Sefer HaChinukh 30

To not swear in vain: That we not swear pointlessly, as it is stated (Exodus 20:7), “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.” And the notion of pointlessness has four angles: [The first is,] for example (Shevuot 29a), that he swears about something known [to be true] that it is not so, like swearing about a pillar of marble that it is a pillar of gold. And so [too], anything like this. The second angle is, for example [Talmud Yerushalmi Shevuot 3:8], that he swears about what is known to be so, like about a stone that it is a stone and about a tree that it is a tree, and all that is like this. The third angle is that he swears to negate this commandment or the commandments that God, blessed be He, commanded us; as this is also completely pointless, since it is not in his hand to swear [to negate] that which God has already obligated him - and it is like the one who swears about something known that it is not so. The fourth angle is that he swears to do something that he does not have the power to do; for example (Shevuot 25a) that he will not sleep for three consecutive days, or that he will not eat for seven consecutive days. And so [too], anything like this.

It is from the roots of this commandment [that it is] for people to know and fix in their souls and strengthen the faith in their hearts about God, blessed be He — Who is in the Heavens above and exists forever — that there is nothing else like His existence. And it is fitting and obligatory upon us when we mention His great name upon our actions and upon our words, to mention it with fear, with awe, with trembling and perspiration; and not like those that joke and speak about something light, such as the things that exist and perish and do not continue to exist — like us people, and the other things of the lowly world. Hence (it is fitting) [in order] to fix this matter in our hearts and that His awe should be in front of us to give us life and merit, we are obligated in this commandment that we not mention His holy name pointlessly; and the one who is lenient and transgresses it is punished with lashes.

And from this root itself is the matter of a false oath (shevuah), meaning to say when he swears to fulfill something and does not fulfill it. [This] is called an oath of speech, about which another separate commandment comes in the Order of Kedoshim Tehiyu, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:12), “And you shall not swear falsely by My name.” As one who swears by the great name [of God] to say something was and [yet] he knows that there is falsehood in his mouth, behold, he is acting lightly with the awe of God; as if to say in his heart that He is not true — “Let his lips be silent.” And so the one who swears to do something and afterwards does not do it is, behold, also among the rebels against light, the deniers of truth. As the understanding of “swore,” is, according to my opinion, that he concludes in his heart and says with his mouth to fulfill that thing that he swore about and that he will never change it, [just] as God, may He be blessed, exists and does not change forever and ever. And that is [why] the expression, sworn nishbaa always comes in the passive; meaning to say that he is acted upon by his words to make it exist, [just] like he said about His existence, blessed be He.

And regarding a vow (neder), a different approach pertains to it — as it is like placing something permissible into the category of the forbidden, and [it is] as if he would say thing x which is permissible will be forbidden to him, like a sacrifice that God, may He be blessed, forbade. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 14a) that only when he makes the vow with a thing that is vowed (that changes status) does his vow stand, and not in another way. As if he says, “Thing x is forbidden to me like a sacrifice,” as we have said; in this [way], the vow will stand (Nedarim 13a). But if he says, “like the meat of a pig,” this is not a vow; as the Torah stated (Numbers 30:3), “If he vows a vow,” meaning to say, “if he vows with something that is vowed.” And so, one who forbids something to his fellow or to himself like the matters of a sacrifice that God, may He be blessed, forbade, is like this matter (like something vowed); since it is as if he said [that] thing x will be forbidden to him or to his friend, [just] like God, may He blessed, forbade us the matters of a sacrifice. And this matter that we have the power to forbid the permissible is because the Torah taught us this, from that which is written (Numbers 30:3), “If [...] he creates a prohibition [...], he may not break his word.”

