Shevuot

And whence do we know to make an oath unaccompanied by an alah like an oath accompanied by an alah? Because it is said; and heareth the voice of cursing:1 and heareth the cursing; and heareth the voice.2 R. Abbahu said: Whence do we know that alah implies an oath? Because it is said: And brought him under an alah;3 and it is written; And he also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar who made him swear by God.4 A Tanna taught: Arur5 may imply excommunication,6 curse,7 or oath. [It implies] excommunication, as it is written: ‘Curse ye Meroz’, said the angel of the Lord, ‘curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof.’8 And Ulla said: With four hundred blasts of the trumpet did Barak announce the ban over Meroz. It implies curse, as it is written: And these shall stand for the curse;9 and it is written: Arur be the man that maketh a graven image.10 It implies oath, as it is written: And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Arur be the man before the Lord . . .11 But perhaps two things he did to them: he adjured them, and cursed them!12 — Well then, from here: And the men of Israel were distressed that day; but Saul adjured the people saying, Arur be the man that eateth;13 and it is written: But Jonathan heard not when his father adjured the people.14 But perhaps here also he did two things to them; he adjured them, and cursed them! — Is it then written: and arur?15 Now since you have come to this,16 [you may say] there17 also it is not written: and arur. R. Jose b. Hanina said: ‘Amen’ implies oath,18 acceptance of words,19 and confirmation of words.20 It implies oath, as it is written: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.21 It implies acceptance of words, as it is written: Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them, and all the people shall say, Amen.22 It implies confirmation of words, as it is written: And the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen, the Lord do so! The Lord perform thy words!23 R. Eleazar said: ‘No’ is an oath; ‘Yes’ is an oath. Granted, ‘No’ is an oath, as it is written: And the waters shall no more become a flood;24 and it is written: For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me; for as I have sworn [that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth . . .].25 But that ‘Yes’ is an oath, how do we know? — It is reasonable; since ‘No’ is an oath. ‘Yes’ is also an oath. Said Raba: But only if he said, ‘No! No!’ twice;26 or he said, ‘Yes! Yes!’ twice; for it is written: And all flesh shall not be cut off any more by the waters of the floods;27 [and also:] and the waters shall no more become a flood.28 And since ‘No’ [must be said] twice [to imply an oath]. ‘Yes’ [must] also [be said] twice. HE WHO BLASPHEMES BY ANY OF THEM IS LIABLE: THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR; BUT THE SAGES EXEMPT HIM. Our Rabbis taught: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.29 Why is it written? Is it not already said: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death?30 — I might think he should be liable only for the actual Name;31 whence do we know to include the substitutes? Therefore it is said: Whosoever curseth his God — in any manner; this is the opinion of R. Meir; but the Sages say: for the actual Name, [the penalty is] death;32 for the substitutes, there is a warning.33 HE WHO CURSES HIS FATHER OR MOTHER, etc. Who are the Sages?34 R. Menahem b. Jose; for we learnt, R. Menahem b. Jose said; When he blasphemeth the Name, he shall be put to death.35 Why is it said: ‘Name’?36 It teaches us that he who curses his father or mother is not liable unless he curses them by the Name. HE WHO CURSES HIMSELF OR HIS NEIGHBOUR, etc. R. Jannai said; This is the view of all.37 [HE WHO CURSES] HIMSELF: as it is written: Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently;38 and as R. Abin said in the name of R. Elai; for he said; Wherever it is said, take heed, lest, or not, it is nothing but a negative precept.39 [HE WHO CURSES] HIS NEIGHBOUR; as it is written: Thou shalt not curse the deaf.40 ‘THE LORD SMITE YOU’, OR ‘GOD SMITE YOU’: THESE ARE THE CURSES WRITTEN IN THE TORAH. R. Kahana sat before Rab Judah, and was reciting this Mishnah as we learnt it. He41 said to him: Modify it!42 One of the Scholars was sitting before R. Kahana and reciting: God will likewise break thee forever; He