Temurah 3b — the Talmud in English

He does not cleanse him. But the earthly court lashes him

forty lashes,

and cleanses him,

and atonement is made for him.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

And from where does Rabbi Yohanan derive this interpretation?

But say

that it should be explained that

he has no cleansing whatsoever,

and the earthly court does not lash him?

And we answer:

Abaye said

to Rav Pappa:

If so,

if it is as you say, that he has no cleansing whatsoever,

let the verse write, “He does not cleanse,” and be silent,

and let it say no more.

“The Lord”—

why do I need this?

Why did the Torah write, “The Lord does not cleanse”? Rather, in order to teach us that only “the Lord,” meaning

the heavenly court, does not cleanse him. But the earthly court lashes him and cleanses him.

The verse cited by the Gemara, “You shall not bear the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not cleanse the one who bears His name in vain,” concerns a vain oath, in which one swears to alter what is known to a person—for example, one swears concerning a stone pillar that it is made of gold. But there is also a false oath, such as when one swears that he will eat today, the day passes and he does not eat, or he swears that he will not eat, and he eats. And this is what is stated in Leviticus 5:4: “Or if a person swears, expressing with his lips to do harm or to do good.” This indicates that he swears concerning a matter of the future. And its law is explained there, verse 5, in the Torah: “And it shall be, when he is guilty of one of these, that he shall confess that wherein he has sinned, and he shall bring his guilt-offering”—that is, if he did so unintentionally, he is obligated to bring an ascending-and-descending offering [of the poor and of the wealthy].

Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagreed [Shevuot 25a] concerning one who swears about the “past,” such as, “I ate,” but he did not eat, or, “I did not eat,” and he ate. Rabbi Akiva obligates him to bring an offering, based on an exposition of the verses. And Rabbi Ishmael exempts him.

One who deliberately swears a vain oath is punished with lashes, and this is what the Gemara derives from what the Torah said: “For the Lord will not cleanse the one who bears His name in vain”; and we expound: “But the earthly court lashes him and cleanses him.”

And now the Gemara discusses: From where do we know that one is also lashed for a false oath? For from the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean it follows that one is lashed for every oath, both for a vain oath and for a false oath.

We have found,

from the aforementioned exposition we have found a source that one is lashed for

a vain oath,

but

a false oath—from where do we know

that one is lashed for it? And we conclude:

Rabbi Yohanan himself,

the author of the statement himself,

said:

The Torah said [there],

“In vain,” “in vain,” twice,

“You shall not bear … in vain, for the Lord will not cleanse … in vain,” and we expound:

if

the second “in vain”

is not referring to a vain oath,

for the first “in vain” has already been stated concerning a vain oath,

assign it to a false oath,

in order to derive

that he is lashed.

Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection against him: What are the circumstances of a false oath?

Concerning which false oath did Rabbi Yohanan rule that one is lashed for it even though it involves no action?

If you say,

if it is said

that he said,

“An oath

that I will not eat,”

and he violated his oath

and ate.

It cannot be said so, because

there, he performed an action!

And for a prohibition that involves an action, one is certainly lashed!?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it is referring to a case

where he said, “An oath

that

I will eat

today,” and the day passed

and he did not eat,

and he performed no action—

it cannot be said so, for

is that one lashed?!

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, Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both say,

he is not lashed

for violating the prohibition of “You shall not bear.”

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not lashed

because

it is a prohibition that involves no action.

And for every prohibition that involves no action, one is not lashed.

And Reish Lakish said: He is not lashed, because

the warning with which they warn him to eat, in order to fulfill his oath,

is an uncertain warning,

for the one who swore can say that he does not heed this warning, since he still has time until the end of the day. And even if the day passed and he did not eat, he can say that he forgot about the warning and did not remember either the oath or the warning until the day passed.

And every uncertain warning

in which, at the time of the warning, it is uncertain whether he will transgress or not, is not a warning, and

one is not lashed for it.

