Shevuot

therefore he teaches us [that he is punished by stripes] as Abaye answered him.1 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;2 and it is in accordance with R. Akiba's view who makes him liable for [an oath in] the past as in the future.3 An objection was raised: What is a vain oath? Swearing that which is contrary to the facts known to man.4 A false oath? Swearing that which is the reverse.5 [Hence, a false oath is in the past tense, yet R. Johanan says, in the future.] Say, Swearing and reversing.6 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,7 and their prohibition is from: Ye shall not swear by My name falsely.8 ‘[I swear] I shall eat’, ‘[I swear] I shall not eat’ [and he broke the oath], he transgresses: He shall not break his word.9 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;10 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,11 and cursing one's neighbour with the Name.12 ‘Swearing’ — how do we know?13 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 guiltless14 — the Upper Court15 will not render him guiltless, but the lower court inflict stripes and render him guiltless.16 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.17 Since it18 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.19 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?20 — Well then, said R. Abbahu: It refers to: ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’.21 And what is the difference?22 — Raba said: Clearly did the Torah include a false oath which is like a vain oath;23 just as a vain oath is in the past, so a false oath which is in the past [is included].24 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]:25 this is the oath of utterance26 for the wilful transgression of which stripes are incurred, and for the unwitting transgression of which a sliding scale sacrifice is brought.27 ‘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?28 — No! It excludes ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’ from an offering: ‘this29 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;30 but stripes he incurs. of a vain oath (such as, ‘I have eaten’, ‘I have not eaten’) as for a false oath (‘I shall eat’, ‘I shall not eat’). but deduced it from another statement of his; v. infra p. 109, n. 8. effected merely by utterance, without action. punished by stripes? Abbahu's R. Jeremiah deduced that an oath in the past tense is called a false oath according to R. Johanan. involving action is not punishable? prohibits him from eating the loaf, the second oath is, in effect, a promise to fulfil the mizwah of keeping the first oath, and ‘he who swears to fulfil a mizwah, and does not fulfil it, is not liable’ (Infra 27a).