And this matter is similar to consecration (hekdesh). As we have found in the Torah that a person has the power to consecrate what is his, with the words of his mouth; and they will immediately be forbidden to him and to the whole world, as it is written (Leviticus 27:14), “And if a man consecrates his home to be holy.” And so [too], does he have power over himself to forbid things upon his body. This is their, may their memory be blessed, always saying in the expressions of vows (Nedarim 15a), “Behold, it is upon me” — or (Nedarim 13b), “my mouth” for speech — meaning to say that he distances that thing from him. And he has the power to bind himself with a prohibition of that thing, [just] like he has the power to forbid his possessions. And that is itself the law and the reason why [only] an oath can rest upon something of substance [as well as] something that is not of substance (Nedarim 15b), since the oath lodges upon the body of the person, meaning to say that his body is obligated to do that thing — and behold, the body has substance. However a vow only rests upon something that has substance, as it is like him placing something into the category of other things that are forbidden; meaning to say that thing x will be forbidden to him like the category of the sacrifice that is forbidden to him. And if there is no substance to that which he is [literally] placing in the category, he has not done anything and it is nothing.

And so from this reason, an oath cannot rest upon an oath [about the same matter], but a vow can rest upon a vow [about the same matter]. As with an oath, behold once a man has himself entered into the partition of [something’s] existence, as we have said, even if he repeats his word that he is entering there a thousand times, the entrance of his body into another place is done [only] one time. And this that he does after that is only repeating words pointlessly. But with a vow in which he is like one that accepts upon himself that something permissible is as if it is forbidden; with each time that he repeats his acceptance, he adds [a further] prohibition if he [breaks his vow]. And hence he is liable for each and every one. And it is the same matter itself that an oath cannot rest upon the matter of a commandment (Nedarim 16a), but a vow can rest even upon the matter of a commandment. As one who makes an oath speaks about his body, and his body is already obligated in that matter [of the commandment] from Mount Sinai. But with a vow, he is only speaking about the object that he wants to bring into the category of the forbidden, and about this specific object, he was never obligated. And hence [his new] prohibition rests upon it. And we do not feed a person something that is forbidden for him [because of an oath or a vow]. And this is what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Ran on Nedarim 8a, s. v. Vehalo mushva) that the one who makes an oath forbids himself to the object and the one who makes a vow forbids the object to himself.

And you may ask, “How is it that the one who makes a vow not to eat something that he is commanded about to eat, does not eat it — as behold, he is commanded about that thing with a positive commandment; and a positive commandment comes and pushes off the negative commandment of ‘he shall not break.’ As so did the Sages say in every place, ‘a positive commandments comes and pushes off a negative commandment.’” The answer to you is that the vow is a positive commandment and there is [also] a negative commandment in it: the negative commandment is “he shall not break,” and the positive commandment is “everything that comes out of his mouth he shall do.” And from the reason that we gave [before] that his body is acted upon with an oath, they said (Shevuot 20a) [that] one that is added on with an oath [of someone else] is exempt [from it]; but with vows, he is obligated. How so? If he heard that his fellow made a vow and he said, “I am also like you,” within the time of speech (immediately after it), behold this one is forbidden, since the intention of this one is to say, [just] like you are forbidden from this thing, so too will I be forbidden from it, and with this, it will be sufficient for him. But with an oath, wherein we picture the first one as if he acts upon his body with his words — as we have said — he has not removed something else away from his body; they, may their memory be blessed, did not see that this latter one is included in this movement by saying, “I am also like you.” [Rather,] he must speak out the expression of this movement with his actual mouth — for example, if he says, “I too swear like you”; or if he hears from the mouth of someone who moves him [specifically] to that thing, and he fulfills it and indicates that he wants this movement, like when another man says to him, “I put an oath upon you,” and he answers, “Amen.”

The general principle of the thing is that the language of the oath must be said by his own mouth or that someone else specifically refers it to him and he accepts [it]. But he is not moved by the movement of another man, since his [own] body needs the movement; [but this] is not the case with a vow. [It is also] possible to say that it is from the severity of a vow that they were stricter about it, that one should be added on more quickly than with an oath; since it is stricter than an oath, as behold, they compare it to the life of the King (Sifrei Bamidbar 123:3, see Ramban on Numbers 30:3). And from the reason that we wrote about an oath, that its content is that a man concludes to fulfill his words and to confirm [them by that which] he believes in the Divine existence, we would have learned that his oath cannot be nullified from any angle. But it was from the kindnesses of God to us — in His knowing the frailty of the structure of our body and the smallness of our opinions and the constancy of the change of our wills — to give us counsel to get out from the prison of the oath with the [change] of our will at any time: he allowed us to make the claim regarding the matter of the oath that it was under duress or inadvertent, as is explained in its place in Shevuot 26a and Nedarim 20b.

