Temurah 6

Chapter 6

א אין מנקין אותו אבל בית דין של מטה מלקין אותו ומנקין אותו
1 will not hold him guiltless but the earthly tribunal punish him [with lashes] and hold him guiltless.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of lashes his sin will be atoned.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב א"ל רב פפא לאביי ואימא לא תיהוי ליה נקיות כלל א"ל אם כן לכתוב קרא לא ינקה ולישתוק ה' למה לי בית דין של מעלה הוא דאין מנקין אותו אבל ב"ד של מטה מלקין ומנקין אותו
2 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no action is involved in taking an oath, therefore no punishment at all is inflicted.');"><sup>2</sup></span> - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one is punishable with lashes. A vain oath means if one swears to that which is universally known to he otherwise, e.g. saying of a stone column that it is gold.');"><sup>3</sup></span> Whence do we derive that [one is punishable with lashes] for a false oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one swears to the opposite of the truth, e.g., 'I have eaten' when he has not.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אשכחן שבועת שוא שבועת שקר מנלן רבי יוחנן דידיה אמר לשוא לשוא שני פעמים אם אינו ענין לשבועת שוא תניהו ענין לשבועת שקר דלוקה
3 - R'Johanan himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without reporting it in the name of some other teacher.');"><sup>5</sup></span> said: [The expression] in vain [is stated] twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same verse Ex. XX, 7.');"><sup>6</sup></span> If it has no bearing on the subject of a vain oath, apply it to the case of a false oath, as intimating that one is punishabl [with lashes].
ד מתקיף לה רבי אבהו שבועת שקר היכי דמי אינימא דאמר שלא אוכל ואכל התם הוא מעשה עבד ואלא דאמר שאוכל ולא אכל ההוא מי לקי והאיתמר שבועה שאוכל ככר זה היום ועבר היום ולא אכל רבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמרי אינו לוקה
4 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is only right that he should be punishable with lashes, for he ate and took an action in transgressing the oath.');"><sup>8</sup></span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 63b; Mak. 15b; Shebu. 3b, 21a.');"><sup>9</sup></span> 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.
ה ר' יוחנן אומר אינו לוקה דלאו שאין בו מעשה הוא וכל לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו ור"ל אמר אינו לוקה משום דהוה ליה התראת ספק וכל התראת ספק אין לוקין עליו
5 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One swears he will do a certain thing during the day when the actual moment of the offence (of omission) cannot be 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.');"><sup>10</sup></span> 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to what has already taken place, so that no action is involved in the violation of the oath.');"><sup>11</sup></span> And why is the case if he says: '[I swear] I have eaten' or '[I swear] I have not eaten' different?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That you include if he says 'I have eaten' and he did not eat as punishable with lashes and you exclude from 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.');"><sup>12</sup></span> - Said Raba: The Torah plainly implies a false oath similar to a vain oath.
ו אלא א"ר אבהו תהא באכלתי ולא אכלתי
6 Just as a vain oath refers to the past,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he swears concerning a column of stone that it is gold, this refers to the past, for in the past, before he took the oath, it was a stone, as it is now (Rashi) .');"><sup>13</sup></span> so a false oath also refers to the past.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he says: 'I swear I have eaten' or 'I have not eaten', whereas 'I will eat' refers to the future. And just as one is liable to lashes for the vain oath as explained above, similarly one is liable to lashes for a false oath.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ז ומאי שנא דקא מרבה אכלתי ולא אכלתי מאוכל ולא אכל אמר רבא בפירוש ריבתה תורה שקר דומה לשוא מה שוא לשעבר אף שקר לשעבר
7 R'Jeremiah cited the following in objection to R'Abbuha: If he says, 'I swear that I will not eat this loa swear I will not eat it', 'I swear I will not eat it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Uttering the same oath three times.');"><sup>15</sup></span> and he ate it, he is punishable only on one count,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For one oath cannot be superimposed on another.');"><sup>16</sup></span> and this is the 'oath of utterance'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which Scripture says: Pronouncing with his lips to do evil or to do good (Lev. v, 4) . It is an oath which neither benefits nor injures anybody.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ח איתיביה רבי ירמיה לרבי אבהו שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו שבועה שלא אוכלנה שבועה שלא אוכלנה ואכלה אינו חייב אלא אחת וזוהי שבועת ביטוי שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה קרבן עולה ויורד זוהי למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי אכלתי ולא אכלתי דלא לקי
8 for which one is liable to lashes if it is wilfully broken, and to a sliding scale sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to pecuniary conditions.');"><sup>18</sup></span> if in error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shebu. 27b.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Now what case does the expression 'This is' exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that one is not liable to lashes if he offends wilfully.');"><sup>20</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although it is an 'oath of utterance' it is not punishable with lashes, since Scripture says 'to do evil or to do 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.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - No.
