Parallel
שבועות 21
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
therefore he teaches us [that he is punished by stripes] as Abaye answered him. And if you will, I may say, that just as he brings an offering for a false oath, so he brings an offering for a vain oath; and it is in accordance with R. Akiba's view who makes him liable for [an oath in] the past as in the future. An objection was raised: What is a vain oath? Swearing that which is contrary to the facts known to man. A false oath? Swearing that which is the reverse. [Hence, a false oath is in the past tense, yet R. Johanan says, in the future.] Say, Swearing and reversing. When R. Abin came [from Palestine], he said that R. Jeremiah said that R. Abbahu said that R. Johanan said: ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’ [and it was untrue], are false oaths, and their prohibition is from: Ye shall not swear by My name falsely. ‘[I swear] I shall eat’, ‘[I swear] I shall not eat’ [and he broke the oath], he transgresses: He shall not break his word. And what is a vain oath? Swearing that which is contrary to the facts known to man. R. Papa said: This statement of R. Abbahu's was not explicitly expressed, but only deduced by implication; for R. Idi b. Abin said that R. Amram said that R. Isaac said that R. Johanan said: R. Judah said in the name of R. Jose the Galilean: Every negative precept in the Torah, if it involves action, is punished by stripes; if it does not involve action, is not punished by stripes, except swearing, exchanging, and cursing one's neighbour with the Name. ‘Swearing’ — how do we know? R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Scripture says: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless — the Upper Court will not render him guiltless, but the lower court inflict stripes and render him guiltless. Said R. Papa to Abaye: Perhaps Scripture means this: He will not render him guiltless at all? — If it had been written: For he will not hold him guiltless, it would have meant what you say; but now that it is written: For the Lord will not hold him, guiltless, [it means], the Lord does not render him guiltless, but the lower court inflict stripes and render him guiltless. Hence we find that a vain oath [is punished by stripes]. How do we know a false oath [is so punished]? — R. Johanan himself said: ‘In vain’ is mentioned twice. Since it is not needed for a vain oath, utilise it for a false oath. And R. Abbahu raised the question: This false oath — what kind is meant? Shall we say, ‘I swear I shall not eat’, and he ate? This is a negative precept involving action. Then again, if he said: ‘I swear I shall eat’, and he did not eat, does he then receive stripes? Surely, it has been stated: ‘I swear I shall eat this loaf to day’, and the day passed, and he did not eat it: R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both hold that he does not receive stripes; R. Johanan says he does not receive stripes, because it is a negative precept not involving action, and any negative precept not involving action is not punishable by stripes; and Resh Lakish says, he does not receive stripes, because it is an uncertain warning, and an uncertain warning is not a warning? — Well then, said R. Abbahu: It refers to: ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’. And what is the difference? — Raba said: Clearly did the Torah include a false oath which is like a vain oath; just as a vain oath is in the past, so a false oath which is in the past [is included]. R. Jeremiah put a question to R. Abbahu: [We learnt:] ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf; I swear I shall not eat it; I swear I shall not eat it’, and he ate it, he is liable only for one [oath]: this is the oath of utterance for the wilful transgression of which stripes are incurred, and for the unwitting transgression of which a sliding scale sacrifice is brought. ‘This is [the oath, etc.]’ What does ‘this’ exclude? Surely, it excludes ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[[swear] I have not eaten’, that he is not liable for stripes? — No! It excludes ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’ from an offering: ‘this is [the oath . . .]’ for the unwitting transgression of which a sliding scale sacrifice is brought, but not ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’; and this will be in accordance with the opinion of R. Ishmael who holds that he is only liable for an oath in the future; but stripes he incurs.
—
How [then] will you explain the latter clause: This is the vain oath for the wilful transgression of which stripes are incurred, and for the unwitting transgression of which he is exempt. ‘This is [the vain oath, etc.]’ What does ‘this’ exclude? Surely, it excludes ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’, that he is not liable for stripes! — No! ‘This is [the oath . . .] for the unwitting transgression of which he is exempt [from a sacrifice]’ but ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’, makes him liable for a sacrifice for unwitting transgression; and this will be in accordance with the opinion of R. Akiba who holds that he is liable for [an oath] in the past as in the future. But you have said that the first statement is in accordance with R. Ishmael's view. Is the first statement, then, in accordance with R. Ishmael's view, and the second in accordance with R. Akiba's view! — [No!] It is entirely in accordance with R. Akiba's view; and the first statement is not intended to exclude ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’ from a sacrifice, but to exclude ‘[l swear] I shall eat’, and he did not eat, from stripes; but for a sacrifice he is liable. Why should you prefer this? — It is reasonable that, since he is discussing the future, he should exclude the future; but, discussing the future, shall he exclude the past? I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT , AND HE ATE A MINUTE QUANTITY, HE IS LIABLE; [THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA.] It was queried [by the scholars]: Does R. Akiba agree in the whole Torah with R. Simeon who imposes liability for a minute quantity, for it has been taught: ‘R. Simeon says. For a minute quantity stripes are incurred; and it was not said that the size of an olive is necessary except for a sacrifice.’ And by right they should disagree also elsewhere, but the reason their disagreement is stated here is to show you the power of the Sages, for, although it is possible to say, since if he had expressly stated [a minute quantity] he would have been liable, he should also be liable even if his statement is undefined, we are informed, nevertheless, that they exempt him. Or, elsewhere, does R. Akiba agree with the Sages, and here, this is the reason: since if he expressly states [a minute quantity] he is liable, he is liable also if his statement is undefined? Come and hear: THEY SAID TO R. AKIBA: WHERE DO WE FIND THAT HE WHO EATS A MINUTE QUANTITY IS LIABLE, THAT THIS ONE SHOULD BE LIABLE? And if it is so [that he agrees with R. Simeon elsewhere also], let him answer them: l agree in the whole Torah with R. Simeon? — [It is possible that] he is replying according to the views of the Rabbis themselves: As for me, I agree with R. Simeon in the whole Torah; but as for you, agree with me at least that, since if he expressly states [a minute quantity] he is liable, he should be liable also if his statement is undefined. And the Rabbis replied to him: No! Come and hear: R. Akiba says, A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine, and there is sufficient in both together to make up the size of an olive, is liable. Now if you were to hold that everywhere he agrees with R. Simeon, what need is there for combining? And again, we learnt: ‘I swear I shall not eat’, and he ate carrion, trefa, forbidden animals, and reptiles, he is liable; and R. Simeon exempts him. And we asked: Why is he liable, since he had already been adjured on Mount Sinai? Rab and Samuel and R. Johanan said: [He is liable because] he had included permitted things with the prohibited things. And Resh Lakish said: You cannot find [that he should be liable] except either, if he expressly stated half the legal quantity, and it will be in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, or, [even] if his statement was undefined, and it will be in accordance with R. Akiba's view, who holds that a man [in an undefined oath], prohibits to himself [even] a minute quantity. Now if you were to say that elsewhere R. Akiba also agrees with R. Simeon, then for a minute quantity he also stands adjured from Mount Sinai! Hence, we deduce from this [must we not?] that elsewhere he agrees with the Rabbis. It is proven. THEY SAID TO R. AKIBA: WHERE DO WE FIND [THAT HE WHO EATS A MINUTE QUANTITY IS LIABLE, etc.]. Can we not? Is there not the ant? A creature is different. Is there not sacred property? — But we require it should be the value of a perutah. Is there not the expressly defined oath? An expressly defined oath is like a creature. Is there not dust? May you then,
—