Names – it's more matters of action, practical law (halacha l'ma'aseh) about doing things with the body itself.

Speaker 1: Yes, true. I also mean that these laws in that sense, as you say, there are fundamental principles in the sense of the roots, and then from that come the actions. And here this is apparently the actions that emerge. But one can say that these are the actions that relate to the roots, because the guarding, for example, of the sanctity of God's Name is, as it were, the action that corresponds – it relates to the topic of the very existence of God's Name, right? The existence of God's Name – God is holy, so consequently one also treats His Names with holiness, and consequently one also sanctifies His Name, etc.

So one can say, just as this is... if someone were to ask what is the worst thing a Jew can do – I don't know, but one of the worst things is to erase God's Name. Which is, as it were, in action – you believe in God, not exactly, but you can say that erasing God's Name has the effect of weakening one's faith as well, so to speak. Because the main thing in these matters is indeed primarily matters of the heart, but there is also a component of action.

---

Halacha 1: Anyone Who Destroys One of the Holy Names – Receives Lashes by Torah Law

Speaker 1: The Rambam says as follows: "Anyone who destroys one of the holy, pure Names by which the Holy One, Blessed be He, is called – receives lashes (malkos) by Torah law." He receives lashes by Torah law.

The Rambam says, as the verse states: "It is stated regarding idolatry, 'And you shall destroy their names from that place.'" There is one of the positive commandments that the Rambam enumerated – that when Jews arrive in the Land of Israel or in a city where they have authority, they should destroy the names of idolatry from that place. "Their names" (shemam) – he says it doesn't say "name" (shem) but "their names" (shemam) – that the name of the idolatry, perhaps the honor of the idolatry, should be destroyed.

And then there is a negative commandment, that regarding God: "You shall not do so to the Lord your God." Regarding God, one may never destroy His Name, blessed be He. It is a negative commandment that one may not erase God's Name.

Discussion: The Plain Meaning of the Verse Versus the Homiletical Interpretation

Speaker 1: It's interesting. It is, as I recall, that this is not the simple, plain meaning (peshuto shel mikra) of that verse, because the verse continues to say that one should not make offerings outside the Temple (shechitas chutz). "You shall not do so" means, as they learn – Rashi there in the Chumash – that one should not do as they do. They sacrifice everywhere; they have "their names." "Their names" in the plain sense means something like high places (bamos) – a high place upon which his name is called, he says. These are the places where his name is designated, because the idol worshippers believe that there lies the name of the idolatry. You should not do so; you should not make altars everywhere, but only "to the place that He will choose."

But regardless of that, there is indeed a homiletical interpretation (drash). It is the Sefer HaMitzvos where the Rambam made it into a commandment. It is a drash – the Gemara says this. It is a drash that teaches that "you shall not do so" – you shall not destroy God's Name either.

It makes sense – that idolatry one should destroy, but God one should not destroy. It makes a lot of sense, because "You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain" is essentially about uttering – it is, as it were, verbally disgracing God's Name, and this is the equivalent in writing or in action. It is very similar to "You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain."

Speaker 2: Isn't it at least something like a juxtaposition (hekesh) – that exactly what one does to idolatry, one should not do to God?

Speaker 1: Yes.

---

Halacha 2: Seven Names – Which Names Are Forbidden to Erase

Speaker 1: Okay. The Rambam says as follows – which Names of God does the prohibition of destroying apply to? The Rambam says: "There are seven Names." There are seven Names for God.

So here we really begin to talk about Names – literally names that are written on paper or in a verse. That is, what the Rambam said in the commandment "to destroy things upon which His Name is called" could truly be more general. Just as the Gemara says, one who uproots a stone from the altar – who breaks apart the Temple – perhaps he also transgresses, because he also did exactly what one does to idolatry. But here the Rambam goes more into the law of... it could be that the other is also the law, but here we go more into the law of what exactly constitutes erasing a Name.

A Novel Point: "By Which He Is Called" – What Does a "Name" Mean for God?

Speaker 1: I think the Rambam already informed us a bit – "by which the Holy One, Blessed be He, is called" – I imagine that God doesn't have a name in the same sense that a person has a name. Because earlier, when the Rambam wanted to begin speaking about God, he couldn't find anything more to say than "the First Existent" (ha'nimtza ha'rishon) – God who exists. So "by which He is called" – it's all about how we relate to God. But since this is our way of relating to God, one must treat it with great honor.

The Seven Names

Speaker 1: "There are seven Names: The Name written Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh" – that is the first Name – "and it," says the Rambam, is called the Explicit Name (Shem HaMeforash). Perhaps one can say that this is the primary Name of God, or the Shem HaMeforash – it says the most about God.

"Or the one written Aleph-Dalet-Nun-Yod" – when one writes it, one writes Aleph-Dalet-Nun-Yod; this one is also not pronounced as written – one says "Adnus" (the term of lordship). But when one says the Name, one says Aleph-Dalet-Nun-Yod.

There, to Moses our teacher, God revealed Himself with the Name Aleph-Heh-Yod-Heh, the Name Shin-Dalet-Yod, and the Name Tzadi-Beis-Aleph-Vav-Tav.

Discussion: Seven or Eight Names?

Speaker 1: The Rambam says there are seven, but if you count, you see there are eight. One must say that either he means to count the Tetragrammaton and Aleph-Dalet-Nun-Yod as one, because that's how one pronounces it, or perhaps Aleph-Lamed and Aleph-Lamed-Vav-Heh are the same.

Speaker 2: He apparently said the same thing – that what one says as Aleph-Vav and what one writes as Aleph-Dalet.

Speaker 1: Right, but now he's talking about erasing something written, right, so it is indeed extra.

Speaker 2: So it's a... no, no, Aleph-Vav and Aleph-Dalet – it's a combination of one type of Name, yes? The two have a connection.

Speaker 1: Could be. Yes.

Discussion: Why Is Yod-Heh (the Two-Letter Name) Missing?

Speaker 2: One thing he counts here, and one he doesn't count – for example, Yod-Heh. What about that one?

Speaker 1: Yod-Heh? He's going to say it; he's going to say it.

Speaker 2: Is it an abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton?

Speaker 1: He's going to say it explicitly in halacha 4 – it is a Name in its own right (shem bifnei atzmo). So why doesn't he count it here? This requires further investigation (tzarich iyun).