ט לא זו היא דעל שגגתה מייתי קרבן אבל אכלתי ולא אכלתי לא מייתי קרבן ומני רבי ישמעאל היא דאמר אינו חייב אלא על העתיד לבא אבל מילקא לקי
9 [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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Scriptural verse: 'To do evil or to do good' which refers to the future is mentioned in connection with the 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.');"><sup>22</sup></span> 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 th oath relates to the future.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture says: To do evil or to do good (Lev. v, 4) ; v. Shebu. 25a.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
י אימא סיפא זוהי שבועת שוא שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה פטור זוהי למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי אכלתי ולא אכלתי דלא לקי
10 But [you may say that] he is punishable [with lashes];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he swears: 'I have eaten' or 'I have not eaten'.');"><sup>24</sup></span> read then the second clause:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Mishnah in Shebu. 27b.');"><sup>25</sup></span> 'This is a vain oath for which one is punishable with lashes if it is wilfully broken, and if in error one is exempt'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Shebu. 29a.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Now what case does [the word] 'This is' exclude?
יא לא זוהי דעל שגגתה פטור מקרבן אבל אכלתי ולא אכלתי מייתי קרבן ומני ר"ע היא דאמר מביאין קרבן לשעבר
11 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This therefore contradicts the inference from the first clause above.');"><sup>27</sup></span> - 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.
יב והא אמרת רישא רבי ישמעאל אלא מדסיפא רבי עקיבא רישא נמי רבי עקיבא ורישא לאו למעוטי אכלתי ולא אכלתי אלא למעוטי אוכל ולא אכל
12 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.
יג ומאי שנא משום דקאי בלהבא ממעט להבא קאי בלהבא ממעט לשעבר
13 But have you not explained that the first clause is the opinion of R'Ishmael?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says that a sacrifice is brought only when the oath has reference to the future. How then can you have the same Mishnah holding contrary opinions?');"><sup>28</sup></span> 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'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if one says: 'I have eaten' or 'I have not eaten' one would certainly be bound to bring a sacrifice if he swore in error, since we accept the opinion of R. Akiba on this point.');"><sup>29</sup></span> but will exclude the case of one who says 'I shall eat' or 'I shall not eat'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the bringing of a sacrifice.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יד ומימר א"ל רבי יוחנן לתנא לא תתני ומימר משום דבדיבורו עשה מעשה
14 And what is the difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That I exclude from the first clause the case of 'I will eat' from bringing a sacrifice and include the case of 'I have eaten' in the second clause as being bound to bring a sacrifice.');"><sup>31</sup></span> - Where [it] speaks of the future,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'I will not eat it', mentioned in the first clause.');"><sup>32</sup></span> it excludes something relating to the future;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of 'I will eat' and he did not eat.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
טו המקלל את חבירו בשם מנלן א"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא אמר קרא (דברים כח, נח) אם לא תשמר וכתיב (דברים כח, נט) והפלא ה' את מכותך הפלאה זו איני יודע מהו כשהוא אומר (דברים כה, ב) והפילו השופט והכהו לפניו הוי אומר הפלאה זו מלקות
15 but where it speaks of the future, would it exclude something relating to the past?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., 'I have eaten' or 'I have not eaten'. For fuller notes v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) ');"><sup>34</sup></span> 'And one who exchanges'. Said R'Johanan to the Tanna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. s.v. (b) .');"><sup>35</sup></span> Do not read: 'And one who exchanges',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being one of the exceptions of a transgression involving no action for which one is lashed.');"><sup>36</sup></span> because his very words<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'This unconsecrated animal be exchanged for that consecrated animal'.');"><sup>37</sup></span> constitute an action.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the unconsecrated animal becomes sacred.');"><sup>38</sup></span> '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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVIII, 58. The passage continues: That thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord thy God, 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.');"><sup>39</sup></span>