Rabbi Abbahu raises a difficulty: In what manner did Rabbi Yohanan say that one is lashed for a false oath?

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: Let it be,

let this false oath of which Rabbi Yohanan spoke be concerning one who swore and said,

“I ate,”

but he did not eat

. And

likewise one who said,

“I did not eat,”

but he did eat. And these two oaths are concerning the “past,” so that at the time of the oath he lied and violated the prohibition of “You shall not bear.” And in this manner Rabbi Yohanan said that one is lashed for them, even though he performed no action. But one who swore that he would eat today and ultimately did not eat is exempt from lashes, because through refraining from eating he performed no action.

And the Gemara discusses:

And what is different, that “I ate” and “I did not eat” are included

more

than

that which is

“I will eat”—

and he did not eat?

That is, why is he obligated to receive lashes for “I ate” and “I did not eat,” whereas concerning the future, when he swore “I will eat” and ultimately did not eat, he is not lashed even according to Rabbi Yohanan? After all, in both cases there is no action whatsoever?

And we answer:

Rava said: The Torah explicitly included

the oath of

falsehood in the likeness of a vain oath,

in that the Torah included falsehood by saying “in vain, in vain” twice within the passage of a vain oath, in order to teach us:

Just as a vain oath,

just as a vain oath is always an oath concerning

the past,

for when one swears concerning a stone pillar that it is made of silver, he swears “about the past,” concerning a stone pillar that had already been a stone pillar before his oath, therefore

also an oath of

falsehood,

falsehood,

he is liable to lashes for

the past,

for example, one who swears, “I ate,” but he did not eat. This is not so for one who swears that he will eat, which is an oath concerning the future, and ultimately did not eat: he is not liable to lashes, because through his not eating he performed no action.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Abbahu

from the Mishna in tractate Shevuot [27b], to challenge the words of Rabbi Abbahu, who explains Rabbi Yohanan’s words as referring to “I ate and I did not eat.”

As we learned: One who says,

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

even though he said three oaths,

he is liable

only on account of

one oath.

And the Mishna concludes:

And this is an oath of utterance

concerning which the Torah said [Leviticus 5], “To express with the lips, to do harm or to do good,”

for which they are liable,

for it,

for its deliberate violation,

for violating it deliberately, he is liable to

lashes

forty,

and for its unintentional violation,

he is liable to

an ascending-and-descending offering.

And Rabbi Abbahu infers: What does the Mishna’s statement

“And this is it” exclude?

What does it come to exclude, such that he is not liable to lashes for its deliberate violation? Is it

no, to exclude “I ate” and “I did not eat”? For

even though it is an oath of utterance, nevertheless,

he is not lashed,

because the Torah says, “to do harm or to do good,” whose meaning is concerning the future, and not the past, such as “I ate” and “I did not eat.”

And the question returns: For which false oath did Rabbi Yohanan say that he is liable to lashes? And we reject this:

No!

For “I ate and I did not eat,” he indeed is lashed, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s words, because it is stated “in vain, in vain.” Rather, this is how the Mishna is explained:

This is the one for whose unintentional violation he brings

[brings]

an offering. But for “I ate and I did not eat,” he does not bring an offering.

And whose opinion is it,

whose Mishna is it?

It is Rabbi Ishmael’s, who says: He is not liable to bring an offering

for a false oath

except

when one swears

concerning the future,

that is, “I will eat” and “I will not eat.”

But he is lashed,

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s words.

And we raise an objection:

Say the latter clause,

say the continuation of the Mishna’s words, where the Mishna explains at length the laws of a vain oath, such as one who swears to alter what is known to a person, concerning a stone pillar that it is made of gold, and more. And the Mishna concludes:

This is a vain oath, for whose deliberate violation they are liable to lashes, and for whose unintentional violation he is exempt

from an ascending-and-descending offering.

