Shevuot 21a — the Talmud in English

ka mashma lan

the beraita

ke-deshani leh

Abaye to Rav Pappa: from the fact that it is stated, “For the Lord will not hold him guiltless,” and it is not stated, “He will not hold him guiltless,” it is inferred that only the Lord does not hold him guiltless, but the earthly court holds him guiltless.

And if you wish, say:

The beraita came to say that “vain” and “false” are one and the same:

Just as he brings an offering for

an

false

oath that he swore concerning the future,

so he brings an offering for

a

vain

oath that he swore concerning the past.

And it is Rabbi Akiva’s [opinion], who obligates

[one to bring] an offering for an oath

concerning the past like

an oath

concerning the future [as stated] below in the Mishna [25a], and he disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael, who obligates an offering only for an oath concerning the future, as indicated by the verse concerning the offering for an oath, “to do harm or to do good,” meaning concerning the future.

below, on page 25a]. He disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael, who obligates one to bring an offering only for an oath concerning the future, as indicated by the verse in the passage concerning the offering for an oath: “To do harm or to do good,” meaning concerning the future.

MeitivI

to Rav Dimi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that a false oath is when one swears concerning the future, from that which was taught:

Which is a vain oath?

One swears to change what is known to

all

people,

such as when one swears concerning a man that he is a woman, for everyone knows that this is not true, and therefore his oath is in vain.

And which is

a false oath?

One swears to alter

and change the truth that is not known to everyone, such as when he swears concerning the past, “I ate,” when he did not eat, or, “I did not eat,” when he ate.

It follows that a false oath is when one swears concerning the past, and this is difficult for Rav Dimi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan!?

And we answer:

Say

this instead: A false oath is when a person

swears

concerning the future

and alters,

changing his statement afterward, so that he violates his oath by not standing by his undertaking to do or not to do.

When Ravin came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya, who said in the name of Rabbi Abahu, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

One who swears concerning the past, such as

“I ate and I did not eat”

and the matter was not true—this is an oath of

falsehood.

And its warning is from

“You shall not swear falsely in My name,”

whose meaning is concerning the past, for at the time he swears, it is already false.

And if he swears concerning the future, such as

“I will eat and I will not eat”

and he did not fulfill his word,

he violates

“He shall not profane his word,”

whose meaning is that after he has spoken his word, he shall not profane it; for if it is an oath concerning the past, it is already profaned at the time of the oath.

And which is a vain oath?

One swears to change what is known to

all

people!

Rav Pappa said: This statement of Rabbi Abahu

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan—that “I ate and I did not eat” is a false oath—

was not stated explicitly.

Rabbi Abahu did not say this explicitly in the name of Rabbi Yohanan,

but it was stated by implication.

Rabbi Yirmeya heard from Rabbi Abahu how he established the words of Rabbi Yohanan concerning a certain matter relating to the law of a false oath, and from this Rabbi Yirmeya learned that Rabbi Abahu held, according to Rabbi Yohanan, that a false oath is concerning the past.

For Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rav Amram, who said in the name of Rav Yitzhak, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: Every prohibition in the Torah,

if it is

a prohibition involving an act, one is lashed for it.

And

if it is a prohibition

not involving an act, one is not lashed for it.

Except for one who swears [as will be explained below],

Holy One, blessed be He.

and one who substitutes,

who substituted a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, and thereby violated the prohibition of “He shall not substitute it.”

And one who curses his fellow in the Name

the distinctive Name of the Holy One, blessed is He.

These are mentioned because, although their prohibitions do not involve an act, nevertheless one is lashed for them. [ [A0083]]In Tractate Temura the Gemara explains the reason concerning one who substitutes and one who curses, whereas here the Gemara explains only the reason concerning one who swears].

One who swears—from where do we know

that he is lashed even though it does not involve an act?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: The verse says

“You shall not bear the Name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold guiltless

the one who bears His Name in vain.” And we expound: Only

the heavenly court does not hold him guiltless, but the earthly court

lashes him, and

тем самым

holds him guiltless.

Abaye said to him:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Perhaps this is what the Merciful One says—

“He does not hold him guiltless at all!”

Neither in the heavenly court nor in the earthly court?

Abaye said to him:

If

it

had been written

“For he will not hold guiltless”

alone, indeed it would have meant

as you say,

that he is not cleansed at all, but

now that it is written

“For the Lord will not hold guiltless,”

it means that only

the Lord does not hold him guiltless, but the earthly court lashes him and holds him guiltless.

We have found a vain oath

for which one is lashed despite its not involving an act;

from where do we know concerning a false oath

that one is also lashed for it?

