כי אתא רבין א"ר ירמיה א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן אכלתי ולא אכלתי שקר ואזהרתיה (ויקרא יט, יב) מלא תשבעו בשמי לשקר אוכל ולא אוכל עובר (במדבר ל, ג) בלא יחל דברו ואי זו היא שבועת שוא נשבע לשנות את הידוע לאדם
R. Papa said: This statement of R. Abbahu's was not explicitly expressed, but only deduced by implication; 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, and cursing one's neighbour with the Name. 'Swearing' - how do we know? 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 guiltless - the Upper Court will not render him guiltless, but the lower court inflict stripes and render him guiltless. 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. Since it 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. 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? - Well then, said R. Abbahu: It refers to: '[I swear] I have eaten', '[I swear] I have not eaten'. And what is the difference? - Raba said: Clearly did the Torah include a false oath which is like a vain oath; just as a vain oath is in the past, so a false oath which is in the past [is included]. <br>
Sefer HaChinukh
To not swear falsely: To not swear falsely, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:12), "And you shall not swear in My name falsely." And they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Shevout 21a) that this verse warns about an oath of speech. And an oath of speech is what is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 5:4), "Or a soul that swears to express with the lips to do bad or to do good." And it is divided into four parts - two of the future and two of the past, such as swearing on something that was done or not done, and on something that in the future he will do or will not do. And an oath of speech is only practiced with things that it is possible for a person to do, whether in the past or in the future. How is of the past? "I ate," or "I did not eat"; and so [too,] "I threw," or "I did not throw a stone into the sea." And how is of the future? "I will eat," or "I will not eat"; or "I will throw," or "I will not throw." But with things that have a prevention from the Torah, an oath of speech is not practiced. As an oath only rests upon an optional matter - that if he wants, he does it and if he wants, he does not do it - as it is stated, "to do bad or to do good." But with any matter of a commandment, there is an obligation upon him to do it. Therefore an oath of speech does not rest upon him, whether in the past or in the future - in the case that he swears to perform a commandment, and he did not perform it; and so [too,] if he swears that he performed a commandment, and he did not perform it. As [just] like a liability [for punishment for a false oath] does not rest upon the matter of a commandment in the future, so too does it not rest upon it in the past. And so is the matter elucidated in its place in Shevuot 27a.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
And if you will ask, "And why do we administer lashes for exchange - behold, it is a negative commandment that is rectifiable by a positive commandment, and that [commandment] is, 'and it and its exchange will be consecrated'"; the Sages, may their memory be blessed, have already given a reason for that matter. And they said (Temurah 4b) it is because there are two negative commandments about it, as I have written in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 352); and a positive commandment does not come and uproot two negative commandments. And they also said another reason - since the negative commandment of exchange is not the same as the positive commandment about it: As if the community, or partners make an exchange, they do not create an exchange (it is not effective), even if they are warned not to exchange (it is forbidden). And since the negative commandment is not the same as the positive commandment, we do not say about it that its law is like a negative commandment that is rectifiable by a positive commandment. And if you will ask further, "And why do we administer lashes for this negative commandment, as it is possible to transgress it without an act, with speech alone - and the principle is established for us that we do not administer lashes for any negative commandment that does not have an act [involved] with it"; we have already written the answer in many places: That they, may their memory be blessed, explicitly excluded (Shevuot 21a) swearing, exchanging and cursing his fellow with [God's] name from this principle. As the Torah was very stringent about them to make them liable for lashes, even though there is no act [involved] with them.