טז אימר אפילו שבועת אמת בהדיא כתיב (שמות כב, י) שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם
16 And it says: Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In verse 59 which follows. tkpvu');"><sup>40</sup></span> Now I do not know in what this 'wonder' consists.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What exactly is the nature of the punishment referred to when Scripture says , He will make . . wonderful.');"><sup>41</sup></span> But when Scripture says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . Ibid. XXV, 2. ukhpvu tkpvu');"><sup>42</sup></span> That the judge cause him to lie down to be beaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here the word 'beaten' is mentioned in connection with , the latter word being a similar expression to , And (the Lord) will make wonderful.');"><sup>43</sup></span>
יז אימר הני מילי לפייס את חבירו אבל מילקא לילקי לא מצית אמרת דהכתיב (דברים ו, יג) ובשמו תשבע
17 this shows that [the] 'wonderful' [punishment]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alluded to by the word.');"><sup>44</sup></span> means [punishment with] lashes. But why not say that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Scriptural passage above: If thou wilt not observe to do etc.');"><sup>45</sup></span>
יח ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרב דאמר רב גידל אמר רב מנין שנשבעין לקיים את המצות שנאמר (תהלים קיט, קו) נשבעתי ואקיימה לשמור משפטי צדקך הכתיב קרא אחרינא (דברים י, כ) ובו תדבק ובשמו תשבע
18 refers even to a true oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one is warned not to utter the name of the Deity even with a true oath, under the penalty of lashes.');"><sup>46</sup></span> - It is explicitly stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a true oath may be uttered with the Name.');"><sup>47</sup></span> Then shall the oath of the Lord be between them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 10.');"><sup>48</sup></span> But why not say that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an oath is taken with the Name.');"><sup>49</sup></span>
יט אלא למאי אתא למקלל את חבירו בשם ואימא למוציא שם שמים לבטלה מי גרע מקלל את חבירו בשם ממוציא שם שמים לבטלה
19 is only with the object of appeasing his neighbour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he should not claim money from him.');"><sup>50</sup></span> but that in reality he is punished [with lashes]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For taking an oath with the Name.');"><sup>51</sup></span> - You cannot say this. For is it not written: And shalt swear by his Name?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 13. Thus we see that it is permissible to swear with the Name.');"><sup>52</sup></span>
כ אנן הכי קא קשיא לן אימא מוציא שם שמים לבטלה תיסגי ליה במלקות אבל מקלל חבירו בשם כיון דקעביד תרתי דקא מפיק שם שמים לבטלה וקמצער ליה לחבריה לא תיסגי ליה במלקות
20 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that one cannot go back on one's word.');"><sup>53</sup></span> for it says: have sworn and I will perform it that I will keep thy righteous judgments?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CXIX, 106. And therefore there is need for the text: And shalt swear by His name to inform us that one may even utter the Name in an oath which is taken to observe commandments.');"><sup>54</sup></span> - Is there not however another text, And to him shalt thou cling and swear by his Name?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. X, 20. Therefore one of the texts is required in order to deduce the ruling that one can swear with the Name to observe the commandments, and the other, that it is permissible to utter the Name in connection with a true oath.');"><sup>55</sup></span> 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although no action is involved.');"><sup>56</sup></span> But why not say that the text refers to one who pronounces the Lord's name for no purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if one curses one's fellow with the Name, there is no punishment with lashes.');"><sup>57</sup></span> - 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That atonement with lashes alone is not adequate for the offence.');"><sup>58</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter