Shevuot 36a — the Talmud in English

And from where is it to make an oath without an alah like an oath with an alah? -

The verse states: “And he hears the sound of an alah.”

Since the verse could have said “and he hears an alah,” but the verse added and said “and he hears the sound of an alah,” it implies that it is an oath in which there is an alah. Therefore it wrote “sound,” to innovate that one is liable for the oath separately and for the alah separately. For we read in it

“and he hears an alah,”

and we read in it

“and he hears a sound”!

And from here we also learn that an alah is an oath.

Rabbi Abbahu said: From where is it that an alah is an oath? For it is stated

regarding Nebuchadnezzar,

“And he brought him

Zedekiah

with an alah.” And it is written, “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar,

Zedekiah, despite

that he had adjured him

Nebuchadnezzar

by the oath of God”!

The tanna taught: “Cursed”

serves for several expressions.

It denotes excommunication,

for if a Sage said about a person that he is cursed in the language of excommunication, he is excommunicated.

It denotes a curse.

One who expresses himself against his fellow in the language of a curse and says to him, “Cursed,” is liable by the law of one who curses his fellow.

It denotes an oath.

If a person said to his fellow in the language of adjuration that he is cursed, and his fellow accepted this upon himself, he is liable as one who was adjured.

It denotes excommunication, as it is written

in the Song of Deborah:

“Curse Meroz, said the angel of the Lord; curse its inhabitants.” And Ulla said: With four hundred shofar blasts

of shofar sounds

he excommunicated

the inhabitants

of Meroz.

It denotes a curse, as it is written: “And these shall stand for the curse.” And it is written: “Cursed is the man who makes an image.” And so on.

It denotes an oath,

as it is written:

“And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying -

Cursed is the man before the Lord!” And so on.

And we challenge the derivation from Joshua: From where do we know that “cursed” is an expression of an oath?

Perhaps

Joshua

did two things for them:

he also

made them swear, and

he also

cursed them,

and it was because of the curse that he said “cursed”?!

Rather, from here

we derive that “cursed” is an expression of an oath:

“And a man of Israel had adjured the people on that day, saying: Cursed is the man who eats.” And it is written: “And Jonathan did not hear when his father adjured the people.”

And we challenge:

Perhaps here too Saul did two things for them,

Saul: he also

made them swear

and also

cursed them?

And we answer:

Is it written

that Saul said

“and cursed”?

Only then could it be said that he both made them swear and cursed them?!

And now that you have come to

answer

in this way, answer also

the rejection of the proof from Joshua:

There too, it is not written

in Joshua’s words

“and cursed.”

Therefore it cannot be said that he added a curse to the oath!

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: “Amen” -

It denotes an oath,

for whoever answers “Amen” after an oath is like one who swore himself.

It denotes acceptance of words. One who says to his fellow that he is to become obligated to him in some matter, and the latter answered “Amen,” is like one who became obligated to him.

It denotes affirmation of words.

One who says “Amen” after a prayer is like one who affirms the words and thereby says: May it be the will that this truly be so.

It denotes an oath -

as it is written

regarding the oath of the woman suspected of adultery,

“And the woman shall say: Amen, amen.”

In answering “Amen,” she is considered as one who swore herself. And although it is stated “and the koen shall adjure,” the meaning of the verse is not that she is adjured by the koen, in the same manner as a witness who is claimed to testify is adjured by the claimant to testify. For the concept “adjured by others” applies when the defendant denies the claim directed toward him by the claimant, together with the claimant’s adjuration, whereas in the case of the woman suspected of adultery she does not deny the koen’s accusations, but answers “Amen” after his words. Therefore this is not an “adjuration,” but a self-administered oath, performed through answering “Amen” to the koen’s words.

It denotes acceptance of words -

as it is written: “Cursed is he who does not uphold the words of this Torah to perform them, and all the people shall say -

Amen!”

It denotes affirmation of words -

as it is written:

“And Jeremiah the prophet said -

Amen, so shall the Lord do; may the Lord establish my words!”

