Shevuot 3b — the Talmud in English

And we raise a difficulty: How is it possible to say that two of them

to exempt!? ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

It is taught analogously to the appearances of afflictions: just as there, all of them are for liability,

for concerning all four appearances one is liable to bring an offering for his purification,

so too here,

with regard to oaths and knowledge of impurity,

all of them are for liability!?

Rather, this is what should be said:

Actually, it is Rabbi Ishmael

and our Mishna is not dealing with liability for an offering for an oath of utterance, but with liability for lashes.

And when Rabbi Ishmael does not obligate

one for an

oath concerning the past, it is an offering

for which he does not obligate him.

But he does obligate him to lashes.

And although a false oath is a prohibition without an action, and for a prohibition without an action one is not lashed, here it is different—

And this is in accordance with Rava, for Rava said: The Torah explicitly included a false oath

for lashes, despite the fact that it contains no action,

analogously to a vain oath.

The liability for lashes for a false oath is learned from the verse stated with regard to a vain oath [which is an oath to alter what is known, for example, one who swears concerning a stone that it is gold]: “For the Lord will not acquit whoever bears His Name in vain”—it is the Lord who will not acquit one who swears in vain, but the court acquits him by lashing him. And we expound from “in vain” and “in vain,” which is stated twice in the verse: if it is not needed for a vain oath, apply it to a false oath [which is an oath concerning something not known to everyone, for example, concerning eating yesterday].

And Rava said concerning this derivation of a false oath from a vain oath, that it applies only to a false oath concerning the past, which resembles a vain oath—

What

an oath of

vanity

is not an oath concerning the future, but

only the past,

for once the vain oath has left his mouth, its falsehood has been established, and it is not dependent upon the future,

so too

an oath of

falsehood

he is liable to lashes only for

the past

alone.

Rather, the answer is still not complete:

Granted

he is lashed for an oath

“I ate” and “I did not eat,” in accordance with Rava.

And granted, if he swore

an oath, “I will not eat,” and he ate, also

he is lashed, because

it is a prohibition that contains an action,

for he transgressed through the action of his eating.

But

one who swore concerning the future, for example, he said

“I will eat”

tomorrow,

and he did not eat, why

is he lashed? But

it is a prohibition that contains no action,

and the liability for lashes was included only for a false oath concerning the past [which is analogous to a vain oath]. And it follows that according to Rabbi Ishmael there are only three liabilities for lashes: two for the past, and one for the future, and not four!?

The Gemara answers:

He holds that one is lashed for a prohibition that contains no action.

Therefore he is liable to lashes also for an oath of utterance concerning the future, even without an action.

And we refute this:

If so,

that our Mishna here is dealing with liability for lashes, and the tan­ nay stated anonymously that one is liable also for a prohibition that contains no action,

it is difficult: Rabbi Yohanan contradicts Rabbi Yohanan!

For Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha follows an anonymous Mishna,

[in which the tannaim did not disagree concerning the matter], and accordingly one should rule in accordance with our Mishna, that one is lashed for a prohibition that contains no action; but, on the other hand—

And 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 said: He is not lashed.

Rather, they disagreed concerning the reason that he is not lashed:

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not lashed because it is a prohibition that contains no action, and for every prohibition that contains no action one is not lashed! And Reish Lakish said: He is not lashed

because

it is an uncertain warning, and an uncertain warning is not called a warning.

[For when they warn him that he should eat today, there is still time available to him to eat. And if he does not eat immediately after their warning, he has not transgressed the oath]. And if so, this is difficult against Rabbi Yohanan, who said that the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna: our Mishna states anonymously in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael, that one is lashed for a prohibition that contains no action, whereas Rabbi Yohanan rules that one is not lashed for it!?

And we resolve this: What Rabbi Yohanan said, that the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna, applies only when there is no other anonymous Mishna that disagrees with it. But here,

Rabbi Yohanan found another anonymous [Mishna],

he found another “anonymous Mishna” according to which one is not lashed for a prohibition that contains no action, and Rabbi Yohanan ruled in accordance with it.

And we inquire about this:

Which anonymous [Mishna]

did Rabbi Yohanan find?

If we say it is this anonymous [Mishna], as we learned: “But one who leaves over

from the meat of the Passover offering,

in a

sacrifice

that is pure

and fit, and likewise

one who breaks

a bone

in a

Passover offering that was

impure is not lashed with the forty!”

And we infer:

Granted, one who breaks

a bone

in a

sacrifice

that is impure

is exempt from lashes,

as it is written, “And a bone you shall not break in it,”

and we say:

in one that is fit, and not in one that is unfit. But one who leaves over in a

sacrifice

that is pure, what is the reason

he is not lashed with forty?

It is because it is a prohibition that contains no action, and for a prohibition that contains no action one is not lashed!

And Rabbi Yohanan relied upon this anonymous [Mishna].

This can be rejected: For Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed concerning the explanation of the reason for the Mishna, whether indeed the exemption from lashes is because it is a prohibition that contains no action or because it is a prohibition accompanied by a positive commandment. And if so, it is difficult:

And from where,

from where does Rabbi Yohanan know that this anonymous Mishna

is Rabbi Yaakov’s, who said that for a prohibition that contains no action one is not lashed!?

Perhaps it is Rabbi Yehuda’s,

and the exemption from lashes is

for another reason: because the verse came to place a positive commandment after a prohibition,

and made the prohibition subject to a positive commandment. And according to Rabbi Yehuda one can infer the opposite—

were it not so,

if the verse had not made it subject to a positive commandment,

he would be lashed

for the prohibition despite the fact that it contains no action!

And the Gemara cites the beraita in which Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaakov disagreed in explaining the Mishna:

As it was taught: “You shall not leave any of it until morning. And what is left over from it until morning

you shall burn in fire!” The verse came to place a positive commandment after a prohibition, to say that one is not lashed for it; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yaakov says: This is not the reason!

This is not the reason for the exemption from lashes,

but because it is a prohibition that contains no action, and for a prohibition that contains no action one is not lashed.

Rather,

Rabbi Yohanan

found this anonymous [Mishna]—

For we learned below, on page 27b:

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

and he repeated his oath once again and said:

“An oath that I will not eat it,” and he ate it

afterward,