שבועות 39 — Soncino English Talmud

¹that the whole world trembled at the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, said at Sinai: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. And with reference to all transgressions in the Torah it is said, holding guiltless; but here it is said, Will not hold him guiltless. And for all the transgressions in the Torah he [the sinner] alone is punished, but here he and his family; for it is said: Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt; and ‘flesh’ means ‘near relative’, as it is said: And from thine own flesh thou shalt not hide thyself. And for all the transgressions in the Torah he alone is punished, but here he and all the world; for it is said: Swearing and lying....[therefore doth the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein doth languish]. — But say, perhaps, only when he does them all! That cannot enter your mind, for it is written, Because of swearing the land mourneth; and it is written, therefore doth the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein doth languish. And with reference to all transgressions in the Torah, if he has merit, punishment is suspended for two or three generations, but here he is punished immediately, as it is said, I cause it to go forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by My name; and it shall abide in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof. ‘I cause it to go forth’: immediately; ‘and it shall enter into the house of the thief’: he who steals the mind of people; [e.g.], there is no money owing to him by his fellow, but he claims from him, and causes him to swear; ‘and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by My name’: according to its plain meaning; ‘and it shall abide in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof’: from this you learn, that things which neither fire nor water can destroy, a false oath can destroy. If he says, ‘I shall not swear,’ he is dismissed immediately. But if he said, ‘I shall swear,’ those who are standing there say to each other, ‘Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, etc.’ And when they adjure him, they say to him: ‘Know that we do not adjure you according to your own mind, but according to the mind of the Omnipresent, and the mind of the Beth din;’ for thus we find in the case of Moses our teacher: When he adjured Israel, he said to them: ‘Know that not according to your own minds do I adjure you, but according to the mind of the Omnipresent, and my mind;’ as it is said: Neither with you only [do I make this covenant and this oath]. But with him that standeth here with us: hence we know only those who were standing by Mount Sinai [were adjured]; the coming generations, and proselytes who were later to be proselytised, how do we know [that they were adjured also then]? Because it is said, and also with him that is not here with us this day. And from this we know only [that they were adjured for] the commandments which they received at Mount Sinai; how do we know [that they were adjured for] the commandments which were to be promulgated later, such as reading the Megillah? Because it is said: They confirmed and accepted: they confirmed what they had long ago accepted. What is the meaning of: it also may be said in any language? — As we learnt: These may be recited in any language: The scriptural text of the Sotah, confession when giving the tithe, the Shema’, Tefillah, Grace after meals, the oath of testimony, and the oath of deposit. And now it says also, ‘The oath of the judges may also be said in any language.’ The Master said: They say to him, Know that the whole world trembled at the time when the Holy One blessed be He said, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. — What is the reason? Shall we say because it was given at Sinai? The Ten Commandments were also given there! Again, if because it is more serious? — But is it more serious? Behold, has it not been taught: These are light: positive and negative [precepts], except, ‘Thou shalt not take [the name of the Lord thy God in vain];’ serious: [sins for the transgression of which] kareth and death at the hands of the Beth din [are inflicted], and ‘Thou shalt not take etc.’ is in this category.’ — Well then, because of the reason which he states: With reference to all transgressions in the Torah it is said ‘holding guiltless’, but here it is said, ‘will not hold guiltless’. And with reference to all transgressions in the Torah is it not said, ‘Will not hold guiltless’? Surely, it is written: and will by no means hold guiltless! That is required for R. Eleazar's deduction, for we learnt, R. Eleazar said: It is impossible to say, ‘holding guiltless’, for it is already said, ‘Will not hold guiltless’; it is impossible to say, ‘Will not hold guiltless’, for it is already said, ‘holding guiltless’. How [can they be reconciled]? He ‘holds guiltless’ those who repent, and ‘does not hold guiltless’ those who do not repent. ‘For all transgressions in the Torah he alone is punished, but here he and his family.’ — And for all transgressions of the Torah is not his family punished? Lo, it is written, And I will set My face against that man, and against his family. And it was taught: R. Simeon said: If he sinned, what sin did his family commit? But this shows you that there is not a family containing a tax-collector, in which they are not all tax-collectors; or containing a robber, in which they are not all robbers; because they protect him! — There [the family are punished] with another [lighter] punishment, but here with his own punishment; as was taught: Rabbi said: And I will cut him off. Why is it said? Because it is said, And I will set My face [against that man, and against his family]; I might think the whole family shall be cut off, therefore it is said, ‘him’: him will I cut off, but not the whole family shall I cut off. ‘For all transgressions in the Torah he alone is punished, but here he and the whole world.’ — And for all transgressions of the Torah is not the whole world punished? Lo, it is written, And they shall stumble one upon another: one because of the iniquity of the other; this teaches us that all Israel are sureties one for another! 46^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^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵃnote:Ex. XX, 7.