Rabbi Elazar said:

one who says

“No,”

and repeats and doubles the “no,” this is the language of an

oath,

and likewise one who says

“Yes”

and repeats and doubles it, this is the language of an oath.

And we inquire:

Granted, “no”

we find that it is the language of an

oath, as it is written: “And there shall no longer be waters for a flood.” And it is written: “For as the waters of Noah, this is to Me, for I swore.” But “yes,”

which is the language of an

oath, from where do we know it?

And we answer:

It is logical -

just as “no” is an oath, “yes” too is an oath!

For “yes” is in the affirmative, just as “no” is in the negative.

Rava said: And this is when he said “no” -

“no” two times; and when he said “yes” -

“yes” two times!

The repetition of the words comes to give them the force of an oath. And likewise we find in the verse that it doubled the “no,” and only by virtue of the doubling of the “no” is the speech considered an oath,

as it is written: “And no flesh shall again be cut off by the waters of the flood, and there shall no longer be a flood to destroy the earth.” And since “no”

is considered an oath only when he says “no”

two times, “yes” too

is an oath only when he repeats and says “yes”

two times!

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who curses with all of them is liable; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt.”

The Sages taught: “Any man, any man, who curses his God shall bear his sin” -

what

is the purpose of saying this

in this verse? Is it not already stated: “And one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death”?

Rather, this verse comes to teach us:

One might have thought that he is liable

only for cursing

the explicit Name

of yod-hei-vav-hei

alone; from where is there to include the appellations? The verse states: “Any man, any man, who curses his God” -

in any case! These are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: For

cursing

the explicit Name -

by death; and for the appellations -

by prohibition!

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who curses his father and his mother”

with all of them is liable; these are the words of Rabbi Meir, and the Sages exempt.

Who are the Sages? -

Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei! For it was taught: Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei says: “When he blasphemes the Name, he shall be put to death” -

What

is the purpose of saying “the Name,” when it has already been stated: “And one who blasphemes the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death”?

It taught

that the verse, if it is not needed for the one who blasphemes the Name of the Lord, should be applied to teach

concerning one who curses his father and his mother, that he is not liable until he curses them with the explicit Name

and not with appellations!

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who curses himself and his fellow with all of them”

transgresses a negative commandment.

Rabbi Yannai said: And according to everyone,

he is liable for cursing himself and his fellow with appellations. For we do not derive by means of “if it is not needed for the one who blasphemes the Name of the Lord, apply it also to one who curses himself and his fellow” that he is liable only when using the explicit Name, because cursing oneself and one’s fellow is different: they are not subject to stoning, like one who curses his father and his mother, but only to a plain negative commandment.

One who curses

himself,

from where do we know it? -

As it is written: “Only take heed for yourself and guard your soul exceedingly!”

For we were commanded to guard our souls. Included in this is not cursing ourselves. And this obligation of guarding is a prohibition,

as Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilaa, for he said: Every place where it is stated “take heed,” “lest,” or “do not” -

it is nothing but a negative commandment!

And here, after all, it is written: “Take heed for yourself”!

One who curses

his fellow,

from where do we know it? - As it is written:

“You shall not curse the deaf.”

And this is an explicit negative commandment, for everyone is included within “deaf.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“May the Lord strike you, and likewise may God strike you” -

this is the alah written in the Torah!

Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav Yehuda, and he was sitting and reciting this Mishna as it is written

for Rav Kahana would recite the Mishna according to its wording and say, while sitting before Rav Yehuda: “May the Lord strike you!”

Rav Yehuda said to him:

Do not quote the Mishna in its precise wording, but use a euphemism [that is, say: “May He strike him,” and do not say toward someone: “May He strike you”].

A certain one of the Sages was sitting before Rav Kahana, and he was sitting and reciting

the verse in Psalms:

“May He also cut you off forever, tear you away and uproot you from the tent, and your root from the land of the living, forever.”

Rav Kahana said to him: Use a euphemism!