Discussion: Tzevakos as a Name – A Difficulty

Speaker 1: One thing that is interesting – these are all things stated in the Gemara – I agree with all of them except for Tzevakos. I don't understand that Tzevakos is a Name, because one doesn't see in Tanach... just Tzevakos by itself, right? Usually it says "Hashem Tzevakos." Not usually – always. There is not a single time in all of Tanach where Tzevakos stands alone meaning God. It always says "Hashem Tzevakos."

There are many times Tzevakos appears – the Jews are called Tzevakos. Yes, "the hosts of God (tzivkos Hashem) from the land of Egypt." Then it is certainly not a Name.

Speaker 2: Because "Hashem Tzevakos" is God, and "Tzivkos Hashem" is the Jews.

Speaker 1: Exactly. So, very good. But then it is certainly not a Name.

Speaker 2: Just as the Name Aleph-Dalet-Nun-Yod can also be mundane (chol), that's not a problem. Even Elokim can be mundane. That's not the point.

Speaker 1: But I'm saying that even regarding God, it never appears by itself. It's based on a baraisa in Tractate Shevuos that states this among the Tannaim. I don't understand it. I'm just saying that if someone can explain to me how it can be.

It could be that when one writes it together with God's Name, then both words become part of the Name. But you are obligating two sets of lashes for the word Tzevakos alone. Why is that? I just want to understand.

Speaker 2: It states explicitly that it is a Name on its own, and the Kabbalists, for example, always count Names – they write Tzevakos alone.

Speaker 1: But it looks very strange to me. Tzevakos means armies, doesn't it? Everything is... God is the One who leads the hosts of heaven, the hosts of earth, and the like. I don't understand precisely how it is a designation.

Speaker 2: If you would have seen that it is mentioned referring to God, it would have been like the appellations (kinuyim) that the Rambam lists later. But here he says that it is actually a full-fledged Name.

Speaker 1: It must be so, because otherwise the law wouldn't stand.

Speaker 2: Exactly. It must be so, because otherwise the law wouldn't stand.

Speaker 1: It's puzzling. It indeed doesn't seem that the commentators on the spot explain it at all. They cite that it is stated in a baraisa – the Kesef Mishneh, they all cite that it is stated in the baraisa. But it could be the baraisa also means as I'm saying, that when it says... it's not clear, not clear to me.

Even a Single Letter – One Receives Lashes

Speaker 1: Okay. "Anyone who erases even one letter of these seven Names – receives lashes." Someone who erases even one letter of the seven Names also receives lashes.

This is interesting – it doesn't mean that he erases the entire word; even if it says Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh and you erase the Heh, you also receive lashes.

Speaker 2: It makes sense, because then the word loses its meaning, so you have also erased the Name.

Speaker 1: Perhaps not. Let's say it can still have a meaning – I don't know. I think the word... it seems that... this is indeed the whole distinction between Names that are Names and the appellations that we will see. It must be that in the Names themselves there is an inherent sanctity (kedusha b'gufa), and once there is a Name...

The Distinction Between the Tetragrammaton and Other Names

Speaker 1: It's interesting that there is a great distinction between the Tetragrammaton and the other Names regarding other matters, but not regarding these laws, it seems here. Not regarding the erasure of God's Name.

Speaker 2: One says substitutes (sharos) – there is indeed a distinction with saying substitutes. "Not as I am written" (lo k'mi she'ani nikhtav) – that law, that one says substitutes. They also say that it is more of a proper noun (shem ha'etzem), meaning the Tetragrammaton says something more about God than the other terms.

Shem HaMeforash – A Dispute Among the Rishonim

Speaker 1: And the Rambam did not forget to say how the Shem HaMeforash – this is the Shem HaMeforash; it is a term of the Sages. And by the way, there is a dispute about this – the Maharshal does not hold this way. The Rambam assumes that when it says in the Aggada, for example in a tractate, "the Shem HaMeforash," it means the Name Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh as it is written. This is not agreed upon by all the Rishonim.

Speaker 2: What does Rashi say? What does the forty-two-letter Name (shem ben mem-beis) mean?

Speaker 1: Ah, ah.

---

Halacha 2 (continued): Letters Appended to the Name Before It – Permitted to Erase

Speaker 1: Okay, the Rambam continues: "Anything appended to the Name before it" – a word in which God's Name appears, but there are additional letters before it, for example it says "l'Hashem" (to God), or yes – "anything appended to the Name before it is permitted to erase. For example, the lamed from 'l'Hashem,' and the beis from 'b'Elokim,' and the like."

The meaning is: you should not think that just as I said that even one letter of God's Name incurs lashes if one erases it – but if it says "b'Elokim," does the aleph also acquire sanctity, since it is adjacent and visible, it is one word?

The Shem HaMeforash – The Rambam's Approach

The Rambam learns that when it states that the High Priest (Kohen Gadol) would pronounce the Shem HaMeforash, it means the Name Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh as it is written. This is not agreed upon by all the Rishonim.

Speaker 2: What does the Rosh say? What does the forty-two-letter Name (shem ben mem-beis) mean?

Speaker 1: Okay.

---

Halacha 3 – Letters Appended to the Name Before and After It

The Law of Letters Appended Before – Permitted to Erase

The Rambam continues: "Anything appended to the Name before it" – a word in which God's Name appears, but there is an additional letter before it, for example it says "l'Hashem" or... yes – "anything appended to the Name before it is permitted to erase, for example the lamed from 'l'Hashem,' and the beis from 'b'Elokim,' and the like."

This is indeed what you meant – that just as I said that even one letter of God's Name acquires sanctity, you would have thought that when it says "b'Elokim," the beis also acquires sanctity, since it is attached and recognizable as one word, a part of the same word. But it does not then have the sanctity of God's Name. This apparently relates to what I said – that it is more that the essential Name itself acquires sanctity. The fact that it is still part of the word – but shortly we will see that here, yes, what comes after it is forbidden.

The Law of Letters Appended After – May Not Be Erased

"And anything appended to the Name after it, for example the chaf of 'Elohecha' (your God)" – this comes after God's Name is written; at the end there is a letter – "or the chaf-mem of 'Eloheichem' (your God, plural), and the like – may not be erased." These one may not erase.

