Temurah

will not hold him guiltless but the earthly tribunal punish him [with lashes] and hold him guiltless.1 Said R. Papa to Abaye: Why not say that the meaning of the text is that the earthly tribunal will not punish him at all?2 — He replied to him: If this be the case, let Scripture state: He shall not hold him guiltless, and say no more; what is the need for the word ‘the Lord’? In order to intimate: It is the Heavenly tribunal which will not hold him guiltless, but the earthly tribunal punish him [with lashes] and hold him guiltless. We find therefore [Biblical authority] for the case of a vain oath.3 Whence do we derive that [one is punishable with lashes] for a false oath?4 — R. Johanan himself5 said: [The expression] in vain [is stated] twice.6 If it7 has no bearing on the subject of a vain oath, apply it to the case of a false oath, as intimating that one is punishable [with lashes]. To this R. Abbuha demurred: How is a false oath to be understood? Shall we say, if he said: ‘I will not eat and he did eat? But in that case he performed action!8 On the other hand where he said: ‘I will eat’, and he did not eat, would he be punishable [with lashes in such a case]? Has it not been stated:9 If he says, ‘I swear that I will eat this loaf to-day’ and the day passed and he did not eat, both R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish hold that he is not punishable with lashes. R. Johanan says: He is not punishable [with lashes] because it is a negative command [the transgression of] which involves no action, and for breaking a prohibitory law which does not involve an action one is not punishable [with lashes]; whereas R. Simeon b. Lakish says: He is not punishable with lashes because he can be given only a doubtful warning,10 and a doubtful warning cannot render one punishable [with lashes]! — Rather said R. Abbuha: Let the case of a false oath then be if he says: ‘I have eaten’ or ‘I have not eaten’.11 And why is the case if he says: ‘[I swear] I have eaten’ or ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’ different?12 — Said Raba: The Torah plainly implies a false oath similar to a vain oath. Just as a vain oath refers to the past,13 so a false oath also refers to the past.14 R. Jeremiah cited the following in objection to R. Abbuha: If he says, ‘I swear that I will not eat this loaf’, ‘I swear I will not eat it’, ‘I swear I will not eat it’15 and he ate it, he is punishable only on one count,16 and this is the ‘oath of utterance’17 for which one is liable to lashes if it is wilfully broken, and to a sliding scale sacrifice18 if in error.19 Now what case does the expression ‘This is’ exclude?20 Is it not surely the case of one who says: ‘I swear I have eaten’ or ‘I swear I have not eaten’ that he is not lashed?21 — No. [This is what it means:] This is [an example of an oath of utterance] for which, if broken in error, one brings a sacrifice, but where he says: ‘I swear I have eaten’ or ‘I have not eaten’, he does not bring a sacrifice.22 And whose opinion is this? That of R. Ishmael who says: One is liable to bring [a sacrifice for an oath of utterance] only when the oath relates to the future.23 But [you may say that] he is punishable [with lashes];24 read then the second clause:25 ‘This is a vain oath for which one is punishable with lashes if it is wilfully broken, and if in error, one is exempt’.26 Now what case does [the word] ‘This is’ exclude? Is it not surely the case of one who says ‘l swear I have eaten’ or ‘I swear I have not eaten’, so that he is not punishable with lashes?27 — No. [It means this:] This is [a case of a vain oath] where if it is broken in error, one is exempted from bringing a sacrifice, but where one says ‘I swear I have eaten’ or ‘I swear I have not eaten’, he brings a sacrifice. And whose opinion is this? That of R. Akiba who says: One brings a sacrifice [for an oath of utterance] even if it relates to the past. But have you not explained that the first clause is the opinion of R. Ishmael?28 Rather [we must say,] since the second clause is the opinion of R. Akiba, therefore the first clause will also be the opinion of R. Akiba; and the first clause therefore will not exclude the case of one who says ‘I have eaten’ or ‘I have not eaten’29 but will exclude the case of one who says ‘I shall eat’ or ‘I shall not eat’.30 And what is the difference?31 — Where [it] speaks of the future,32 it excludes something relating to the future;33 but where it speaks of the future, would it exclude something relating to the past? 34 ‘And one who exchanges’. Said R. Johanan to the Tanna:35 Do not read: ‘And one who exchanges’,36 because his very words37 constitute an action.38 ‘And he who curses his fellow with the Name’. Whence is this proved? — R. Eleazar reported in the name of R. Oshaia: The verse says: If thou wilt not observe to do etc.39 And it says: Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful.40 Now I do not know in what this ‘wonder’ consists.41 But when Scripture says:42 That the judge cause him to lie down to be beaten,43 this shows that [the] ‘wonderful’ [punishment]44 means [punishment with] lashes. But why not say that it45 refers even to a true oath?46 — It is explicitly stated:47 Then shall the oath of the Lord be between them.48 But why not say that this49 is only with the object of appeasing his neighbour,50 but that in reality he is punished [with lashes]?51 — You cannot say this. For is it not written: And shalt swear by his Name?52 But we need this text in order to derive the ruling of R. Giddal? For R. Giddal said: Whence do we derive that one may swear to observe the commandments,53 for it says: I have sworn and I will perform it that I will keep thy righteous judgments?54 — Is there not however another text, And to him shalt thou cling and swear by his Name?55 Then what does the text, [‘If thou wilt not observe to do’] come to teach us? That one who curses his fellow with the Name is punishable [with lashes].56 But why not say that the text refers to one who pronounces the Lord's name for no purpose?57 — Is then one who curses his fellow with the Name less culpable than one who pronounces the Lord's name for no purpose? — Our question is really this: Why not say that for one who pronounces the Lord's name for no purpose the punishment of lashes will suffice, but if one curses his fellow with the Name, since he commits two [forbidden things], first in pronouncing the Lord's name for no purpose and then in vexing his fellow, therefore punishment with lashes should not be sufficient?58 otherwise, e.g. saying of a stone column that it is gold. the oath. defined, so as to make the warning precede immediately. Here too when he is warned to eat the loaf of bread, he can say he has plenty of time and has no fear of the warning. And even if the day passed, he can still plead that he forgot both the oath and the warning. Consequently he is not liable to punishment with lashes. punishment if he says ‘I will eat’ and he did not eat, since in both cases the transgressions do not involve an action. Sh. Mek. deletes the words ‘I will eat and he did not eat’ that follow. the oath, it was a stone, as it is now (Rashi). is liable to lashes for the vain oath as explained above, similarly one is liable to lashes for a false oath. benefits nor injures anybody. good’, implying the future and excluding the past, e.g., ‘I have eaten’ etc. At all events, we have not yet found a definition of what constitutes a ‘false oath’ which we say above is punishable with lashes. bringing of a sacrifice. But there would be the punishment of lashes where he says. ‘I have eaten’ as in the case of a vain oath. Mishnah holding contrary opinions? in error, since we accept the opinion of R. Akiba on this point. eaten’ in the second clause as being bound to bring a sacrifice. i.e., that one should not utter the Deity's name in vain and similarly one who curses his neighbour with the Name, utters God's name in vain. wonderful. tkpvu , And (the Lord) will make wonderful. even utter the Name in an oath which is taken to observe commandments. observe the commandments, and the other, that it is permissible to utter the Name in connection with a true oath.