Say “May He cut him off,” and not “May He cut you off”!

And the Gemara explains:

Two

incidents in which the Sages said “use a euphemism”

why do I need them?

What might you say? These matters

that one must express euphemistically apply when one recites the words of the

Mishna. But

when one reads

the verses, I would say that we do not use euphemisms,

so as not to alter the form of the verse.

It teaches us

that even when reading verses one uses euphemisms, so that there should not be a language of cursing toward the one against whom the verse is being read.

We learned in the Mishna: One who claims a witness to testify for him and adjures him, saying: “May He not strike you [the Lord] if you come and testify for me” [meaning, as implied by this, that if he does not testify, the Lord should indeed strike him], or who says to the witness:

“May He bless you and do good to you”

the Lord, if you come and testify for me [for from his words it is implied that if he does not testify for him, the Lord will not bless him],

Rabbi Meir obligates

the witness in the offering for the oath of testimony if he denied this curse,

and the Sages exempt!

And we inquire:

Does Rabbi Meir hold that from a negative statement you hear an affirmative? But Rabbi Meir does not hold that from a negative statement you hear an affirmative!

For Rabbi Meir said in tractate Kiddushin: Any condition that is not doubled, like the condition of the Children of Gad and the Children of Reuben, is not a condition. We do not say that from an affirmative you hear a negative and from a negative you hear an affirmative; rather, one must explicitly double the condition?!

And we answer:

Reverse it -

Rabbi Meir exempts, because he does not hold that from a negative statement you hear an affirmative!

When Rabbi Yitzhak came, the tanna

recited our Mishna

as it is taught,

without reversing it.

Rav Yosef said: Now, since we have learned thus

according to our version, and also

when Rabbi Yitzhak came, he taught thus, learn from it that this is specifically so

that we learned it, and do not reverse it.

But there is a difficulty

from that statement in Kiddushin, from which it is proven that Rabbi Meir does not hold that from a negative statement you hear an affirmative.

Answer and say thus:

When he does not hold this concerning monetary matters,

where he must double his condition and make both the affirmative and the negative heard,

but concerning prohibitions he does hold it,

that from a negative statement you hear an affirmative. And here, in the adjuration of the witness, it is a matter of prohibition.

And we challenge:

But the woman suspected of adultery is a matter of prohibition,

and there, he challenges Rabbi Meir from her case, for from the case of the woman suspected of adultery it is proven that from a negative statement you hear an affirmative. And if, concerning prohibitions, Rabbi Meir concedes this, why does he challenge him from the woman suspected of adultery, which is a matter of prohibition?

And this is how he challenges Rabbi Meir there: It is written concerning the woman suspected of adultery: “If you did not go astray, be clean.” It is obvious that the verse did not come to bless women suspected of adultery, even if it became clear that they had not committed adultery under their husbands, for the very jealousy and seclusion are not fitting for a blessing. Rather, the verse comes to make known, in the language of “from a negative statement you hear an affirmative,” a matter of curse: If you did not go astray, be clean, but if you went astray, you shall not be clean!

And there the Gemara answers concerning Rabbi Meir:

Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥakhinai said: “Be clean”

is written without a yod,

and we read it as “be strangled”! And the written word “be strangled” refers to what follows: “Be strangled - if you went astray!” That is, the curse of the verse is a direct curse, and not in the indirect language of “from a negative statement you hear an affirmative.”

и читается как «удавись»! И написанное слово «удавись» относится к продолжению: «Удавись — если ты уклонилась»! То есть проклятие в стихе является прямым проклятием, а не выраженным косвенно посредством принципа «из отрицания следует утверждение».

And now we ask:

The reason is that “be clean” is written -

“be strangled,” which is a direct expression of a curse.

But if not for this, we would not say that from a negative statement you hear an affirmative

according to Rabbi Meir even concerning prohibitions. For if monetary law differs from prohibition law, we should have answered this there. If so, the difficulty returns to its place, for here it implies that according to Rabbi Meir from a negative statement you hear an affirmative!