Before it – interestingly – one may erase, but what comes after the Name, that one may not erase.

The Reason for the Distinction – The Name Sanctifies Them

"And why? Because the letters of the Name – the Name sanctifies them." Because it is already after – when you arrive at the word "Eloheichem," you have already finished reading the entire word of God's Name, and "Elohi" has already come; the chaf-mem already catches on to the sanctity, or something like that. "And why? Because the letters of the Name – the Name sanctifies them" – the Name that precedes it sanctifies them.

There is a dispute among the Tannaim about this, the Kesef Mishneh cites it, and this is how the Rambam rules.

Discussion: Comparison to "Tzevakos" – A Conceptual Reasoning

I was thinking that perhaps this is similar to Tzevakos. Now one understands – think about it, as it were – let us think about the meaning. I think that the Name is holy with its sound, just as there is already a sanctified Name.

What does this mean? I can think of a simple thing – like "God," okay, like not "God" but "your God" – Elohecha, Eloheichem, Eloheinu, "our God." The "our" is also divine. Makes sense?

Speaker 2: When you say "Eloheinu," to whom is the Elokim referring?

Speaker 1: Very good. So the Elokim is – in the Elokim, the Elokim is more of a... not exactly. I'm saying this: it doesn't say something about God. "Eloheinu" doesn't say something about God. "Elohecha" doesn't say something about God. Just like "Elohei Tzevakos," "Hashem Tzevakos" – now do you understand? Perhaps Tzevakos is only a type of appendage after the Name (nitpal l'shem acharon), according to the Rabbis.

Difficulty: Chanun V'Rachum Versus Tzevakos

Speaker 2: What are you asking, though – if it says "Hashem Chanun" (God is gracious)? Yes, why should it be so different from "Hashem Tzevakos"?

Speaker 1: One needs to know the distinction with Tzevakos – that Tzevakos is nothing more than a...

Speaker 2: Very good, the baraisa indeed says that Tzevakos is different. One needs to understand why – there is some distinction. I understand you.

The Law of Rabbinically-Ordained Lashes (Makas Mardus) – Letters Appended After

But the Rambam says, nevertheless – here we hold – nevertheless, "since they have been sanctified and it is forbidden to erase them," the letters appended after the Name. The Rambam said that, for example, the chaf-mem of "Eloheichem" may not be erased. "One who erases any of the appended letters has indeed transgressed" – he has indeed committed a transgression – "but he does not receive lashes" – he does not receive Torah-mandated lashes – "rather, he is given rabbinically-ordained lashes (makas mardus)." You see that it is a Rabbinic prohibition.

Note: Makas Mardus in the Rambam – An Important Principle

Very good, that's how it sounds. The principle is – we see, we now have makas mardus for the first time. The Rambam cites very many times when one receives makas mardus – it is generally when one transgresses a Rabbinic prohibition. Always.

So that's the Rambam... This is actually the first time, I don't know when there's a rabbinic prohibition. Yes, the Rambam brought such a principle... That is, it says so in the Mishnah, but the Rambam applied it very consistently, that when there is a rabbinic prohibition, one is punished with lashes of rebellion (makat mardut).

Speaker 2: When there is makat mardut, there is makat mardut.

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: It's not so clear.

Speaker 1: The Rambam understood it this way. In the Gemara we see a few times that it mentions such lashes, the Gemara asks: isn't this lashes? And it answers that it is makat mardut. The Rambam made from this a very strong principle, that almost every time he writes "he receives makat mardut."

Speaker 2: It's not clear that there can be makat mardut however the court wants. It's not clear that there is such a law like lashes.

Speaker 1: There is something that the Rambam also says, but it's not clear that it's as consistent as the laws of lashes, the way the Rambam makes it.

---

Halacha 4 – One Who Writes Part of a Name

Aleph-Lamed from Elokim, Yud-Hei from the Tetragrammaton – May Not Be Erased

Section 4. The Rambam says: "One who writes aleph-lamed from Elokim" – someone wrote, he didn't write out the entire name Elokim, rather he wrote aleph-lamed – "or yud-hei from the name Havayah – it may not be erased" – one may not erase it either, because it is a part of the names that may not be erased.

"And it goes without saying yud-hei, which is a name in its own right" – yud-hei is itself a name, that one certainly may not – not only because it is the first two letters of Hashem, but because it is itself a name. "For it is part of the Shem HaMeforash" – it is part of the Shem HaMeforash (the Explicit Name).

Question: Why didn't the Rambam list yud-hei among the seven names?

It's very interesting – why didn't the Rambam list yud-hei here among the names? Why didn't the Rambam list yud-hei earlier when he enumerated the names?

Speaker 2: Good question, huh?

Speaker 1: I mean, the Kesef Mishneh raises this point, right? That the sanctity of yud-hei comes from the fact that it is the beginning of the Tetragrammaton, etc.

Speaker 2: It doesn't appear in the Torah?

Speaker 1: Very funny.

The Raavad's Critique

First of all, the Raavad disagrees with the entire halacha, he says it's not true. No, the Raavad makes a distinction between aleph-lamed and yud-hei versus what you're about to say: "But one who writes shin-dalet from the name Sha-dai, or tzadi-bet from the name Tzeva'ot – these may be erased" – because they have no meaning on their own. Do you hear what I'm saying? Shin-dalet alone has no meaning, and tzadi-bet has no meaning.

Discussion: Is There a Dispute Between the Rambam and the Raavad?

Speaker 2: I don't understand, the Raavad is saying the same thing as the Rambam. The Raavad is saying the same thing.

Speaker 1: It could be that the Raavad is saying that the reason aleph-lamed and yud-hei are forbidden is because they have meaning on their own, because they are themselves a name. Not just because they are the beginning. Do you understand?

The Rambam perhaps makes an interesting distinction – he says the beginning of yud-hei or aleph-lamed... Yes, but the Rambam perhaps says an interesting approach: he says that the first two letters of these two names are forbidden, but the first two letters of the others are not. But that's not the point about the names – the point is that yud-hei alone or aleph-lamed alone is a name. That's what the Raavad says.

It's not clear. There is a dispute about this, what the explanation is – whether the Raavad actually disagreed, perhaps he had a different textual version. It's not clear.