will take thee up, and pluck thee out of thy tent, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah.43 He said to him: Modify it! — Why do we require both?44 — I might have thought that only the Mishnah [we are permitted to modify], but verses of Scripture we are not permitted to modify; therefore he teaches us [that we are]. ‘[MAY THE LORD] NOT SMITE YOU’; OR, ‘MAY HE BLESS YOU’; OR, ‘MAY HE DO GOOD UNTO YOU, [IF YOU BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME]’; R. MEIR MAKES THEM LIABLE; AND THE SAGES EXEMPT THEM. But R. Meir does not hold that from the negative you may derive the affirmative!45 — Reverse it!46 When R. Isaac came, he stated the Mishnah as we learnt it.47 R. Joseph said; Since we learnt it thus, and when R. Isaac came he also stated it thus, we may infer that we learnt it definitely so. But the question [then] remains!48 — He does not hold [that from the negative we derive the affirmative] in money matters, but in prohibitions he holds [this principle].49 But the case of sotah is a prohibition, and yet R. Tanhum b. R. Hakinai said; It is written; hinnaki.50 The reason is because it is written hinnaki [which may be read as hinki], but were it not for this, [we should not know the affirmative], for we do not say that from the negative you may derive the affirmative!51 superfluous, so we deduce that it implies even a voice (i.e., oath) unaccompanied by a curse. [The interpretation adopted here follows Rashi who, apart from the reading of MS.M. referred to in n. 5, which he seemed to have had, deletes the words: ‘an alah unaccompanied by an oath like an alah with an oath,’ which are placed in cur. edd. in brackets. These words are, however, retained by Nahmanides in his novellae on Shebu'oth, and other texts. Adopting this reading, preference is to be given to the reading ‘with an oath’ of cur. edd. (v. n. 5) and the whole passage must be taken as a continuation of the discussion relating to the source whence the Rabbis derive that ‘alah’ implies an oath, and is to be interpreted thus: ‘But there it is written the oath of alah (how then can there be derived from that verse that alah by itself denotes an oath)? — Thus he (the Tanna of the Baraitha) means: ‘alah’; alah can only be with an oath, and thus it says: ‘and the priest . . . of alah.’ And whence do we know to make an alah unaccompanied by an oath like an alah with an oath, and an oath unaccompanied by an alah like an oath accompanied etc. — Thus is afforded the source whence the Rabbis deduce that alah implies an oath.] Chronicles; hence vkt is an oath. the verse says: he adjured the people saying, ‘Cursed be’, this phrase is obviously the form of the adjuration. and the ‘bitter waters’ test her. death. The verse is therefore taken to refer to the case of cursing a parent by the Name. the Name) transgresses a negative precept. [Although the verse is superfluous (cf. p. 211, n. 14), it can nevertheless be applied only in regard to the cursing of a parent, which like blasphemy is punishable by death, but not with reference to cursing oneself or one's neighbour which does not involve so grave a penalty.] requirements and not to expose oneself to dangers. This implies the prohibition of invoking upon oneself any curses.] instead of the second, to avoid giving offence. implied: ‘May the Lord smite you, if you do not bear testimony’; and yet R. Meir makes the witnesses liable, though he does not hold that the positive may be derived from the negative. implies: ‘if thou hast gone aside . . . be thou not free’. Hence, we deduce from the fact that Scripture does not state the affirmative, that we may derive the affirmative from the negative. This is an argument against R. Meir. R. Tanhum (explaining R. Meir's view) states that Scripture uses the word hebv advisedly, so that it may also be read as hebj (‘be thou choked’), and taken with the subsequent verse: be thou choked by this water of bitterness . . . if thou hast gone aside. Hence, Scripture itself gives both negative and positive: If thou hast not gone aside . . . be thou free (hebv); and be thou choked (hebj) . . . if thou hast gone aside. But we cannot derive the affirmative from the negative. According to Aruch , s.v. hebv, the word is taken by R. Tanhum in its double meaning ‘to be bereft’ (cf. Isa. III, 23), as well as ‘to be free’, and the phrase hebj is employed by him as a mere wordplay.