And the Gemara infers: What does the Mishna’s statement

“This is it” exclude,

what does it come to exclude? Is it

no, to exclude “I ate and I did not eat,”

and it comes to teach us

that he is not lashed.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that one is lashed for “I ate and I did not eat”! And we reject this:

No!

For “I ate and I did not eat,” he indeed is lashed, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s words. Rather, this is how the Mishna is explained:

This is the one who, for its unintentional violation, is exempt from an offering. But for “I ate and I did not eat,” he brings

[brings]

an offering.

And whose opinion is it,

whose Mishna is it?

It is Rabbi Akiva’s, who says: An offering is brought for

a false oath concerning

the past.

And we are astonished:

But you said: The first clause is Rabbi Ishmael’s,

and is the first clause Rabbi Ishmael’s and the latter clause Rabbi Akiva’s?!

The Gemara retracts:

Rather, since the latter clause is Rabbi Akiva’s —

the first clause is also Rabbi Akiva’s—

And the first clause,

which stated: An oath that I will eat … this is an oath of utterance, for whose deliberate violation they are liable to lashes and for whose unintentional violation an ascending-and-descending offering—

does not exclude “I ate and I did not eat,”

because according to Rabbi Akiva he indeed brings an offering for “I ate and I did not eat”—

rather, it excludes,

one who swears

“I will eat”—

and

ultimately

did not eat,

who is not liable to lashes for his deliberate violation, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s words, because it is a prohibition that involves no action, as explained. And this is how the Mishna is explained: “This is it”—when he said, “An oath that I will not eat,” and violated his oath and ate—for whose deliberate violation they are liable to lashes, because he performed an action. But concerning “An oath that I will eat” and ultimately he did not eat, he is not lashed, because it is a prohibition that involves no action.

And the Gemara discusses:

And what is different?

Why in the first clause do we exclude “I will eat” and he did not eat, who is not liable to lashes, whereas in the latter clause do we exclude “I ate and I did not eat,” who is liable to bring an offering according to Rabbi Akiva? After all, it is possible that the first clause also excludes “I ate and I did not eat” from lashes, contrary to Rabbi Abbahu’s words. And it would be preferable to explain it this way, because then both the first clause and the latter clause exclude “I ate and I did not eat”: the first clause excludes him from lashes, whereas the latter clause excludes him from being exempt from an offering, but he is liable, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva ?

And we answer:

It is logical ,

it is logical to explain it this way,

because

the first clause

is dealing with

“I will not eat,” which is a false oath concerning

the future; therefore it

excludes

“I will eat,” which resembles it, as it too is

concerning the future—

future—

And when the first clause

is dealing with the future—does it

exclude

“I ate and I did not eat,” which is an oath concerning

the past?!

We learned above: Except for one who swears,

and one who substitutes,

and one who curses his fellow using the Name.

Rabbi Yohanan said to the tanna

who recited before him the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean:

Do not teach “and one who substitutes,”

do not teach “one who substitutes” among the prohibitions that involve no action

, because through his speech he performed an action,

for he transforms unconsecrated property into sacred property.

We learned above that one is not lashed for a transgression without an action, except for three, and among them is:

one who curses his fellow using the Name.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where do we know,

from where do we know that he is lashed despite not having performed an action?

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The verse states [Deuteronomy 28]

(Deuteronomy 28):

“If you will not observe to perform all the words of this Torah that are written in this book, to fear this honored and awesome Name,

the Lord your God.”

That is, he does not fear the Lord, and therefore he utters His Name in vain. And likewise, one who curses his fellow using the Name of the Lord thereby utters the Name of Heaven in vain.

And it is written,

there, later,

“Then the Lord will make your blows extraordinary.”

And we expound:

This extraordinary thing [“

and He will make extraordinary”],

I do not know what it is

its meaning. But

when it says

elsewhere [Deuteronomy 25], in the passage concerning lashes,

“The judge shall cast him down and strike him before him,” you must say: “Extraordinary”—this is lashes.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty: from where do we know to establish the verse as referring to one who curses his fellow with the Name '?