Principle: Intent While Writing Doesn't Matter

Yes. In any case, the halacha that the Rambam states – that aleph-lamed and yud-hei have sanctity on their own, they have meaning on their own, therefore they are also like a name. But in contrast, the first two letters of other names that don't have their own meaning – yes, those may be erased.

Very well. That is the halacha, that is clear, everyone agrees to this halacha, there is no dispute. It's just an interesting halacha.

What is the explanation? Why can one be erased? Because it already has a name. The fact that you had intent to write the name, that doesn't matter at all. A Jew began writing tzadi-bet, he intended to write Tzeva'ot, he had intent of sanctity of the Name – it changes nothing.

But it's interesting, because the significance of aleph-lamed or yud-hei is not because he began writing the name, but because aleph-lamed alone or yud-hei alone is a name.

Why Doesn't the Rambam Count Yud-Hei Among the Seven Names?

So why doesn't the Rambam count it among the seven names? It's something interesting. Because their significance doesn't come from being the first two letters of a name. It appears that it doesn't.

Speaker 2: Well yes, well he does count it, because it's the same thing.

Speaker 1: It appears that the Rambam understood somehow that yud-hei is only holy when one wrote it as the beginning of writing the Tetragrammaton.

Speaker 2: Chapter 20. It does appear in the Torah, not just the Torah – in Psalms. "Yah dalkit Yah," it does appear. "Yah dalkit Yah" for example.

Speaker 1: That is essentially a designation, an abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton. That's the Rambam's position.

Yud-Hei – The Tetragrammaton vs. a Designation

It's interesting, because the Tetragrammaton is never pronounced at all, and this name one does say it, there's no problem saying it. It appears that it is somehow a designation.

The Sages say "For a hand is on the throne of Yah" – it could be that this itself means that it separates the yud-hei from the vav-hei. The Name is not complete. Yud-hei is half of the Tetragrammaton. It's not really a name unto itself.

Speaker 2: And aleph-lamed is also half of Elokim?

Speaker 1: What? Aleph-lamed is not half of Elokim but...

Speaker 2: Aleph-lamed, does it even appear as "Kel Elokim"? It appears many times.

Speaker 1: I... I don't know already, I even many times, but it does appear? It could appear. It could, it could even also be yes, the Name. It also says "For with Yah, Hashem, is the Rock of worlds" – it's Yah Havayah. We do see that it is...

Summary: Three Types of Torah-Level Names

Okay, but up to here is names. Right, moving on. What this is – which are the names? One might need to explain briefly what these names are:

- Names – these are the names that may not be erased. There are seven.

- Appended from after – there are all those that follow.

- Aleph-lamed, yud-hei – there is an additional eighth, yes.

These are the three types of Torah-level names.

---

Halacha 5 – Designations (Kinuyim)

Designations – May Be Erased

But there is another type of names, which are called designations (kinuyim). Not names, but designations.

"Designations – with which one praises the Holy One, Blessed be He, such as Gracious and Merciful" – or "the Great, the Mighty, and the Awesome" – or "the Faithful, Zealous, and Strong" – it says about the Almighty "a zealous God (Kel kana)" – "and the like – they are like other holy writings" – they are holy words, they are words that one directs toward the Almighty – but nevertheless they are not names.

Why Are Designations Not Names?

Let me explain. The reason is simple, because all these things are designations – therefore one can even say about a person that he is merciful, one follows in the ways of the Holy One, Blessed be He, that he is merciful. It's simply a praise, a designation. One can say about a person that he is merciful.

Speaker 2: A strong one or something like that. With the hei and the vav and the gimmel before it.

Speaker 1: Okay, the point is though: it's not a name that one calls the Almighty that pertains exclusively to the Almighty.

Note: Guide for the Perplexed – All Names Besides the Shem HaMeforash Are Actions

This is how the Rambam learns. And although – wait, I'll explain a bit more – although truly, the Rambam mentioned here the topic of the Shem HaMeforash, truly, for example in the Guide for the Perplexed (Moreh Nevuchim), the Rambam explains that truly all names besides the Shem HaMeforash are actions.

Principle from the Guide for the Perplexed: All Names Besides the Shem HaMeforash Are "Actions"

It's simply a praise, a designation. I can also say about a person that he is an eye, if one wants. It means a strong one, or something like that. With the eyes being called upon him.

Okay, the point is though that it's not a name that one calls the Almighty, rather it's a praise about the Almighty. This is how the Rambam learns.

And by the way, one needs to explain here that truly, and the Rambam mentioned here the topic of the Shem HaMeforash — truly, in the Guide for the Perplexed the Rambam explains that truly all names, besides the Shem HaMeforash, are actions. Actions means the things that the Almighty does. For example, he says, Ado-nai means the Almighty governs the world, and we learn "Master of the earth," yes, chapter 1, Master of the earth. The Almighty does — not what He is. It's not a name of what He is. What He is, is only the Shem HaMeforash, which also doesn't say what He is — which says that He is not anything like all other things.

Discussion: If So, Are the Seven Names Also a Type of Description?

If so, seemingly the names are also a description. But it appears that there is still a halachic distinction. The halacha doesn't reckon with this principle. The halacha does make a distinction that there are names where our relationship is the sanctity of the Name. Regarding the sanctity of the Name, which has no acquisition, it certainly speaks of an action, as he says that a person can do it.

And one also needs to say another thing, that holy writings doesn't yet mean that one may erase them actively. There could be a separate halacha. Holy writings themselves may not be erased, but it means that they don't have the specific halacha of sanctity of the Name. One needs to understand what the explanation is, some distinction.

Yes? We say names... It could be that all these matters with the concern is not that the Almighty is being affected, it's still our sanctity of the Name, our regard for the Almighty. So seemingly the explanation is that the names that are enumerated as the seven names, they are truly more attributed by us to the Almighty.

I'm saying, it's not an answer that says there's no question the way we see it. That there's no question, so it is. Only that if so, people already need to be concerned. But what, explain to me the relationship. We view it as the Almighty's name, not as something that the Almighty...

Distinction Between Designations and Names: Exclusive to the Almighty

Yes, "gracious" is a praise that one can also use for a mighty person. One says about Samson that he's a mighty man, there's no problem. But in contrast, the earlier ones, one uses them exclusively for the Almighty.

