Shevuot 39a (לט.) — the Talmud in English

And

the court says to him,

to the person taking the oath:

Know

that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, blessed be He, said

at Sinai, “You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain”!

The court also says to him:

And with regard to all sins in the Torah it is stated, “he shall be acquitted,”

meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, absolves one who commits that sin.

But here it is stated, “For

he

will not acquit

the one who takes His Name in vain”!

They say to him further:

With regard to all sins in the Torah, punishment is exacted

for the sin only

from him

alone,

but here,

in the case of a false oath, punishment is imposed and exacted

from him

and from his family!

As it is stated: “Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin [

to cause him to be punished through your sin ]—

your flesh.”

And “his flesh” refers only to his relative, as it is stated: “And from your flesh you shall not hide yourself”!

This proves that even “his flesh,” meaning his family, is seized and punished because of his sin.

With regard to all sins in the Torah, punishment is exacted from him

alone,

but here, from him and from the entire world.

As it is stated [

in the book of Hosea 4:2, when the prophet lists the sins of the inhabitants of the land of Israel, as follows ]

“Swearing falsely and denying,

and murder, and theft, and adultery,” and so on.

And “swearing falsely and denying” refers to the sin of taking a false oath. And later there it is written: “Therefore the land shall mourn, and every inhabitant shall languish”—because of the one who takes a false oath.

This is the meaning of the statement that punishment is exacted from him and from the entire world.

With regard to all sins in the Torah—

one who transgresses them,

if he has merit, his punishment is suspended;

he is given time, and he is not punished for

two or three generations. But

in contrast,

here punishment is exacted from him immediately.

As it is stated in Zechariah, chapter 5 [the Gemara below will explain how these verses are expounded]: “

I lifted my eyes and saw a flying scroll. And he said to me: -

This is the curse [the malediction] that goes forth over the face of the entire land ...

I have sent it forth [

this curse ]

declares the Lord of Hosts, and it shall come [

the curse ]

to the house of the thief and to the house of one who swears falsely by My Name, and it shall lodge within his house and consume it, and its wood and its stones!

And the Gemara expounds these verses:

“I have sent it forth”—

immediately.

“And it shall come to the house of the thief”—

this is one who deceives people.

That is,

he has no money with the other person,

and nevertheless

he claims against him

that he owes him

and administers an oath to him.

And to the house of the one who swears falsely in My name -

as it means literally.

And it shall lodge within his house, and shall consume it and its wood and its stones -

from here you learn that those things which fire and water do not consume,

such as the stones of the house -

a false oath consumes them!

And after the court has warned the one standing ready to swear with all these grave warnings:

If

after all this

he says, “I will not swear!”

but accepts upon himself to pay -

they release [

send away ]

him immediately,

so that he will not regret his decision, retract it, and ask to swear; rather, he must immediately pay what he accepted upon himself by refusing to swear.

But if

in any event

he says, “I am prepared to swear!” those standing there say to one another: “Please withdraw from the tents of these wicked men!” and so on.

And when they administer the oath to him, they say to him: Be aware that we are not administering the oath to you on the basis of

what is in

your mind, but on the basis of the intent of the Omnipresent and the intent of the court [

below, on folio 39b, the distinction between his intent, the intent of the Omnipresent, and the intent of the court is explained ].

For we find that when Moses our Teacher administered an oath to Israel [

in the section beginning “You are standing” ]

he said to them:

“Know that I am not administering the oath to you on the basis of your intent, but on the basis of the intent of the Omnipresent and of my intent. As it is stated: ‘Not with you alone,’

that is, I am not making this covenant with you on the basis of what is in your minds and the thoughts of your hearts -

but with the one who is here

standing with us today before the Lord our God!

And the Gemara explains:

I have derived only

what is stated in this oath that Moses administered to Israel

for

those who stood

at Mount Sinai.

The generations to come,

and prospective converts,

where is it derived that they too are included in this oath?

The verse states: “And with the one who is not here”

here with us today—that is, with the one who will exist in the future.

And I have derived

as included in the covenant, the curse, and the oath stated at Sinai

only

the mitzvot that they accepted upon themselves

at Mount Sinai. But as for mitzvot that would subsequently be instituted, such as the reading of the Megilla,

which was not accepted at Sinai,

from where

is it derived that it too is included in this oath?

The verse states: [

in the Scroll of Esther ]

“The Jews fulfilled and accepted upon themselves” -

they fulfilled what they had already accepted

upon themselves

previously

at Mount Sinai!

And the Gemara explains all the statements of the beraita from its beginning:

We learned in a beraita: The oath of the litigants is also stated in its own language.

And the Gemara discusses its meaning:

What is meant by, “The oath of the litigants is also stated in its own language”?

As we learned: These

are the matters whose law is that they are expressed verbally, and they too

are stated in every language: the passage concerning a sota [

when the sota is placed under oath that she did not become ritually defiled, she is placed under oath in a language that she hears and understands ].

The declaration concerning the tithe,

when a person completes the separation of the tithes of the third year, the year of the tithe, and removes them from his house, he makes the declaration: “I have removed the sacred portion from the house” (Deuteronomy 26:13)—this is the second tithe; “and I have also given it to the Levite”—this is the first tithe; “and to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow”—this is the poor man’s tithe. This declaration too is stated in every language.

The recitation of the Shema, prayer, Grace after Meals, the oath of testimony, and the oath concerning a deposit

are also stated in every language that the person understands.