Say:

it is possible that this verse comes to say that

even

one who swears

a true oath,

and does so in the Name — he is to be flogged. And concerning a true oath the Torah warns that one should not swear by the Name, and says that when he transgresses the prohibition and swears by the Name, he incurs lashes, as it is stated: “And the Lord will make your plagues extraordinary.”

And the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this question: Is it possible to say that one is liable for lashes for an oath by the Name even if it is a true oath?! But

it is explicitly written

in the section of the guardians [Exodus 22]:

“The oath of the Name shall be between them,”

so the Torah has permitted swearing a true oath by the Name? And the one who raises the difficulty explains his question:

Say,

it is possible to say that a person is warned not to swear even a true oath by the Name, and is lashed for a true oath when he swears it by the Name. And what the Torah said, “The oath of the Name shall be between them,”

these words apply

only for the purpose of

appeasing his fellow,

who claims his deposit from him, while he does not wish to pay, in which case he may exempt himself by an oath in the Name.

But,

nevertheless,

he is to be lashed

for his oath, because he brought himself to swear by the Name, since he could have avoided the oath by paying money to the claimant. And the question returns: From where is it established that this verse came to warn concerning one who curses his fellow with the Name, and that the verse did not come to warn concerning a true oath?

And we answer:

You cannot say

that one is liable for lashes for a true oath by the Name,

for it is written [Deuteronomy 6]

“And by His Name you shall swear,”

which proves that the Torah did not warn concerning a true oath.

And the Gemara rejects this: That verse,

that

“And by His Name you shall swear,”

is needed

for another exposition,

as [in the teaching of] Rav Giddel in the name of Rav —

For Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav:

From where is it derived that one swears to fulfill the mitzvot,

so that he will not be able to retract?

As it is stated [Psalms 119]:

“I have sworn and I will fulfill it, to observe the judgments of Your righteousness.”

“I have sworn and I will fulfill, to keep the judgments of Your righteousness.”

And concerning this the Torah said, “And by His Name you shall swear”; that is, swear by His Name to fulfill the mitzva.

And since the intention of that verse is to say that one swears to fulfill the mitzvot, one cannot learn from it that it is permitted to swear a true oath by the Name. Therefore, it is possible to say that the verse, “And the Lord will make your plagues extraordinary,” speaks of liability for lashes for one who swears a true oath by the Name.

And we answer:

But another verse is written,

which permits swearing a true oath by the Name, [Deuteronomy 10]

“And by His Name you shall swear.”

It follows that one verse of “And by His Name you shall swear” comes to teach us the law of “one who swears to fulfill the mitzva,” and a second verse of “And by His Name you shall swear” comes to state the permission for a true oath by the Name,

but

what the Torah said, “If you will not observe, and the Lord will make your plagues extraordinary,”

for what does it come? It necessarily comes to make known liability for lashes

for one who curses his fellow with the Name

.

That is, to make him liable for lashes even though he performed no act.

And we challenge:

But say,

perhaps we should say that the verse, “If you will not observe, and the Lord will make your plagues extraordinary,” comes to make one liable for lashes

for uttering the Name of Heaven in vain,

and it did not come to make one who curses by the Name liable?

And we raise a difficulty concerning the words of the questioner: How can one entertain the thought that one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain is lashed, whereas one who curses his fellow with the Name is not lashed?

And is he inferior?

Does one who curses

his fellow with the Name incur less

than one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain?!

And therefore the Gemara explains its question:

This is what is difficult for us,

this is our question:

Say, one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain should suffice with lashes,

let it be enough for him to receive the punishment of lashes, and thereby atone for his transgression.

But one who curses his fellow with the Name, since he has committed two [offenses],

having committed two prohibitions—the first,

for he uttered [

that is, he brings out ]

the Name of Heaven in vain, and

the second, that he

causes

his fellow

distress—should lashes not suffice for him,

should it not be sufficient for him, in order to atone for his transgression, to receive only the punishment of lashes?