---

Halacha 6 — A Vessel That Had a Holy Name Written On It

Okay, let's take it up. The Rambam continues, all these names...

He could have learned the vessels, he could have learned a certain technical matter.

A vessel that had a holy name written on it — one cuts off the place of the Name and stores it away (genizah).

If there is a vessel, one may not destroy the vessel, because it has the Almighty's name on it. What must one do? One must cut off the piece where the Almighty's name is, and one must put it in genizah.

Novel Point: Even Indirect Erasure by Dissolving the Vessel

One may however break the vessel — that's perhaps not a novel point, perhaps it's not obvious? I don't know, a vessel is after all a "thing that has a permissible alternative" (davar sheyesh lo matirin). One derives from this. The entire concept of the Name of Heaven comes from the entire vessel. What does the Almighty need from this entire halacha? What is the vessel? It doesn't mean that it's nullified on the vessel or what?

Even if the Name was engraved in a metal vessel or a glass vessel — it wasn't written, rather it was etched in a different way — and he melted down the vessel, and the entire vessel becomes transformed, and with it also the Almighty's name — he receives lashes.

Rather, he cuts off its place — one must cut off the place where the Name of Heaven is written — and stores it away, and one must put it in genizah.

Novel Point: Engraving in a Vessel — Not Just Writing with Ink

The novel point is that it's not only if it was written with ink or something like that — it's a part of the vessel. Furthermore, if you have metal, or you pour the vessel...

One thing, the novel point is perhaps also this: that you're not doing something directly to the Almighty's name, you're only doing something to the entire vessel, and automatically the Name becomes nullified. You could say, the entire vessel became nullified. I didn't erase the Almighty's name, I made it no longer a vessel — but in practice, through this method the Almighty's name was erased, so one must cut it and store it in genizah.

---

Halacha 6 (continued) — A Holy Name Written on One's Flesh

Now, if a holy name was written on one's flesh — the person may not wash himself, because that would erase the Name of Heaven — he may not wash and may not anoint, and also may not stand in a place of filth.

This is not just about the prohibition stated here, but simply as another halacha of not disgracing the Name of Heaven — one may not stand in a place of filth.

Immersion for a Mitzvah — He Wraps It with a Reed

Well, what does one do? But the person needs to wash. So when he needs to wash — then according to immersion for a mitzvah (tevilah shel mitzvah) where he needs to go wash — he must cover the Almighty's name. He wraps it with a reed — he must cover it with a piece of grass or something — and immerses, and immerses himself this way.

Discussion: What Does "Mesabev" Mean?

And if he didn't find a reed — if he didn't find something with which to cover it — he wraps around with a shard.

Gemi means papyrus, right? Such a thing that grows, such a grass.

What does "mesabev with a shard" mean? The meaning? What should he do? It's understood, he wraps around and...

But what is the meaning? Should he look for a cover, should he look for not a touch? He should look for a... you say touch. Let's ask him.

If he can't, he doesn't have a reed with which to wrap it, he should search. He should search for something. He needs to find a reed. He can't just go into the mikveh, he needs to go find something. It's not a ruling that ideally if he finds something he should cover it, rather he must find something and definitely cover it.

It Should Not Be Tight — So As Not to Create a Barrier (Chatzitzah)

It should not be tight — but of course, with immersion there is another problem: that if one places something tight and the water cannot reach there, it is a barrier (chatzitzah). It should not be tight, so as not to create a barrier.

Novel Point: The Reason for Covering — Not Because of Erasure, But Because of Nakedness Before the Name

We see this as necessary. The reason why one was told to cover the Name that is inscribed on his flesh is not because one is afraid it will be erased. Because even if it would be erased incidentally — because on its own there is no prohibition when he doesn't do it intentionally. Rather, the problem why the Sages told one to wrap it is so that one should not stand before the Name naked — that one may not stand naked next to the Name of Hashem. Therefore one must wrap it with something.

Therefore it is sufficient that it not be tight, because if one would need it to be tight, then the immersion wouldn't work, because there would be a problem.

Summary of the Logic

Rather, what is it — there's no problem — one may immerse normally, it's for the purpose of a mitzvah, and if it gets erased there's no problem. But why does one need the reed? One needs the reed specifically.

If one wouldn't have done anything — the Rambam already said that one may not wash so as not to erase. So if one also wouldn't be allowed to wash when going to the mikveh, the person wouldn't be able to go to the mikveh at all. But in practice, the Sages did allow the person to do an immersion for a mitzvah.

And why did they say one should place something? So that one should not stand naked in front of the Name of Hashem. Therefore it is sufficient that it not be tight, because if one would have it tight, one still wouldn't be able to go to the mikveh because of the barrier issue.

---

Halacha 7 — One Who Dismantles a Stone from the Altar / Burns Sacred Wood

Enough for one page, one page. Okay. Up to here are the laws of names.

Now we're going to learn additional things that are also prohibited on account of similar laws with "you shall not do so." We discussed that the prohibition is that one should not do as one does for idolatry. What does one do for idolatry? One destroys their buildings and so forth. One may not do the same thing to the Almighty's property — destroy a place of worship of God.

Distinction: "In a Destructive Manner" — Regarding the Temple vs. Regarding Names

One who dismantles a single stone in a destructive manner — very good, "in a destructive manner." So this is a novel point. For example, the names — even if someone does it for a good reason, seemingly one may not, because it's a name. One beautifies the altar, if you want to fix the altar and one needs to remove — which we already had that with immersion, if it gets erased there's no problem, because one does it because one wants to immerse. Okay.

The Rambam's Words

One who demolishes even a single stone in a destructive manner from the altar, or from the Sanctuary, or from the rest of the Temple courtyard — receives lashes. He receives lashes. Why? As it states regarding idolatry — by idolatry the commandment is "for you shall tear down their altars" — one should indeed break down the altars of idolatry. And upon that, "you shall not do so." Whatever is a commandment regarding idolatry is a prohibition regarding the Almighty. "You shall not do so to the Lord your God."

Discussion: What Does "Sacred Wood" Mean?

And similarly, one who burns sacred wood (atzei hakodesh) — someone who burns trees that are atzei hakodesh. What does this expression mean? Holy trees? Trees that are planted in the place of the Temple?