However, we were not permitted to go out from it [wantonly, but] rather [only] with the stratagem and counsel of the sage; that the one who swore come in front of the man who is wise and understanding of the ways of the Torah and confess to him that [the oath] was from his lack of knowledge — that he did not know at the time that he swore something that he knew afterwards — that he wants to annul what he swore about (Nedarim 71a); and that he recognizes that the smallness of his knowledge and his lacking caused the annulment, not something else or an external thought that would be in his heart, God forbid. And after the confession of his mouth about this, the sage recognizes and sees that there is substance in his words that something new happened to him that if he had had to agree to it at the time that he swore, he would not have sworn and that this is why he regrets [it]; he accepts his confession and he releases him from his oath. And this is what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Berachot 32b), “He cannot forgive [it], but others can forgive it to him.” Therefore it is never possible to annul an oath, except with the reason of something new to the one who swore — for example, that he will say, “If I had known thing x, I would never have sworn.” As this is like duress. But if he says, “Annul me my oath,” without a claim, no man has the power to annul it. And based on this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 64a) that we do not create an opening (to annul the vow) with something new that is not found (that has not happened). As [with this] he does not clearly say that he regrets that he swore — that we should consider it duress — but rather that his will today is like it was at the beginning, but he [just] wants it annulled now. How is this? He swears that he will not benefit from x and [x] becomes the town scribe or butcher, and he says, “My will [still] stands that I did not want to benefit from him and I [also] did not want him to become the scribe or the butcher.” We do not annul [it] for him until he says, “Since I see that this man has become the scribe, I regret that I swore [off] his benefit forever. And if only I had not sworn!” In this way, we annul [it] for him; as behold, he concedes that his will has changed and that he regrets his deeds completely, due to the lack of his knowledge — as had he known at the time of the oath what he knows today, he never would have sworn. And it is like duress. And we expound (Shevuot 26a), “‘A man with an oath’ (Leviticus 5:4) — to exclude duress.”

And from this foundation — also when he makes his oath depend on the mind of others, it is difficult to annul it. As since he has removed his [own] mind from the thing and made it depend on the mind of others, afterwards the claim of duress or inadvertence is not found with him. And this is what they said (Gittin 36a) that one who swears upon the mind of others does not have annulment. And nonetheless for a matter of a commandment, the Sages agreed to annul [it. This is] because [regarding] everything that a man does, which is something that causes the negation of a commandment or that a commandment is performed by not doing that thing, the heart of any Jew would [want] to negate the private action and do the commandment. And [so] we see [it] as if all of the [others] upon whose minds he swore were with him in front of him [now] and say that if they knew [about] the negation of the commandment [coming from] his oath, their minds would not have agreed with him. And behold, we have a claim of duress and inadvertence. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 16b), “But there is annulment for the matter of a commandment.”

And do not think to challenge me about the giving of this reason that I have said — that the main annulment [comes from] something new happening to a man; that had he known about it from the beginning, he would not have sworn — [such that] you would say, “Behold, we have found annulment regarding the oaths of God, may He be blessed, as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Berakhot 32b) about ‘And Moshe beseeched’ (Exodus 32:11), that, as if it were possible, he annulled His oath [for] Him; and the matter of Zerubavel the son of Shaltiel, [about whom] they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 38a) that he was asked by God [to annul] His oath.” And God forbid that there should be a change of will with Him. As one can answer you — and it is [perfectly] true — that everything that comes in Scripture similar to these matters is all stated from the angle of the receivers, which are people. As God forbid to Him and for our hearts to believe that the Master of all would need to swear about something, or that He would need to annul it and negate it afterwards. Rather this thing is said from the angle of receiving punishment which comes to the one punished — that if a man is liable, due to the greatness of his sin, that he be punished regardless, to the point where it is not fitting to give him [the possibility] of repentance, the notion of an oath of God will come upon such a man; meaning to say [that] his punishment and decree is strongly upon him as if there were an oath on the thing. And so [too], for the good: if a man merited, from his great significance, to receive good — he and his children — the verse will also state that God, may He be blessed, swore to benefit him.