^ᵇnote:Ibid. XXXIV, 7: Keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and holding guiltless. The text has vebh tk vebu, and will not hold guiltless; but Scripture of set purpose did not write simply vebh tk, but wrote vebu first to teach us that there are occasions when He holds guiltless the transgressors (when they repent).
^ᶜnote:Ibid. XX, 7: The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. Here the text has simply vebh tk, and not veb. So serious is the sin of a false oath that even repentance and the Day of Atonement do not bring the sinner complete absolution, but he must suffer some punishment to expiate his sin; v. Maharsha.
^ᵈnote:By swearing falsely.
^ᵉnote:Eccl. V, 5.
^ᶠnote:Isa. LVIII, 7.
^ᵍnote:Hosea IV, 2, 3.
^ʰnote:The verse says also, ‘killing, and stealing, and committing adultery.’ If he does them all, then the whole world suffers, but not for swearing only!
^ⁱnote:Jer. XXIII, 10.
^ʲnote:Hosea IV, 3; when the land mourns, every inhabitant languishes; and because of swearing the land mourns (Jer. XXIII, 20), therefore every inhabitant languishes because of swearing.
^ᵏnote:Zech. V, 4.
^ˡnote:The curse (verse 3), i.e., punishment.
^ᵐnote:I.e., deceives.
^ⁿnote:I.e., ‘stones’.
^ᵒnote:As a result of the judges’ homily on the seriousness of a false oath.
^ᵖnote:From the court, and not given the opportunity to change his mind; and he mist pay the claim.
^ᵠnote:Num. XVI, 26.
^ʳnote:V. supra 29a.
^ˢnote:To keep the commandments.
^ᵗnote:Deut. XXIX, 13; i.e., not in accordance with your own minds.
^ᵘnote:Ibid. 14.
^ᵛnote:Ibid.
^ʷnote:Scroll of Esther on Purim.
^ˣnote:Est. IX, 27.
^ʸnote:I.e., at Mount Sinai; for acceptance of laws was at Mount Sinai. The deduction is made because acceptance must come before confirmation. [For the whole passage cf. Tosaf. Sot. 7.]
^ᶻnote:The oath imposed by the judges. Why also? What else is there?
^ᵃᵃnote:A wife suspected of adultery. Cf. Num. V, 19-22; the priest should adjure her in the language which she understands.
^ᵃᵇnote:Deut. XXVI, 13-15.
^ᵃᶜnote:Ibid. VI, 4-9; XI, 13-21; Num. XV, 37-41, v. Glos.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘prayer’, the Eighteen (Nineteen) Benedictions recited three times daily, v. P.B. pp. 44-54.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. P.B. pp. 280-285.
^ᵃᶠnote:Sot. 32a.
^ᵃᵍnote:Than any other sin.
^ᵃʰnote:Hence ‘Thou shalt not take’ etc. is the same as, and not more serious than the sins for which the penalty is kareth or death.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ex. XXXIV, 7.