Seemingly we're not talking about a tree in the Temple area, we're talking about an altar, some object. Or perhaps in the Temple area vicinity? I don't understand what he's discussing here. Yes, it says "place," not a tree. But a tree is also not really a tree. But a tree that one consecrated (makdish) doesn't yet qualify as "sacred wood."

So what does "sacred wood" mean? Is it some kind of mitzvah? Atzei hakodesh — yes, it means hekdesh (consecrated property). Perhaps we need to reconsider hekdesh in general. Where does it say "kodesh" here? It does say kodesh here. But atzei hakodesh is written here. He says here "in a destructive manner." One who burns sacred wood in a destructive manner — trees that were consecrated for hekdesh.

Trees for Building the Temple — Rambam's Responsum

When one donates wood for the Temple, it goes for burning — or burning on the altar. But if one donates wood to build the Temple, like the cypress trees there — Hiram sent special wood to King Solomon — and those trees do have an aspect of holiness, they belong to holiness, to the altar.

And burning them makes logical sense why? Because further on we do the opposite, because they need to be burned. On this there is the commandment that one should burn idolatrous objects, as it states "and their Asherah trees you shall burn with fire," and upon that also applies "you shall not do so to the Lord your God" — that wood designated for holiness may not be burned.

Very good. He brings that someone asked the Rambam in a responsum: What is the meaning in Chapter 6 of Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah of "sacred wood"? What is that? He answered as you said, that it means trees that were prepared for building the Temple. Very good, very good.

---

Halakha 8 — Sacred Writings and Their Commentaries

And the Rambam continues, sacred writings (kitvei hakodesh). Very good. Yes, sacred writings.

Sacred Writings — The Source for Appellations

Sacred writings is the source for names that is not exactly about names — it's from sacred writings. Sacred writings, even if they don't contain the Name of God inside. There is the Name of God that we are concerned about, but sacred writings, even if they don't contain the Name of God — for example, a page of Gemara or a page of Tanakh where it doesn't say...

Which Torah portion doesn't contain God's Name? There are certain ones, yes. You mean it doesn't contain Moses's name, yes? But God's Name — there is a portion where it doesn't appear. Okay.

The Rambam's Words

"And their commentaries and explanations" — this means sefarim (books). Not only sacred writings which literally means Tanakh, but also "their commentaries and explanations" means midrashim, Gemaras, commentators — "it is forbidden to burn them or destroy them by hand." One may not burn them or destroy them by hand. "And one who destroys by hand — receives rabbinical lashes (makkat mardut)." Receives makkat mardut. The whole matter is not a Torah-level prohibition (de'oraita). Very good.

Specifically in a Destructive Manner — Seemingly

Seemingly, this too has the rule that it applies specifically in a destructive manner.

Distinction: Destroying by Hand

If someone wrote a piece of Torah, or even a piece in a Torah scroll, there is a halakha that one may erase it. Writing of the Name may not be erased, even so. Plain sacred writings — there is a distinction between destroying by hand and plain sacred writings. Sacred writings have a prohibition of destroying by hand. Destroying by hand is not necessarily literal destruction.

Regarding Sacred Writings Written by a Jew in Sanctity

The Rema says: "When are these things said? Regarding sacred writings that were written by a Jew in sanctity" — that were written in sanctity.

Halakha 8: A Heretic Jew Who Wrote a Torah Scroll — It Is Burned

The Rambam's Words

Speaker 1: Very good. Seemingly, also regarding what you're saying, that there is the rule that if you go through a marketplace, for example someone wrote a piece of Torah, or even a piece of halakha, even a Torah scroll, with an error — one may erase it. God forbid, you may not erase it even so. Simply, we know a distinction between destroying by hand and plain sacred writings.

Regarding sacred writings there is a prohibition of destroying by hand. Destroying by hand — is not so strictly forbidden. The Rambam says: it is of rabbinic origin (midivrei sofrim). "Regarding sacred writings that were written by a Jew in sanctity" — that were written in sanctity. It already states, the importance thereof comes from the fact that a person wrote it and he did it for the sake of Torah study, and when he wrote it he gave it importance.

A Heretic Jew — The Name Was Not Sanctified

"But a Jewish heretic (min) who wrote a Torah scroll" — a type of Jew who is not a proper Jew in sanctity — "their books and their mentions of God's Name" one may indeed burn along with the Names therein, "because they do not believe in the sanctity of the Name" — they don't believe in the sanctity of the Name — "and they did not write it" — when he wrote it, he did not write it for the sake of the Name — "rather, he considered in his mind that this is like other matters" — he writes it as if it were other things, meaning he thinks it's just a wisdom like other wisdoms. "Since their intent is such, the Name was not sanctified." The holiness of a Torah scroll comes from the fact that the person who studies it, the person who writes it, does so with a sense of importance. Therefore, not only may one burn it, but "it is a mitzvah to burn them, so as not to leave a name for heretics nor for their deeds."

Novel Insight: Holiness Comes from One's Attitude

Very good. Here is the statement we have learned, that the whole... I've said it many times, that the holiness is not an intrinsic holiness — because then perhaps a heretic's would also be holy. Rather, it is the attitude (hityachsut). The first case is not about attitude, because the nonsense is nothing at all. Okay, the nonsense I burn. But it's interesting, because here comes a heretic and he writes a Torah scroll. He asks you: Do you have a Torah scroll? Eh, you don't have a Torah scroll. I have a Torah scroll. You have a Torah scroll? You're burning a Torah scroll? No, I'm burning your Torah scroll. You created a Torah scroll? Well well, I'm burning it.

Discussion: What Kind of Heretic?

Speaker 2: Yes, but the mitzvah to burn them is also somewhat related to the mitzvah of burning altars of idolatry, because it's a form of desecration of God's Name (chillul Hashem), yes. A heretic is an interesting sort of dialectic. "So as not to leave a name" — it was said that we burn it because we want to eradicate the name of idolatry, and it states that... yes.

Speaker 1: I hear, very good. It's interesting. Because the heretic is still a bit not genuine. He says, why does he write a Torah scroll? Why? Because he said so. I thought a heretic is someone who has a false interpretation of the Torah. No — "like other matters." In his view, it has no greater importance than other books.