And about this and that which is similar to it, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael 19:18:2) [it is] in order to (assuage — Vilna edition) break the ear to that which it can hear (make it understandable). As the strength and persistence of a thing cannot be illustrated to people except with that which they strengthen and keep their [own] words. And in this way exactly did they, may their memory be blessed, expound the annulment of the oath of God, may He be blessed: They wanted to say that He is “graceful and merciful, slow to anger and of great kindness,” and atones for sins; even though their sins are great and strong to the point that if a man sinned to another so much, [the one offended] would swear never to forgive [the other]. And upon this approach, they, may their memory be blessed, said that Moshe annulled it; meaning to say that it was the merit of Moshe’s good prayer that caused God, may He be blessed — Who is the Listener to prayer — to have forgiven their sin. And this is [why] you will not find that our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expound about the matter of the annulment of an oath of His, may He be blessed, except with a great sin — such that every listener will [understand] that it is not given to atonement; meaning to say it is fitting to swear about it that it should not be atoned. But His mercies, blessed be He, were greater than all of our thoughts, and He atones for all those who return to Him — and even if their sin is too heavy to bear — according to my opinion.

And the proof to these words of ours is that which they said (Rosh Hashanah 18a) concerning a [Divine] decree that has an oath with it, as Rava concludes there, that it is not atoned with a sacrifice or a grain-offering, but rather it is atoned with words of Torah; and they have no mention there that God would need to annul [His oath]. As the matters are known and clear to all who see the sun that it is all said metaphorically for the receivers. And in order to direct you on this path in many places, I have been lengthy about this until now.

And [regarding] that which I said that our Sages, may their memory be blessed, ascribe the term, annulment, to an oath of God, may He be blessed; you will only find this in a place that they attributed to Him an oath to make a creature liable. But in a place where they attributed to Him an oath to give merit to a creature, they never mention annulment — as the One of great kindness, inclines towards kindness. I mean to say that once a person appears meritorious at one time in front of the Omnipresent, it is so fitting for him to receive the good [that] it is as if the Holy One, blessed be He, swore the goodly reward to him. It is like the matter that is stated (Psalms 132:11), “The Lord swore to David,” and similar to it — [it means] the merit will no longer go away from him, even if he sins greatly. And this is from His precious traits, blessed be He.

The laws of the commandment — for example, appellations for oaths, [about] which they, may their memory be blessed, said that they are like an oath [and the explanation of appellations for oaths are the many terms that exist among people, according to their places, like what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 10a), “Shevuta, shekuka, etc.”]; so [too], the law [if one says,] “a curse (allah)” or “cursed (arur)” whether they are like oaths (Shevuot 36a); one who says “no” with the mention of God, and so [too], “right or left” (Nazir 3b); the law of his mouth and heart being [in agreement], and that which we learned from this law of his mouth and heart being [in agreement], that we are able to make [deceptive] oaths to killers and plunderers, like [if] he says that all the fruits in the world are forbidden to him if there be such and such, and in his heart is that they only be forbidden for today (Nedarim 27b), and even though it generally implies forever, but it is only permitted to us like this, when the words of his mouth do not completely contradict the thought of his heart, and not in any other way; and the rest of its many details — are [all] in Shevuot and Nedarim. (See Tur, Yoreh Deah 236.)

And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and swears that a pillar of marble is of gold; or of gold that it is of gold; or to negate this commandment; or to do something that is not in the power of a man to do, he is lashed, when volitional. And even though there is no act, the Torah made him liable for lashes due to the severity of the matter (Shevuot 27b). And he is exempted from a sacrifice for this, when inadvertent. But with a false oath — and that is what is called an oath of expression — the Torah obligated a sacrifice for inadvertence, as we shall write (Sefer HaChinukh 123) with God’s help.