Reference for Shevuot 41:4
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>