Oaths of Ancient Kings

In this Torah reading, we are told about the four categories of sacrifices: the ascent-offering (olah), the peace-offering (shelamim), the sin-offering (chatat), and the guilt-offering (asham). An individual is required to offer a guilt-offering in a number of circumstances, among which is if he swore to do or not do something and then forgot about his oath and transgressed it:

"If someone takes an oath by articulating with his mouth to do evil or to do good [to himself] - whatever a person may utter as an oath - and he forgets about it [and transgresses it], but he knew about it and [thus] incurred guilt…and confesses his sin, he must offer his guilt-offering to G‑d…"(Lev. 5:4-6)

In the course of explaining [the mystical significance of] the oath of articulation, we will explain the following passage from the Mishnah, in tractate Shavuot ["Oaths"]:

"There are two types of oaths, which are [really] four." (Shavuot 1:1)

The Mishnah (ibid. 3:1) further on delineates what these types of oaths are specifically, using the example of eating:

The first two are mentioned explicitly in the verse quoted above: "to do evil or to do good [to himself]." These are called the two "principle" forms of articulation-oaths, or, in the Mishnaic idiom, the two "fathers". The second two are not mentioned in the verse, and are called the two "derivative" or "secondary" forms, or the two "offspring". In all four cases, if the person infringed the oath intentionally (by eating or not eating or knowing that he did eat or didn't eat), he is punished with lashes. If he infringed the oath inadvertently (by forgetting he took it and eating or not eating, or forgetting that he had eaten or not eaten and swearing), he must bring the guilt-offering prescribed in the Torah.

[On the mystical level,] this passage discusses the name Havayah as it is spelled out. There are two sets of seven letters in [this spelling-out], as is mentioned in the Zohar (Tikunei Zohar 70) with reference to the seven letters that can take a dagesh kal.

The dot that sometimes appears in Hebrew letters is called a "dagesh" ("emphasis [point]"). There are two types of dagesh: the "dagesh chazak" ("strong dagesh") and the "dagesh kal" ("light dagesh").

The dagesh chazak appears in letters that according to grammatical theory should be doubled. When pronounced, letters vocalized with a dagesh chazak should be lengthened somewhat. The dagesh chazak can appear in any letter except a gutteral letter, since these letters cannot be lengthened when pronounced.

The dagesh kal appears only in seven specific letters, when these letters appear at the beginning of a syllable (or word). These seven letters are beit, gimel, dalet, kaf, pei, reish, and tav. In pronunciation, the dagesh kal changes these letters from their spirant to aspirate form. In modern, Sefardic pronunciation, the spirant pronunciation has been retained only in the letters beit, kaf, and pei. In Ashkenazic pronunciation, it has also been retained in the letter tav, and in Yemenite pronunciation, it has also been retained in the letters gimel and dalet.

The word for "oath" is "shavua", which grammatically is the passive form of the word for "seven" [in Hebrew, "sheva"]. Thus, a person taking an oath can be considered to have "seventh-ed" himself. This leads to the mystical interpretation of an oath as a manipulation of the name Havayah using seven letters.

The name Havayah, as we know, can be spelled out in four principle ways, leading to the numerical values of 72, 63, 45, or 52. Using the 45-name [Mah] as an example, the spelling out of the name Havayah is: yud-vav-dalet hei-alef vav-alef-vav hei-alef.

The name Havayah is often analyzed as two sub-groups, i.e. yud-hei and vav-hei, the first sub-group signifying the intellect and the second signifying the emotions and their expression. If we consider each sub-group together with its respective spelling out, we have two sets of seven letters:

These are: yud-hei, yud-vav-dalet hei-alef and vav-hei, vav-alef-vav hei-alef.

These form two sets of seven letters. These [two sets of seven] are called the "parents", because they comprise the simple spelling and the first spelling-out.

There are also four other sets of seven letters, these being in the second spelling-out.

The second spelling-out of the 45-name [Mah] is as follows:

As can be seen, there are 28 letters used in the second spelling-out, or 4 x 7. Here, the 4 sets of 7 do not divide into groupings similar to the 2 primary sevens, although the two sets of 14 are split at the division between the yud-hei and the vav-hei.

This, then is the mystical meaning of this passage:

"There are two types of oaths…" - referring to the first two sets of seven,

"…that are [really] four" - referring to the second spelling-out.

Explaining this passage [of the Mishnah] this way answers several questions:

The first: Why does the Mishnah refer to "oaths" rather than "cases of forgetfulness [regarding oaths taken]"? After all, it is required that the person forget that he swore in order for him to be obligated to bring a sacrifice. This is similar to the question of the commentary of Tosafot regarding the knowledge of impurity: "Let the author say, 'cases of forgetfulness [regarding defilement]!'" (Shavuot 2a, s.v. Yediot Hatumah)

The passage from the Mishnah quoted above continues: "There are two types of knowledge of impurity that are [really] four." Since what is being referred to are cases when a person forgot that he had been ritually defiled and nonetheless entered the Temple, it would seem that the Mishnah should have been phrased "There are two types of forgetting impurity that are [really] four".

Yet, Tosafot does not ask this question about the "two types of oaths that are four", even though this is mentioned before the "two types of knowledge of impurity that are four". This is apparently so because the question does not really apply, due the mystical meaning of this passage of the Mishah, as we have seen.

But [we can now see why] he chose the idiom of "oaths", that is, in order to allude to the meaning mentioned above.

Since, as we said, the word for "oaths" can be interpreted to mean "sevens".

The second: Why does [the author of the Mishnah] say "two that are [really] four", instead of just "four"?

Two principles types of oaths and two derivative types could be expressed simply as four types of oaths.

The answer is that he wishes to allude to the fact that there are two "parents", i.e. principle forms [of the name Havayah], and four more "offspring", or secondary types, i.e. the second spelling-out.

The third: According to the simple sense [of the law], we have to give this Mishnah a forced explanation, i.e. that there are two principle types of oaths that, together with the [two] secondary types, make four. But when we explain it according to its mystical meaning, the idiom makes sense: there are two principle types, which produce four secondary types.

In the mystical sense, "two that are four" means that there are, in fact, six forms.

If we wish, we can fit our explanation into the simple way [of reading the idiom of "two that are (really) four"], because the two forms [of the name Havayah] in the first spelling-out are included within the four forms of the second spelling-out. Thus, in fact, there are really only four forms [just as in the simple reading of the Mishnah].

The mystical meaning of "to do evil or to do good" is that the two final letters of the name Havayah tend "toward doing evil" and the first two letters tend "toward doing good."

This will be explained presently.

It follows that this verse is in ascending order.

"To do evil or to do good…" refers to the final two letters and the first two letters of the name Havayah.

This affords us an explanation of the Talmud's statement: "[He takes] an oath [saying:] 'I shall eat' or [an oath saying:] 'I shall not eat.'"

Why does the Talmud use eating as the example of the principle forms of an oath that when transgressed inadvertently requires a guilt offering?

To explain:

As is known, the Seven Kings that died are [the prototype of] Zeir Anpin and Nukva, which are indicated by the two final letters of the name Havayah, vav-hei.

The Seven Kings are the seven lower sefirot of the world of Tohu. These sefirot were not designed to interact with each other, and therefore, when the light of one passed into the other, their vessels shattered and "fell" into (what would become) the lower worlds, embedding these worlds with sparks of holiness concealed in evil husks. We also know that in the rectified world (Tikun) that was constructed on the ruins of Tohu, the sefirot metamorphosed into partzufim, and specifically, the lower seven sefirot formed the partzufim of Zeir Anpin and Nukva. Thus, we may speak of the six sefirot of chesed to yesod of Tohu as being the Zeir Anpin of Tohu, and the malchut of Tohu as being the Nukva of Tohu, even though these sefirot became partzufim only in the world of Tikun.

For the letter vav indicates Zeir Anpin, in that [Zeir Anpin] comprises six "extremities" [and six is the numerical value of the letter vav]. The letter hei indicates malchut. Because of their overabundance of impurities, which is the "evil" in them, they "died" and were shattered. Therefore, "evil" is in them.

Emotions imply at least some measure of self-awareness and ego. This egocentric subjectivity of perception is what is meant by the "impurities" mentioned here. The emotions of Tohu were particularly egocentric, in that each one was a thing unto itself and was incapable of interacting with any of its sister emotions or subordinating itself to them. "Evil" is the state of discord and blockage that does not allow the flow of divine beneficence to reach its proper destination, so the latter two letters of the name Havayah, indicating the emotions, can be seen as tending toward the formation of evil.

