Shevuot 41
קמ"ל כדשני ליה
<br> therefore he teaches us [that he is punished by stripes] as Abaye answered him. And if you will, I may say, that just as he brings an offering for a false oath, so he brings an offering for a vain oath; and it is in accordance with R. Akiba's view who makes him liable for [an oath in] the past as in the future. <br>
ואיבעית אימא כשם שמביא קרבן על שקר כך מביא קרבן על שוא ור"ע היא דמחייב לשעבר כלהבא
An objection was raised: What is a vain oath? Swearing that which is contrary to the facts known to man. A false oath? Swearing that which is the reverse. [Hence, a false oath is in the past tense, yet R. Johanan says, in the future.] Say, Swearing and reversing. <br>
מיתיבי אי זו היא שבועת שוא נשבע לשנות את הידוע לאדם שבועת שקר נשבע להחליף אימא נשבע ומחליף
When R. Abin came [from Palestine], he said that R. Jeremiah said that R. Abbahu said that R. Johanan said: '[I swear] I have eaten', '[I swear] I have not eaten' [and it was untrue], are false oaths, and their prohibition is from: Ye shall not swear by My name falsely. '[I swear] I shall eat', '[I swear] I shall not eat' [and he broke the oath], he transgresses: He shall not break his word. And what is a vain oath? Swearing that which is contrary to the facts known to man.
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>
אמר רב פפא הא דרבי אבהו לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב עמרם אמר רב יצחק א"ר יוחנן ר' יהודה אומר משום ר' יוסי הגלילי כל לא תעשה שבתורה לאו שיש בו מעשה לוקין עליו ושאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו חוץ מנשבע ומימר ומקלל את חבירו בשם
R. Jeremiah put a question to R. Abbahu: [We learnt:] I SWEAR I shall not eat this loaf; I swear I shall not eat it; I swear I shall not eat it', and he ate it, he is liable only for one [oath]: this is the oath of utterance for the wilful transgression of which stripes are incurred, and for the unwitting transgression of which a sliding scale sacrifice is brought. 'This is [the oath, etc.]' What does 'this' exclude? Surely, it excludes '[I swear] I have eaten', '[[swear] I have not eaten', that he is not liable for stripes? - No! It excludes '[I swear] I have eaten', '[I swear] I have not eaten' from an
נשבע מנלן א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י אמר קרא (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא כי לא ינקה ב"ד של מעלה אין מנקין אותו אבל ב"ד של מטה מלקין אותו ומנקין אותו
offering: 'this is [the oath . . .]' for the unwitting transgression of which a sliding scale sacrifice is brought, but not '[I swear] I have eaten', '[I swear] I have not eaten'; and this will be in accordance with the opinion of R. Ishmael who holds that he is only liable for an oath in the future; but stripes he incurs.