Rabbi Yohanan himself

[himself, and not in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, as above]

said:

It is stated in the verse of “You shall not bear,”

“in vain”

“in vain”

twice.

And we expound:

If

the second “in vain”

is not needed for a vain oath, apply it to a false oath,

to teach that one is also lashed for it.

Rabbi Abahu examined this: This false oath

that Rabbi Yohanan learned through “if it is not needed” from a vain oath—

what are the circumstances?

If you say

that he said

“An oath that I will not eat”

and he ate,

why do I need a derivation from a vain oath? After all,

it is a prohibition involving an act,

for he ate and thereby performed an act, and it is obvious that one is lashed for it.

But rather,

perhaps you will say that Rabbi Yohanan is speaking of a case where he

said

“An oath that I will eat”

and he did not eat,

which does not involve an act?

But

in such a case, is he lashed?

But it was stated:

One who says

“An oath that I will eat this loaf today,” and the day passed and he did not eat it:

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish both say: He is not lashed.

They disagreed only concerning the reason for the matter:

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not lashed because it is a prohibition

not involving an act, and for every prohibition not involving an act one is not lashed.

And Reish Lakish said: He is not lashed because it was a warning of uncertainty,

for when the witnesses warn him to eat, so that he will not violate the oath, it is still uncertain whether he will indeed violate it, since he still has time to eat it afterward.

And a warning of uncertainty is not called a warning.

which involves no action, only speech, and nevertheless he receives lashes because of the derivation from the two occurrences of “in vain.”

It follows that concerning an oath, “I will eat,” and he did not eat, Rabbi Yohanan holds that one is not lashed; and if so, it is impossible to say that this is what Rabbi Yohanan intended when he said that one is lashed for a false oath?

And Rabbi Abahu said: Let

that false oath of which Rabbi Yohanan spoke be

for

one who swore concerning the past,

“I ate”

or

“I did not eat,”

which involves no act, only speech, and nevertheless one is lashed for it because of the derivation that “in vain” and “in vain” are stated twice.

And this is Rav Pappa’s intention: Rabbi Abahu did not hear explicitly from Rabbi Yohanan that “I ate and I did not eat” is a false oath; rather, he learned it from the implication of Rabbi Yohanan’s words, for it is impossible to establish them only concerning an oath about the future.

And we examine this:

And what is different

about an oath concerning the past, for which Rabbi Yohanan said that one is lashed, from an oath concerning the future, “I will eat” or “I will not eat,” for which one is not lashed according to Rabbi Yohanan? After all, neither of them involves an act.

And we answer:

Rava said: The Torah explicitly included

from “in vain” “in vain” only

a false oath

that is

similar to

an oath of

vanity, and therefore the Torah wrote the inclusion in the language of “vanity”—

this loaf, and then repeated his statement a third time

What

an oath of

vanity, in which one swears to change what is known to everyone, is

This

concerning the past,

for at the time he swears he violates a vain oath,

so too

an oath of

falsehood,

specifically

concerning the past.

But an oath concerning the future is not included in this inclusion; rather, its law is like that of every prohibition not involving an act, for which one is not lashed.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Abahu:

We learned in the Mishna below [27b]: One who says

“An oath that I will not eat this loaf,”

and then said

“An oath that I will not eat it,”

this loaf, and then repeated his words a third time and said

“An oath that I will not eat it,”

and he ate it, he is liable for only one,

because an oath does not take effect upon an oath. Since the matter was already prohibited to him by the first oath, the second oath is now like one who swears to fulfill a mitzva, for which he is exempt even if he did not fulfill the mitzva.

An

oath of expression; for its intentional violation one is liable for lashes, and for its unintentional violation one is liable for an ascending and descending offering.

And Rabbi Yirmeya infers:

“This is,”

to exclude what?

What

not

is the intention of the Mishna:

to exclude

one who swore

“I ate”

or

“I did not eat,”

that he is not lashed?

Because it is a prohibition not involving an act, and we do not expound “in vain” “in vain” twice to include a false oath for lashes.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Abahu?

And Rabbi Abahu answers:

No,

the Mishna did not come to exclude one who swore intentionally from lashes, but

to exclude

one who swore unintentionally,

“I ate and I did not eat,”

from an offering!

And this is what the Mishna said: “An oath that I will not eat,” and he ate—

this is

the oath

for whose unintentional violation

one is liable for

an ascending and descending offering. But

if he swore concerning the past,

“I ate and I did not eat,”

he is not

liable for an offering.

And it is Rabbi Ishmael’s [opinion], who says: He is not liable

for an offering

unless

he swore

concerning the future

and not when he swore concerning the past.

But

in any event,

he is lashed

even for an oath concerning the past.