In contrast, the two first letters [of the name Havayah], yud-hei, signify Abba and Imma, and they "tend toward doing good" for they are entirely good [themselves] and they possessed no evil impurities. Therefore they did not die, as is known.

The first two letters and the partzufim they represent signify the intellect. The intellect is essentially objective and impartial, since a person involved and absorbed in some intellectual pursuit generally is looking for truth and has temporarily suspended his ego.

Now, the idiom "to do good" implies "[doing good] to others."

It is a transitive verb.

To explain: when the seven "kings" of Zeir Anpin and Nukva [of Tohu] died, which is to say, when they descended into the world of Beriya, they assuredly retained some aspect of the 288 [original] Sparks, in order to sustain them at least minimally.

In the world of Tohu, the seven lower sefirot contained 288 general "sparks" or elements of holiness. The fact that these "died" in the Shattering of the Vessels is alluded to in the verse "…and the spirit of G‑d was hovering over the surface of the water" (Gen. 1:2). The word for "was hovering" is "merachefet", spelled mem-reish-chet-pei-tav, which can be rearranged to read reish-pei-chet mem-tav, or "288 [sparks] died".

Thi [minimal consumption of energy] is not termed "nourishment" or "eating", only [an absorption of] the minimal necessary life-force necessary [to persist and] be reinvigorated in the Resurrection, this being the final rectification of the loss of the kings, as is known.

It follows that in the world of Beriya, this minimal necessary energy was extended to them from the two latter letters of the name Havayah, vav-hei. The combined numerical value of these letters is 11, alluding to the 11 component spices of the incense (Ex. 30:34-35) that sustain and nourish evil with the minimal life-force necessary.

"Whoever adds, detracts." (Sanhedrin 29a) Ten is the number of holiness, the number of sefirot. Eleven signifies an overflow of holiness spilling into undesired places, and as we have seen, this characterizes evil. Thus, the fact that the incense used in the Temple was made out of eleven spices indicates that, in addition to its other qualities, it provided evil with the minimal life-force necessary for it to exist and fulfill its function in the scheme of G‑d's plan.

But actual "eating" and satiety did not reach them from this level. Therefore, the two letters vav-hei are referred to by the words "toward evil", meaning "I will not eat", that is, it does not provide [the sparks of] the "kings" trapped inside evil with real eating.

After these "kings" ascended back into Atzilut and were rectified, [the first two letters of the name Havayah come into play, which] tend toward "doing good", this being the oath/seven that "I will eat". For then eating and nourishment is given to them to satiety - much more than the minimal life-force required to merely keep them existing - from the first two letters of the name Havayah, yud-hei, which signify Abba and Imma.

We see now why the Talmud uses the example of eating to illustrate taking oaths and breaching them inadvertently. An "oath" is a "seven", an upper or lower two-letters of the name Havayah with their first spelling-out or part of its second spelling-out. These parts of the name Havayah provide sustenance for the Seven Kings either in the form of the minimal energy required to sustain them when they are trapped in the context of evil, or in the form of full feeding to satiety when they have been redeemed and are in their resuscitated state of holy rectification. These provisions are alluded to by the two archetypal oaths, "not eating" and "eating", respectively.

This is because these "kings" become rectified only by being re-impregnated within Abba and Imma, and there they are provided with true eating to satiety.

The fallen, broken, disillusioned emotions find their rectification by being absorbed and re-processed by the rectified intellect.

This is the mystical significance of the word "eating" [in Hebrew, "achilah"], which can be permuted to spell "eating [from] yud-hei", indicating that [real] eating originates in yud-hei, which signify Abba and Imma.

As is known, eating is only completed by chewing with the teeth. And it is further known that the mouth is above [i.e. in the head], at the level of chochma and bina, which are Abba and Imma, while the minimal essential life-force comes from the heart, which is in the torso, indicated by the vav of the name Havayah. This is why someone who is fasting and does not eat, lives [instead] on minimal energy that he receives then from the life-force of his heart and which extends to the rest of the body's limbs throughout the three or four consecutive days of his fast. For were it not so, how could the person survive without food for all those days?

Translated and adapted by Moshe-Yaakov Wisnefsky from Sha'ar HaMitzvot and Ta'amei HaMitzvot, parashat Vayikra; subsequently published in "Apples From the Orchard."

Reprinted with permission from Chabad of California. Copyright 2004 by Chabad of California, Inc. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this work or portions thereof, in any form, without permission, in writing, from Chabad of California, Inc.