And the tanna says

of the beraita

also the oath of the litigants

is likewise stated in its own language, and therefore he swears in every language that he understands!

The Master said: They say to him

who is taking the oath

“Be aware that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.’”

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that the world trembled specifically at this statement of the Holy One, blessed be He?

If you say that it is because

this statement

was given [

transmitted ]

at Sinai,

and therefore the world trembled,

surely the statement of the

Ten Commandments

was

also given at Sinai!?

Yet we do not find that the world trembled in this manner.

Rather,

the reason that the world trembled when the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “You shall not take”

is because a false oath is more severe

than the other transgressions!

And the Gemara asks:

Is a false oath more severe

than all of them?

But it was taught: These are

the

lesser

transgressions [

they are called lesser because they are atoned for through repentance alone ]—the transgression of

and the transgression of

“You shall not take,”

which is the transgression of swearing falsely.

And these are the

more severe transgressions—

those subject to karet and those subject to execution by a court, but not “You shall not take” with them!

It is evident that the transgression of “You shall not take” is not more severe than those subject to karet and execution by a court; rather, it is equal to them in severity. Why, then, is it said that a false oath is more severe than all of them?

Rather,

its severity is

, as the reason is taught

later in the words of the beraita:

“For all the transgressions in the Torah it is stated, ‘He will absolve,’ whereas here it is stated, ‘He will not absolve!’”

The Gemara raises an objection: Is it true that for all the transgressions in the Torah it is not stated, “He will not absolve”?

But it is written among the Thirteen Attributes [Exodus 34]

“He absolves, yet He does not absolve,”

and this verse is stated concerning other iniquities?

The Gemara answers:

That

the statement of the verse, “He absolves” and “He does not absolve,” which is stated among the Thirteen Attributes,

is needed

for what was explained

in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Elazar, as it was taught: Rabbi Elazar says: It is impossible to say “He absolves,” for

behold,

it has already been stated

in that same verse

“He does not absolve.” It is impossible to say “He does not absolve,” for “He absolves” has already been stated. Here

there is apparently a contradiction in the meaning of the verse;

how

can it be explained? Rather, the explanation is that

“He absolves those who repent, but He does not absolve those who do not repent!”

But in the case of an oath, He does not absolve even those who repent, until He exacts payment from them!

It was further stated in the beraita:

“For all the transgressions in the Torah, payment is exacted from him. But here, payment is exacted from him and from his family.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

A

re all the transgressions in the Torah such that payment is not exacted

from his family as well

?

But it is written

in the passage concerning one who passes his son through the fire to Molekh:

“I will set My face against that man and against his family,” and it was taught: Rabbi Shimon said: If he sinned, what did his family sin?

Why should it be punished?

This comes to teach you: There is no family in which there is

a tax collector who takes money unlawfully

that is not entirely tax collectors,

and

there is no family

in which there is a bandit that is not entirely bandits.

And why?

Because they shield him.

Because they shield him, they are considered like him; they too are considered bandits and tax collectors. If so, we see that for other transgressions as well, payment is exacted from him and from his family—and not only in the case of a false oath!?

The Gemara answers:

There,

in the case of one who passes his son through the fire to Molekh, his family is indeed punished as well. But they are punished

with a different judgment.

They receive a different judgment and punishment, because the punishment that comes upon the family is less severe than the punishment that comes upon him.

However,

here,

in the case of one who swears falsely,

with his own judgment,

they are punished together with him, under the same judgment and with the same punishment—his family members are punished as well.

And this distinction between the punishment of one who passes his son through the fire to Molekh and the law governing the punishment of his family is derived

as it was taught: Rabbi says: “And I will cut him off” [

stated with regard to one who passes his son through the fire to Molekh ]

what does the verse come to teach

? Why is “him” stated? Surely, since he is the one who committed the transgression, he is liable to karet?

The answer is:

Since it is stated, “I will set My face

against that man and against his family,”

one might

derive from this the law that

the entire family

will be judged

with karet.

The verse therefore states, “him” -

him is subject to karet, but the entire family is not subject to karet!

This limitation concerning the law of the family is stated only with regard to one who passes his son through the fire to Molekh, but not with regard to one who swears falsely, where his family too is judged under his own law.

It was further stated in the beraita:

“For all the transgressions in the Torah, payment is exacted from him. But here, payment is exacted from him and from the entire world.”

As it is stated [

Hosea 4:1 ]: “Hear the word of the Lord, children of Israel, for the Lord has a dispute with the inhabitants of the land, for there is no truth, no kindness, and no knowledge of God in the land. [Verse 2:]

Oath and denial

and murder and theft...” “Oath and denial”—this is a false oath.

And it is written,

as it continues there [

verse 3 ]:

“Therefore the land shall mourn

and every inhabitant shall languish...” This implies that because of the sin of a false oath, payment is exacted from the entire world.

And perhaps it is only when they commit all of them,

that the world is punished only if all these transgressions have been committed? -

That cannot be inferred.

It is not possible to say so.

For it is written [

Jeremiah 23:10 ]:

“Because of the oath the land mourns.”

And “oath” refers to a false oath. It is therefore evident that the entire world is punished for that alone!

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

is it true that

for all the transgressions in the Torah payment is not exacted from the entire world

?

But it is written: “And each man shall stumble over his brother,”

they shall stumble and be punished

each man because of the sin of his fellow; this teaches that all Israel are responsible for one another,

and they are punished for the sin of their fellows. If so, we see that for other transgressions as well payment is exacted from everyone?