שבועות 20:2 — Soncino English Talmud

but according to Raba, it is difficult? — Raba may say to you, explain it thus: What is the binding force of a vow which is mentioned in the Torah? He who says: I take it upon me that I shall not eat meat, and that I shall not drink wine, as on the day that my father died, or, as on the day that So-and-So was killed; [he is prohibited from eating meat, etc.;] and Samuel said: only if he had already made a vow on that day. What is the reason Scripture says: If a man vow a vow unto the Lord — only if he vow in the matter which he had already vowed. — ‘As on the day my father died’! This is self-evident? — ‘As on the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed’ is necessary. I might have thought that, since it is also prohibited even if he had not vowed, the fact that he vowed does not bring a prohibition upon him [because of his vow]; so that it [his present vow] is not based on a [previous] vow, [and hence is not a normal vow]; therefore he teaches us [that it is so based; and because perforce he mentions this clause, he mentions also the previous clause, though it is unnecessary]. And R. Johanan also holds this view of Raba, for when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said that R. Johanan said: [If one says:] ‘Mibta that I shall not eat of thine’, or, ‘Issar that I shall not eat of thine’, it is an oath. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said that R. Johanan said: [If one says: ‘I swear] I shall eat’, or, ‘[I swear] I shall not eat’, [and he transgresses the oath,] it is a false oath; and its prohibition is [derived] from this [verse]: Ye shall not swear by My name falsely. [If one says: ‘I swear] I have eaten’ or, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’, [and it was untrue,] it is a vain oath, and its prohibition is [derived] from this [verse]: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Vows come under the prohibition of: He shall not break his word. An objection was raised: Vain and false [oaths] are one. Does not this imply that just as a vain oath is in the past tense, so a false oath is in the past tense; hence, ‘[I swear] I have eaten’ and ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’ are false oaths! — Is this an argument? This is in its own category, and that is in its own category. And what is the meaning of: ‘They are one’? That they were pronounced in one utterance; as it has been taught [in another connection]: Remember [the Sabbath day], and Keep [the Sabbath day] were pronounced in a single utterance, — an utterance which the mouth cannot utter, nor the ear hear. Granted, there they were pronounced in one utterance, as R. Ada b. Ahabah said, for R. Ada b. Ahabah said: Women are in duty bound to sanctify the [Sabbath] day, by decree of the Torah, for Scripture says: Remember and Keep; all who are included in the exhortation Keep are included in the exhortation Remember; and women, since they are included in Keep, are included also in Remember. But here, for what law is it necessary? But, [say then to teach us that] just as stripes are inflicted for a vain oath, so they are inflicted for a false oath; — Whither are you turning? — Well [then, say]: Just as stripes are inflicted for a false oath, so they are inflicted for a vain oath. But this is obvious: this is a negative precept, and that is a negative precept! — I might have thought, as R. Papa said to Abaye: He will not hold him guiltless at all,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:The Tanna is not discussing a statement tacked on to a vow, but explaining that every normal vow (to make him guilty, if he breaks it) must be based on a previous vow, and must be detailed. If, however, he says: ‘This day shall be to me as the day that father died’ (without mentioning details, ‘I shall not eat meat’, etc.), it is merely a statement tacked on to a vow, and is not counted as a vow.
^ᵇnote:Num. XXX, 3.
^ᶜnote:Base the present vow on a previous vow.
^ᵈnote:If the reason is that he based this vow on a previous vow, why mention his father's death? This does not make the vow stronger.
^ᵉnote:To him to eat, since it is a public fast.
^ᶠnote:That issar expressed in the form of an oath is an oath.
^ᵍnote:An oath uttered in the future tense, if transgressed, comes under the category of ‘false’ oath.
^ʰnote:Lev. XIX, 12; i.e., ye shall not swear to do that which later, by transgressing, you make false.
^ⁱnote:An oath in the past tense, which is known to be untrue at the moment of utterance, comes under the category of ‘vain’ oath.
^ʲnote:Ex. XX, 7.
^ᵏnote:obue konam is one of the forms in which vows are expressed.
^ˡnote:Num. XXX, 3.
^ᵐnote:A vain oath is an oath which is known immediately to be untrue, such as, swearing that a stone pillar is gold (infra 29a); so a false oath in the past tense is known immediately to be untrue. It is called false, and not vain, because its falsity is not apparent to all, but only to the one who utters it.
^ⁿnote:Yet R. Johanan calls them vain oaths.
^ᵒnote:They are entirely different: vain oaths are in the past, and false oaths are in the future, but they are declared to be one merely because the prohibitions against both were simultaneously uttered by God.
^ᵖnote:Ex. XX, 8.
^ᵠnote:Deut. V, 12.
^ʳnote:By reciting, or hearing the recital of, the Kiddush. Though such positive precepts as depend for their observance on certain specified times need not be observed by women (,uruyp ohab tnrd inzva vag ,umn), the precept of Kiddush must be observed by them, for Remember (which is explained as meaning ‘Remember it over wine’, i.e., recite Kiddush) is equated with Keep (i.e., do not transgress the negative precepts of the Sabbath); and just as women must keep the Sabbath (for all negative precepts, whether dependent for their observance on time or not, must be observed by women), so they must remember it.
^ˢnote:Therefore Remember and Keep were pronounced in one utterance, in order to teach us this.
^ᵗnote:That the prohibition against vain oath and false oath should have been pronounced in one utterance?
^ᵘnote:The statement ‘Vain and false oaths are one’ does not mean that they were pronounced in one utterance, but that they are both the same in that stripes are inflicted equally for both.
^ᵛnote:Your statement should be reversed, for the transgression of a false oath (such as, ‘I swear I shall not eat’, and he ate) is more likely to be punishable by stripes (because it involves action) than the transgression of a vain oath (such as, ‘I swear I have eaten’ or, ‘not eaten’, which does not involve action).
^ʷnote:In the transgression of which, action is involved.
^ˣnote:Although no action is involved; v. infra 21a.
^ʸnote:As deduced from a verse, infra 21a.
^ᶻnote:False oath.
^ᵃᵃnote:Vain oath.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Ex. XX, 7; he who swears a vain oath will never be guiltless, i.e., he is not punished by stripes to remove his guilt (for, after punishment, the guilt is wiped out).