^ᵃʲnote:The text, literally, is: ‘and holding guiltless, will not hold guiltless.’ R. Eleazar explains: ‘holding guiltless’ those who repent, ‘He will not hold guiltless’ those who do not repent. But a false oath is more serious than other transgressions in that Scripture writes, with reference to it, vebh tk, He will not hold guiltless even those who repent; whereas, with reference to other transgressions, it writes, vebh tk vebu.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lev. XX, 5; for worshipping Molech.
^ᵃˡnote:Tax-collectors were considered unscrupulous, often taking more than their due, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.), p. 148, n. 6.
^ᵃᵐnote:If there is a black sheep in a family, the other members are probably not much better.
^ᵃⁿnote:Hence, in the case of other transgressions, too, the whole family is punished; and not merely in the case of a false oath.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. XX, 3.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ibid.
^ᵃᵠnote:‘I will cut him off.’
^ᵃʳnote:They will suffer merely a minor punishment.
^ᵃˢnote:Lev. XXVI, 37.
^ᵃᵗnote:Hence in the case of all transgressions the whole world (of Israel) is punished, because all Israelites are responsible for one another, and bound to prevent wrongdoing!

²There [they are punished], because it was in their power to prevent [the sin], and they did not prevent it. What is the difference between the wicked of his family and the wicked of the [rest of the] world; and between the righteous of his family and the righteous of the [rest of the] world? — He himself, in the case of other transgressions, is punished by his own [appropriate] punishment, and the wicked of his family, by a severe punishment, and the wicked of the [rest of the] world, by a light punishment; the righteous, both here and there, are free. In the case of a [false] oath, he and the wicked of his family are punished with his punishment, and the wicked of the [rest of the] world, with a severe punishment; and the righteous, both here and there, with a light punishment. ‘If he says, l shall not swear, he is dismissed immediately; but if he said, I shall swear, those who are standing there say to each other: Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men.’ — Granted that he who swears is committing a wrong, but he who causes him to swear — why [should he be counted wicked]? — As was taught: R. Simeon b. Tarfon said: The oath of the Lord shall be between them both,’ this teaches us that the oath rests on both. ‘And when they adjure him, they say to him, Know that not in accordance with your own mind, etc.’ — Why should they say this to him? — Because of [the episode of] the cane of Raba. THE CLAIM [MUST BE AT LEAST] TWO MA'AHS. Rab said: The denial [in regard to] the claim must be [at least] two ma'ahs; and Samuel said: The claim itself must be [at least] two [ma'ahs]; even if he denied only a perutah, or admitted only a perutah, he is liable. Raba said: Our Mishnah is evidence in support of Rab, and there are Scriptural verses in support of Samuel. ‘Our Mishnah is evidence in support of Rab’ — for it states: THE CLAIM [MUST BE AT LEAST] TWO MA'AHS, AND THE ADMISSION [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH. But it does not state that the denial of the claim may be a perutah; and we learnt also: Admission must be [at least] a perutah; but it does not state that the denial [must be at least] a perutah. ‘There are Scriptural verses in support of Samuel’ — for it is written: If a man give unto his neighbour silver or vessels to keep — just as ‘vessels’ implies two, so ‘silver’ implies two; just as ‘silver’ is a thing of worth, so everything which is of worth [is included]; and Scripture says, This is it. — And Rab? — That we require for admission of a portion of the claim. And Samuel? — It is written, ‘it’, and it is written, ‘this’, [to teach us] that if he denied a portion, and admitted a portion, he is liable. And Rab? — One [word is to teach us] that there must be admission of a portion of the claim, and one [word is to teach us] that there must be admission of the same kind as the claim. And Samuel? — [He may retort:] Can you not incidentally infer that the amount of the claim is lessened? — Well, then, Rab may tell you: ‘Silver’ when originally mentioned is with reference to the denial; for, if it were not so, Scripture could have written: ‘If a man give unto his neighbour vessels to keep’; and I would have said: Just as ‘vessels’ implies two, so everything must be two; why did Scripture need to write ‘silver’? Since it is not required for the claim, apply it for the denial. And Samuel? — He may say to you: If Scripture had written ‘vessels’, and had not written ‘silver’, I might have said: Just as ‘vessels’ implies two, so everything must be two, but a thing of worth we do not require, therefore it teaches us [that we do]. We learnt: ‘TWO SILVER [MA'AHS] OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A PERUTAH,’ HE IS EXEMPT. What is the reason? Is it not because the claim is now less [than two ma'ahs]? Hence it is a refutation of Samuel's view! — Samuel may tell you: Do you think the Mishnah means the value [of two ma'ahs]? It means literally [two ma'ahs]; that which he claimed, the other did not admit to him; and that which he admitted to him, he had not claimed from him. If so, say the latter clause: ‘TWO SILVER [MA'AHS] AND A PERUTAH OF MINE HAVE YOU IN YOUR POSSESSION.’ ‘I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A PERUTAH,’ HE IS LIABLE. Granted, if you say [the Mishnah means] the value [of two ma'ahs and a perutah], therefore he is liable, but if you say [the Mishnah means it] literally, why is he liable? That which he claimed, the other did not admit to him, and that which he admitted to him, he had not claimed from him! — Is this not an argument against Samuel? But surely R. Nahman said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him wheat and barley, and he admitted to him one of them, he is liable. This appears to be the more reasonable interpretation, for it states in a later clause: ‘A LITRA OF GOLD OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A LITRA OF SILVER,’ HE IS EXEMPT. Granted, if you say the Mishnah means them literally, therefore he is exempt; but if you say it means their value, why is he exempt? A litra is much! — Well then, since the latter clause is intended literally, the first clause is also intended literally; shall we say, then, that it will be a refutation of Rab's view! — [No!] Rab may tell you: The whole Mishnah deals with the value [of ma'ahs and perutah]; but [the case of] a litra of gold is different.35^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ

^ᵃᵘnote:[Whereas false swearing undermines the very foundations and structure of human society involving in a common destruction the wholly righteous as well as the wicked.]
^ᵃᵛnote:The sinner's.
^ᵃʷnote:Of his family.
^ᵃˣnote:Of the rest of the world.
^ᵃʸnote:The whole passage deals with people who were able to prevent the sin, and did not; righteous people are those who are righteous in other respects, but passive in not preventing sin; and wicked people are those who are wicked in other respects. Hence, in the case of a false oath, the righteous, both of the family and others, are punished by a light punishment, because they were able to prevent it, and did not; but in the case of other transgressions they are free, though they were able to prevent them, because other transgressions are not as serious as a false oath; and they were, in any case, merely passive. According to this, the statement of the Talmud (top of 39b), that in the case of other transgressions they are punished if they were able to prevent the sin and did not (which implies, that in the case of an oath, they are punished even if they were not able to prevent it), is, in the sequel, not accepted. This explanation of the passage is opposed to that of Maharsha who explains ‘righteous’ as those unable to prevent the sin. In that case, why should they, in the case of an oath, be punished? They did not commit the sin, and they were unable to prevent its commission. The view of the Maharsha seems to conflict with one's sense of justice, [V. however p. 238, n. 5].
^ᵃᶻnote:For the bystanders say, these wicked men, i.e,, both.
^ᵇᵃnote:Ex. XXII. 10.
^ᵇᵇnote:The claimant also merits rebuke, for if he had been careful to arrange for witnesses to be present when giving the debtor the money, or to have a signed document, there would have been no need for an oath.
^ᵇᶜnote:V. supra 29a.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘silver (pieces)’. The amount he denies must be at least two ma'ahs, and since the admission must be at least a perutah, the total amount claimed must be at least two ma'ahs and a perutah.
^ᵇᵉnote:B.M. 55a: There are five cases where the minimum is a perutah; admission of a perutah is mentioned, but not denial. Hence this Mishnah and our Mishnah agree with Rab.
^ᵇᶠnote:Ex. XXII, 6.
^ᵇᵍnote:Two being the minimum of the plural ‘vessels’.
^ᵇʰnote:So that the claim must be for at least two silver pieces, i.e., ma'ahs.
