Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 3:5

משנה: אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם מַמָּשׁ. כֵּיצַד אָמַר שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶתֵּן שֶׁנָּתַתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא נָתַתִּי שֶׁאִישַׁן וְשֶׁלֹּא אִישַׁן שֶׁיָּשַׁנְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא יָשַׁנְתִּי. שֶׁאֶזְרוֹק צְרוֹר לַיָּם וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶזְרוֹק שֶׁזָּרַקְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא זָרַקְתִּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אִם כֵּן אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה מְנַיִין. אָמַר לוֹ מֵרִיבּוּי הַכָּתוּב. אָמַר לוֹ אִם רִיבּוּי הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ רִיבּוּי הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ׃ MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself⁷¹All the rules of liability for a variable value sacrifice spelled out in the preceding Mishnaiot are valid for all kinds of oaths irrespective of their content or meaning., or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good⁷²Leviticus.5.4">Lev. 5:4. The causative refers to the future.. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse⁷³The continuation of the quote, anything which a person will blurt out in an oath, which seems to be superfluous since the sentence starts: Or a person who would swear blurting out with his lips. The addition indicates that the verse should not be interpreted narrowly. Cf. Shevuot 3:5:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.3.5.3">Note 83.. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other⁷⁴Oaths stating facts about the past..

הלכה: עִולָּה הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְהוֹרוֹת לוֹ. אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּעַצְמוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁנָּתַן פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְנָה. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לָבֹא אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְשֶׁעָבַר. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הֲרֵי תְפִילִּין אֵין בָּהֶן לָבֹא וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן לְשֶׁעָבַר. אָמַר לוֹ. תְּפִילִּין מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר בָּאוּ. לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב. מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת. יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלְּאִיסּוּר וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלְּהֵיתֵר. לְ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְבַטֵּ֧א פְּרָט לְקָטָן. הָֽאָדָ֛ם בִּשְׁבֻעָ֖ה פְּרָט לָאָנוּס. וְנֶעְלַ֣ם מִמֶּ֑נּוּ פְּרָט לְמֵזִיד. וְנֶעְלַ֣ם מִמֶּ֑נּוּ. וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁבוּעָה. אוֹ יָכוֹל וְנֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַחֵפֶץ. בִּשְׁבֻעָ֖ה וְנֶעְלַ֣ם מִמֶּ֑נּוּ. עַל הֶעֱלֵם שְׁבוּעָה חַייָב וְאֵינוֹ חַייָב עַל הֶעֱלֵם חֵפֶץ. וְתֵן הֶעֱלֵם חֵפֶץ עַל הֶעֱלֵם שְׁבוּעָה וִיהֵא חַייָב. וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה עַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. וִיהֵא חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר. חַייָב עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. תַּמָּן כָּתוּב וְנֶעְלַ֣ם מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְנֶעְלַ֣ם מִמֶּ֔נּוּ שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים. וְהָכָא כָתוּב וְנֶעְלַ֣ם מִמֶּ֑נּוּ אַחַת. יָכוֹל הַנִּשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לַאֲחֵרִים יְהֵא חַייָב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב. מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת. אוֹצִיא נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לָאֲחֵרִים שֶׁיְּהֵא פָטוּר. כְּהוּא דְמִישְׁתָּבַע דְּלָא מִיתַּן לְחַבְרֵיהּ מֵיכוּל. חַמְתֵּיהּ מְפַרְפֵּר וִיהַב לֵיהּ. HALAKHAH: He wants to teach himself a pretext⁷⁰This refers to the last sentence in Mishnah 5. Since this refers to a vow, which may be annulled by a rabbi or a court, all the restrictions described for oaths are eliminated. Even if he made his vow dependent on minute details, or refers to something in the past, or to minute quantities, or even to worthless things, the vow is valid since he only wants to find a pretext to divorce his wife.. “Whether matters of himself,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that he did not give, since it was not in his power for the future, it is not in his power for the past⁷⁵He never could swear that X will give Y since it is not in his power to force X to give. This is all about liability for a variable sacrifice, not monetary liabilities. Since witnesses do not swear, this is not a case of perjury.. Rebbi Yose objected, about phylacteries there is nothing about the future but there is about the past⁷⁶If somebody swore falsely that he put