창세기 19:18의 탈무드

All names in the Torah mentioned in connection with Lot are secular²⁵There is only one secular name in the Lot passages, and the Tetragrammaton occurs twice. The word ‘all’ is not intended to be taken literally (cf. N.Y. on Sof. IV, 7). except the last.²⁶Viz. And Lot said unto them: ‘Oh, not so my Lord’ (Gen. 19, 18). Lot’s address to the angels is understood as ending at not so, and his petition to God then begins, My Lord, behold, etc. [So the Targum and Shebu. 35b, Sonc. ed., pp. 205f.] [All names] in the story of Micah²⁷Judg. 17f. are secular, even [when they begin with] Yod-he.²⁸The Tetragrammaton. In [the account of] Naboth²⁹1 Kings 21. they are sacred even [when they begin with] Alef-lamed.³⁰Meaning elsewhere ‘God’.

All [divine] names mentioned in connection with Lot are secular³⁸There is only one secular name in the Lot passages. The Tetragrammaton, which is of course sacred, occurs twice. The word ‘all’ is not intended to be taken literally (cf. N.Y.). except the last, viz. And Lot said unto them: Oh, not so my Lord.³⁹Gen. 19, 18. Lot’s address to the angels is taken to end at not so, and then his petition to God begins, My Lord, behold, etc. [So the Targum and Shebu. 35b (Sonc. ed., pp. 205f).] All [divine] names mentioned in the story of Micah⁴⁰Judg. 17f. are secular. R. Jose says: When they begin with Yod-he⁴¹The Tetragrammaton. they are sacred, but when with Alef-lamed⁴²The word for ‘God’. they are secular except in the phrase the house of God was in Shiloh.⁴³ibid. XVIII, 31. All the [divine] names which occur in the story of Naboth are sacred except in the sentence Naboth did curse god⁴⁴Referring to one of the strange gods introduced by Jezebel. E.V. God. and king.⁴⁵1 Kings 21, 13. All the [divine] names which occur in the narrative of Gibeah of Benjamin⁴⁶Judg. 20f. are secular according to R. Eliezer, but R. Joshua says: They are sacred. R. Eliezer said to him, ‘Is it possible that the Omnipresent would promise [victory]⁴⁷According to Judg. 20, 18, 23 God told Israel to wage war against Benjamin, which implied that they would be victorious. and not fulfil?’⁴⁸Israel was defeated on both occasions (ibid. 21, 25). R. Joshua replied, ‘The Omnipresent promises and fulfils’.⁴⁹The Israelites did not appreciate that on the first two occasions God only told them that they may go to war but promised no victory. Only on the third occasion were they assured that Benjamin would be delivered into their hands (ibid. XX, 28). [37a]