Speaker 2: Yes, but there it seems even more strongly accurate, because the whole point of heretics (minim) is people who do believe in the Torah, just they have some kind of... He says the Torah states there are two powers. Yes, all the heretics that one argues with — they are people who bring proofs from verses. He doesn't say the Torah is "like other matters." So it seems that the Rambam has introduced here some new type of heretic.

Speaker 1: Perhaps it's with that type of heretic? I always thought this is simply a straightforward halakha. Even books — there is some holiness. Here it turns out, the aspect of heretics is more dominant on the subject of...

Two Practical Differences Regarding a Heretic

Well, we need to know here. There are a few things stated here. What's going on? A heretic who wrote it but he wrote it with a sense of importance? That's one thing. Or what happens when a Jew wrote it but he didn't do it intentionally? Let's say he didn't know the meaning of the words. He wrote it "like other matters." If you gave it to a scribe to copy — okay, but he knows it's a Torah, there's no issue of intent, that it needs to stand in the...

I'm saying, there are two things stated here. One: it doesn't become sanctified when a person writes without a sense of importance. But the second thing here is — otherwise there wouldn't have been the mitzvah because one should not leave "a name for heretics nor for their deeds." That is the distinction between a non-Jew and a heretic.

A Non-Jew Who Wrote the Name — They Are Stored Away (Genizah)

Speaker 2: So look, it's finished. But a non-Jew who wrote the Name — that's a whole topic.

Speaker 1: You see, it does have holiness, but we don't want to have it.

Speaker 2: Why don't you want it? Only that it shouldn't be used. Why? What's wrong?

Speaker 1: It could be a whole topic. You mean if it's needed, but you mean it's not... it's forbidden. "And similarly, sacred writings that have worn out or that were written by a non-Jew — they are to be stored away (yiganezu)." Stored away. Stored away.

Speaker 2: Why should they be stored away? You mean they should be stored away when they're no longer needed? What does it mean? Perhaps.

Speaker 1: Not clear.

Speaker 2: It doesn't state clearly here. They don't know clearly.

Discussion: The Distinction Between Worn Out and Written by a Non-Jew

Speaker 1: "And similarly, sacred writings that have worn out" — ah, here we see — "that have worn out, or that were written by a non-Jew — they are to be stored away." It places both in the same category. That we don't use it for one of two reasons: either because they've worn out, or because a non-Jew wrote them. We see, we don't use something that a non-Jew wrote.

Speaker 2: Does it come out that you'd want to use a Torah that a non-Jew wrote in the study hall?

Speaker 1: Not a Torah, but I know... sacred writings means a Tanakh, a printer...

Speaker 2: No, it doesn't mean a printer. Sacred writings means a Tanakh, that's the literal meaning.

Discussion: Printing and Machines

Speaker 1: If it was once upon a time, one needed many scribes, if one happened to find a scribe — it's much faster with a machine. But you see, before it's a problem, it turns out there's no way around it. Indeed it's difficult, why? What's wrong? If, for argument's sake, you say it has holiness — that's one thing, it does have holiness, why not? One would store it away properly, at least not what looks like garbage — that's what it's about.

Speaker 2: Regarding printed material, that's a different question. Look, the Mishnah Berurah brings us here — there is a dispute. The answer goes like this: printed material has holiness just like handwriting. But what about when a non-Jew prints it? Then perhaps not.

Speaker 1: If it's a machine — a machine is like a non-Jew, seemingly. Certainly, a machine isn't even a non-Jew. If only a machine could reach the level of a non-Jew.

---

Halakha 9: Rules of Names — Sacred or Mundane

Introduction

Speaker 1: Okay, so. Now the Rambam continues. Okay, the Rambam — now that we've learned that Names have holiness, a question arises: various names in the Torah, and one doesn't always know if it refers to the Almighty, or it means a ruler, lordship — it could be just a master, a person. The Rambam brings several rules. It's interesting, because it states regarding "all the Names mentioned regarding Abraham — are sacred," in the Laws of Writing a Torah Scroll, something like that.

Abraham — Sacred

Yes, the Rambam says: "All the Names mentioned regarding Abraham — are sacred." Even... "even this one that states" — the Name, lordship (adonut), it's written A-d-n-y. The Rambam brings this, it's written A-d-n-y, where he speaks there to the angels — it could be that he means a person. But what it appears, Abraham always spoke toward Heaven, he always saw God the Almighty, even... the Creator's correction.

Lot — Mundane, Except for One

Conversely, the same story with Lot: "All the Names mentioned regarding Lot — are mundane, except for this one: 'Please, O Lord'" — "Behold, your servant has found favor in your eyes" — there it says "my lord" (adoni), but there he's speaking to the angels.

Speaker 2: But there he's speaking to the angels. It could be that Abraham spoke to the angels, he knew they were important angels who came from the Almighty, not to the Almighty.

Speaker 1: No, that's a nice Torah thought, but the plain meaning is that Abraham speaks to the Almighty, as Rashi says. He means to say that "please do not pass by" — the Almighty should not leave, "and the Lord appeared to him." I go with that interpretation.

Gibeah of Benjamin — Sacred

Okay, further. "All the Names mentioned regarding Gibeah of Benjamin" — in the story of Benjamin and the concubine at Gibeah — "are sacred." Sacred.

Micah — Mundane

"All the Names mentioned regarding Micah — are mundane." Micah refers to the idol of Micah. God's Name appears there, and the implication is that even so, it is mundane.

Speaker 2: Yes, even the Tetragrammaton appears there, I've seen. It's interesting.

Naboth — Sacred

Speaker 1: Yes? "All the Names mentioned regarding Naboth — are sacred." Sacred. Very good.

Solomon in Song of Songs — Sacred, Like Other Appellations

The Rambam continues: "Every instance of 'Solomon' mentioned in Song of Songs — is sacred." Everywhere the word Solomon appears in Song of Songs — "The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's" — sacred. "And it is like the other appellations" — it's not like sacred in the sense of the eight Names that the Rambam enumerated earlier, or the seven Names that the Rambam enumerated, but it is sacred. Because as the Rambam accepts, like the Midrash that says Solomon always means "the King to Whom peace belongs" — it's an appellation for the Almighty. "Except for this one: 'The thousand are for you, Solomon'" — there it means King Solomon.