on tefillin he is liable for a sacrifice (Mishnah 9).! He told him, phylacteries came from another source. To cause evil or cause good⁷²Leviticus.5.4">Lev. 5:4. The causative refers to the future.; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional; this excludes anything involving a prohibition or anything involving a permission⁷⁷The expression היתיר “permission” probably is induced by the usual opposites prohibition - permission. What really is intended here is מצוה “commandment” which is the opposite of something optional; Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah9(6), Shevuot.27a">Babli 27a.. Anything which one will blurt out, excluding a minor⁷⁸Whose words have no legal consequences.. A person in an oath, excluding a person not acting at his own will⁷⁹Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah9(9), Shevuot.26a">Babli 26a. This includes even a person acting by his own will on false information or false remembering.. And it will be forgotten by him, he will be oblivious of the oath. Or could I think that the object was forgotten by him? The verse says, in an oath and it was forgotten by him; he is liable for forgetting the oath; he is not liable for forgetting the object. Could one not add forgetting the object to forgetting the oath so that he should be liable? What is the difference between this and forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary so that he should be liable twice following Rebbi Ismael, who said forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary⁸⁰Shevuot 1:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.1.1.3">Chapter 1, Note 23.? There it is written it was forgotten by him, it was forgotten by him twice⁸¹Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq12(7), Shevuot.14b">Babli 14b; Mishnah 2:6.. Here it is written it was forgotten by him once. I could think that one who swears to the detriment of others should be liable: the verse says, to cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional⁸²Since harming anybody is forbidden, an oath to harm another person does not trigger liability for a sacrifice if it is broken. The example shows that in this case breaking the oath may be a meritorious act. Shevuot.27a">Babli 27a.. I shall exclude one who swears to the detriment of another that he should not be liable. For example, if one swears that he will not provide food for another. He saw him in convulsions and gave to him.

הֵיךְ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּרִישׁ. א֣וֹ נֶ֡פֶשׁ כִּ֣י תִשָּׁבַע֩ לְבַטֵּ֨א בִשְׂפָתַ֜יִם כְּלָל. לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב פְּרָט. כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט. וַהֲלֹא אֵין בִּפְרָט אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב פְּרָט. לְ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְבַטֵּ֧א כְלָל. פְּרָט וּכְלָל וְהַכֹּל בִּכְלָל וְרִיבָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהֵן לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. א֣וֹ נֶ֡פֶשׁ כִּ֣י תִשָּׁבַע֩ לְבַטֵּ֨א כְּלָל. לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב פְּרָט לְ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְבַטֵּ֧א חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט. מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוּרָשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה מְנַיִין. אָמַר לוֹ. מֵרִיבּוּי הַכָּתוּב. אָמַר לוֹ. אִם רִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ רִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ׃ לֵית יְכִיל דָּמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. מָצִינוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנָן מִשֵׁם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר וּבְהֶעֱלֵימָן מִשֵׁם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. וִיתֵיבִינֵיהּ. מָצִינוּ דָבָר שֶׁחַייָבִין בִּזְדוֹנוֹ מִשֵׁם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְאִית לָךְ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה וְלֵי נָן כְּתִיבִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לִי דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. לֵית אִינּוּן כְּתִיבִין אִין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. הָא לְשֶׁעָבַר לֵית. How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? ⁷²Leviticus.5.4">Lev. 5:4. The causative refers to the future.Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail⁸³In the version of Sifra(Introduction1), in the list of the thirteen hermeneutical principles of R. Ismael one finds (5) a general statement followed by a detail, (6) a detail followed by a general statement, (7) a general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement you only argue following the pattern of the detail, (8) a general statement dependent on the detail, (9) a detail dependent on the general statement. Rules 8 and 9 mean that if the general statement can only be understood by the detail or vice versa, rules 5 and 6 do not apply. It then is explained in §7 that if a general statement is followed by a detail, only the detail is intended. §8: If a detail is followed by a general statement, the general statement adds to the detail. Examples are Leviticus.1.2">Lev. 1:2: From animals, from cattle, or from small cattle. This implies that sacrifices are restricted to cattle, sheep, or goats. Exodus.22.9">Ex. 22:9: A donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal. The rules of caretakers apply to any animal. Then it becomes a problem how to treat a verse which contains general statement, detail, general statement, whether to apply rule 5 (eliminating the final general statement by rule 9), or rule 6 (eliminating the first general statement by rule 8), or rule 7. In the preceding derivation, the arguments have been suppressed that rules 8 and 9 do not apply and, therefore, only rule 7 is relevant. The standard example for an application of rule 7 is Deuteronomy.14.26">Deut. 14:26, about permitted uses of Second Tithe money at the place of the Sanctuary: You may spend the money for anything you desire(general), for cattle, or small cattle, or wine, or liquor(detail), or anything you wish(general). The common denominator of the items in the detail describes animal or vegetable food; Second Tithe money can be used for any food derived from animals (generated from semen) or plants (growing from seeds).
Since the first part of Leviticus.5.4">Lev. 5:4 fits Rule 7, it is clear that the rule applies not only to oaths intended to cause good or evil but to a larger set of oaths which, however, have to conform to the idea underlying “causing good or bad things”. Obviously one of the ideas is that events caused are later in time than the cause. This is R. Ismael’s interpretation of the verse. Shevuot.26a">Babli 26a.. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? ⁸⁴Quote from the Mishnah.“He answered him, from the additional text of the verse^73,The continuation of the quote, anything which a person will blurt out in an oath, which seems to be superfluous since the sentence starts: Or a person who would swear blurting out with his lips. The addition indicates that the verse should not be interpreted narrowly. Cf. Shevuot 3:5:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.3.5.3">Note 83.⁸⁵This is not an additional argument. The additional text shows that the rule to be applied is rule 7, not rule 5. R. Aqiba follows a different system. For him the sentence structure is not general, detail, general but expansive, restrictive, expansive, which he reads as including everything except what is completely different from the detail quoted as restriction.. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other⁸⁶The text of R. Aqiba’s answer is the text of the Mishnah in the Babli. It is known that the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi is not from the Yerushalmi text. The Mishnah text in Maimonides’s autograph is that of the separate Yerushalmi Mishnah..” You cannot⁸⁷The Mishnah cannot be quoted as proof that R. Ismael conceded to R. Aqiba., as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael¹¹Who is R. Aqiba’s opponent. All of Mishnah 1 is R. Aqiba’s teaching. R. Ismael opposes adding backward looking oaths as blurted oaths. answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath¹²A future directed oath, where it cannot be verified instantly whether it will be kept or violated, is an actionless crime and cannot be prosecuted (cf. Shevuot 3:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.3.1.1">Note 3). The preconditions of a sacrifice for a blurted oath negate the possibility of judicial penalties.? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice¹³If R. Aqiba did accept R. Joḥanan’s argument, it would be possible for a person to be flogged for violating the prohibition of perjury (Leviticus.19.12">Lev. 19:12) and still be liable for a sacrifice. This would make R. Ismael’s objection irrelevant.? He said to him⁸⁸R. Aqiba to R. Ismael., do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written⁸⁹Since they are not mentioned in the verse. For לי נן read לֵי[ת אִי]נֻּן.? He told him⁹⁰R. Ismael to R. Aqiba., even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good⁹¹It is obvious from rule 7 that the obligation of a variable sacrifice for a blurted oath must hold for a larger set than “causing bad or good things”. The only problem is to define this larger set and the causative employed definitively excludes oaths regarding the past. The Tanna of the Mishnah cannot accept R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules.? Therefore never for the past⁹²Since the oath is void, he is prevented from sacrificing if it was unintentional. If it was intentional he can be prosecuted for a vain oath, forbidden in the Ten Commandments..