^ᵇⁱnote:[Var. lec., ‘vessels’, reading ohkf for kf; v. Rashi and Tosaf.; cf. infra p. 247, n. 6.]
^ᵇʲnote:Ex. XXII, 8: for any claim about which the debtor says, ‘I do not owe you the whole amount, but this is it’, i.e., ‘I admit owing you this portion only,’ he takes an oath. Hence, the admission may be part of the two ma'ahs (leaving less than two ma'ahs for denial). Scripture thus appears to support Samuel.
^ᵇᵏnote:Scripture is against him!
^ᵇˡnote:Scripture writes ‘this is it’ to teach us that an oath is imposed only when a portion of the claim is admitted; but it does not necessarily refer to the claim of two ma'ahs mentioned in verse 6; there must always be a denial of two ma'ahs apart from the portion admitted.
^ᵇᵐnote:I.e., ‘it (a portion) I deny; this (a portion) I admit’. Hence, if the denial is only a perutah, he is liable.
^ᵇⁿnote:I.e., ‘it (a portion of the claim) I admit; this (of this very kind) I admit’.
^ᵇᵒnote:Assuming even, as you say, that the verse refers to admission only (that it must be a portion, and of the same kind), it is still obvious that the denial is less than two ma'ahs, for the only claim mentioned by Scripture (verse 6) is two ma'ahs, and of this, Scripture says (verse 8), he admits a portion — hence, he denies a portion (clearly less than two ma'ahs). Thus Scripture appears to be opposed to Rab's view.
^ᵇᵖnote:The word ‘silver’ (Ex. XXII, 6), which we say implies two ma'ahs, does not refer to the total claim, but to the denial.
^ᵇᵠnote:‘Silver’ included; hence I would have known that two ma'ahs are the minimum for the claim.
^ᵇʳnote:That the denial must be at least two ma'ahs.
^ᵇˢnote:It is not necessary that the two things claimed shall be valuable (for silver is not mentioned), and even two perutahs suffice for a claim.
^ᵇᵗnote:One claimed goods to the value of two ma'ahs, and the other admitted goods (the same kind) to the value of a perutah? If this were the case, he would be liable, though the claim is now less than two ma'ahs.
^ᵇᵘnote:One claimed two ma'ahs (silver), and the other admitted a perutah (copper); he is exempt, because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim.
^ᵇᵛnote:For he admits a portion of the claim: the same kind of goods.
^ᵇʷnote:Samuel counts this as being admission of the same kind as the claim; similarly, if he claimed two ma'ahs (silver) and a perutah (copper), and the other admitted a perutah (copper), he is liable.
^ᵇˣnote:Because he claims gold, and the other admits silver.
^ᵇʸnote:Goods to the value of a litra of gold, or silver.
^ᵇᶻnote:Sufficient for the minimum required for admission and denial.
^ᶜᵃnote:For the first clause states that if he claims two ma'ahs, and the other admits a perutah, he is exempt, because, presumably (taking the Mishnah literally) he claims silver, and the other admits copper; but if he claimed goods to the value of two ma'ahs, and the other admitted goods to the value of a perutah, he would be liable, though the claim was only originally two ma'ahs, and was, after the admission of a perutah, diminished from two ma'ahs.
^ᶜᵇnote:In the first clause he is therefore exempt, because, after the admission, the claim becomes less than two ma'ahs; and in the second clause, when the claim is two ma'ahs and a perutah, he is liable, because after the admission of a perutah, there is still denial of two ma'ahs.
^ᶜᶜnote:The Mishnah obviously intends this literally, for one claims a certain weight (not coins) of gold, and the other admits the same weight of silver; therefore he is exempt, because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. If the Mishnah had said that one claimed a sum of money in gold, and the other admitted a sum of money in silver, we might have said, legitimately, that goods to the value of those sums were intended, and the man would have been liable; but since the Mishnah states the weight of the gold and silver, it means actually gold and silver; and therefore he is exempt.