"King" in Daniel — Mundane, Except for One

"Every instance of 'king' (malkaya) mentioned in Daniel — is mundane." In the Book of Daniel it says malkaya — usually malkaya means Nebuchadnezzar or whomever is meant there. "Except for this one: 'You are the King, King of kings'" — there it refers to the Almighty. "And it is like the other appellations."

Discussion: Explanations for These Rules

Speaker 2: I think that even "King of kings" could refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and even that — he called himself that, or it could refer to the king of Persia there.

Speaker 1: The novel point about Naboth that he brings here is because it states there — not by Naboth, sorry — for example Gibeah of Benjamin, and the reason is because it states there that they asked the Almighty whether they should go out to war, "and the Lord said." There were Tannaim who argued that it couldn't be that it was the Almighty. And the same thing with Naboth — I don't know what the sugya (Talmudic discussion) is, but it states as follows: that Ahab, and it states "he cursed God and the king," something like that. Since Ahab was an idol worshipper, one doesn't know what he meant. The plain meaning is, here he did mean the Almighty. That seems to be the interpretation.

The same thing, which other one? Well, I don't understand all of them. Yes, the idol of Micah — he made an idol, not for the Almighty, for idolatry. That's the novel point.

Therefore the Rambam always brings "and he called there in the Name of the Lord, God of the world" — because something about Abraham calling the Name of God has a special importance. But all these things, seemingly there are many more uncertainties in the Tosafot, but why the Rambam brings specifically these few rules that are based on homiletical interpretations (drashot) or baraitot and the like — I don't know what's going on there.

---

Summary of the Lecture

Speaker 1: Let's make a quick summary:

- When one destroys one of the Names that are the Names of the Almighty — the eight Names — one receives lashes. In contrast, for appellations (kinuyim) one does not receive lashes.

- And besides the seven Names, also all instances of "El" and "Y-h," which are the two beginnings of Names — they also have the same law as the Names themselves. In contrast, other beginnings of Names, other appellations, do not have the same law.

- And afterward, also on a vessel or on a person, one may not destroy them either.

- But what happens when a person wrote it on his body? It becomes more complicated, because a person has a mitzvah of immersion (tevilah). On this the Rambam said that a Yosef, when he goes to immerse, it will be erased, and since it's erased incidentally (al derekh hagav), he doesn't need to pay attention to it. But he does need to pay more attention that he should not stand unclothed. The Rambam did not enumerate an extra halakha that one may not stand unclothed in front of the... How does it state it otherwise? Here it states: one may not stand unclothed in front of the Almighty's Name. Therefore, one should place something over it, and one can place it in a manner that it won't be a barrier (chatzitzah).

- What happens if the Name is written on some building? I don't know what — one may not stand there unclothed either.

Speaker 2: You didn't know that halakha actually?

Speaker 1: Now you know. Yes.

The Rambam said regarding the mitzvah of "you shall not do so" — it states that one should not do what is done to idolatry. Idolatry has a commandment that one should destroy all their structures. So if one destroys some part of the Temple, or a tree that was donated for building the Temple, one violates the same prohibition.

Afterward, the Rambam stated the halakha of rabbinic origin regarding sacred writings. Sacred writings, even those that don't contain the Almighty's Name, are nevertheless important as a part of the Torah. The Rambam placed them under the same category.

This is also somewhat of a novelty, because it's not the same severity as "lo ta'asun kein" (you shall not do so). But what is the rabbinic law (halacha mid'rabbanan) regarding this?

The Rambam said that the sanctity comes from the fact that a Jew writes it with holiness. If a heretic (min) writes it, then one must burn it, because there is truly an importance in destroying anything from the heretic. And from a non-Jew one doesn't need to destroy it, but still one shouldn't use it, and it shouldn't be placed in geniza.

---

Now, after this the Rambam enumerates which names that appear in the Torah – when do we know if it's holy or not. He brought from the Sages (Chazal):

- Avraham – Avraham Avinu always refers to the holy [meaning], except in one place. Everywhere, Avraham Avinu refers to the holy.

- Lot – usually is secular (chol), except for one place.

- And similarly Binyamin, Micha, Navot – which is holy, which is secular.

- And Shlomo, and Daniel.

---

The Foundation of the Sanctity of Holy Writings – "A Thing Upon Which His Name Is Called"

Yes, it would seem the reason for holy writings (kisvei hakodesh) is that the sanctity of holy writings is also a "davar she'nikra shemo alav" (a thing upon which His name is called). It's indeed not... Also, most holy writings do actually contain names in general, there are actual [divine] names present.

Discussion: Commentaries That Don't Contain God's Name

Even what you're saying, you're right – even in a hypothetical case of a commentary that doesn't have God's name – the Rambam brought the halacha that commentaries are also forbidden to erase, because that is also somewhat of a novelty. There is a Gemara in [the chapter of] "Kol Kisvei" on this topic.

Question: The Oral Torah

Even commentaries on the Oral Torah (Torah she'b'al peh) – the Oral Torah doesn't have any [divine] names at all. How can it be that it should have sanctity? He says that this is the meaning of "Kol Kisvei" – I don't know.

Is there a question?

Yes.

---

Defining the Prohibition – "Relating" to Holiness

And as a practical halacha, people struggle with this – which things require the treatment of [sacred] names. One needs to know this better. One sees it, of course, but let's say clearly – one sees the introduction – one cannot derive from a theoretical matter a practical halacha.

He stated the ruling, but clearly one sees that apparently the definition is that the prohibition is to destroy something that people relate to with sanctity – it is a "davar she'nikra shemo alav" (a thing upon which His name is called).

A heretic, for example, is not – or one could say, a heretic who doesn't even know that it's holy. There are many questions, for example I already know, one needs to consult. But in any case, there can be things that people don't relate to with sanctity – that the prohibition is not simply because it's a magical thing. The prohibition is because it's a holy thing – one doesn't burn a holy thing with one's own hands, not even passively. It all has to do with the attitude of relating to it.

Practical Example: Broken Books from the Press

If it's something that came out of the printing press – twenty broken books – and one throws them back in the garbage, they never had any sanctity – it could be that the foundational principle doesn't apply here.

Practically, one really needs to know this.