## Temurah Daf 3b

###### Temurah 3b:1
[Temurah 3b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:1)

אֵין מְנַקִּין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַטָּה מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וּמְנַקִּין אוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**does not hold him guiltless,** as repentance alone will not atone for the sin, **but the lower,** i.e., earthly, **court flogs him,** thereby allowing him to atone, **and absolves him** of guilt.


###### Temurah 3b:2
[Temurah 3b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְאֵימָא לָא תִּיהְוֵי לֵיהּ נְקִיּוּת כְּלָל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״לֹא יִנָּקֶה״ וְלִישְׁתּוֹק, ״ה׳״ לְמָה לִי? בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה הוּא דְּאֵין מְנַקִּין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַטָּה מַלְקִין וּמְנַקִּין אוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But** why not **say** that the verse means **he cannot be absolved** of guilt **at all?** Abaye **said to him: If so, let the verse write** only: **“Will not hold him guiltless,” and be silent. Why do I** need the verse to specify: “For **the Lord** will not hold him guiltless”? This serves to teach that **it is the higher court that will not hold him guiltless, but the lower court flogs** him **and absolves him** of guilt.


###### Temurah 3b:3
[Temurah 3b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:3)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר מְנָלַן? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: ״לַשָּׁוְא״ ״לַשָּׁוְא״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִשְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא — תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לִשְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר, דְּלוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that one who takes **an oath in vain** using the name of God is flogged. **From where do we** derive that the same holds for **a false oath?** The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yoḥanan himself says** the derivation: The verse states with regard to an oath taken in vain: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). It says: **“In vain…in vain,” twice** in this verse. **If** the second instance of the term **is not** necessary for the **matter of an oath** taken **in vain,** which is derived from the first instance, **apply it** to the **matter of a false oath,** to teach **that** one who takes such an oath **is flogged.**


###### Temurah 3b:4
[Temurah 3b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי נֵימָא דַּאֲמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וַאֲכַל — הָתָם (הוּא) מַעֲשֵׂה עֲבַד, וְאֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁאוֹכַל״ וְלָא אֲכַל — הָהוּא מִי לָקֵי? וְהָאִיתְּמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זֶה הַיּוֹם״ וְעָבַר הַיּוֹם וְלֹא אָכַל — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמְרִי: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu objects to this** explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **What are the circumstances** of the **false oath** under discussion? **If we say that** the one taking the oath **said:** I take an oath **that I will not eat** a certain item, **and he** then **ate** that item; **there he performed an action** to violate his oath by eating the item, and the prohibition would then involve an action. **And** if it was **rather** a case **where he said:** I take an oath **that I will eat** a certain item, **and he did not eat** that item; **is that** individual **flogged? But wasn’t it stated:** If one says: I take **an oath that I will eat this loaf today, and the day passed and he had not eaten** it, **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** both **say: He is not flogged.**


###### Temurah 3b:5
[Temurah 3b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:5)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, דְּלָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק, וְכׇל הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **he is not flogged, as it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, and one is not flogged for any prohibition that does not involve an action. And Reish Lakish says** that **he is not flogged, as** there was only **an uncertain forewarning for** the transgressor. One must be warned immediately before the transgression to be held liable, but here there was no single moment of transgression, **and one is not flogged for any** transgression that follows **an uncertain forewarning.** If Rabbi Yoḥanan holds he is not flogged, to what case is he referring when he states that one is flogged for a false oath even though no action is involved?


###### Temurah 3b:6
[Temurah 3b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: תְּהֵא בְּ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Abbahu says: Let** the case **be where** one says: I take an oath that **I ate** a certain item, and in fact he did not eat it; **or** he said: I take an oath that **I did not eat** a certain item, and in fact he did eat it. In these cases, he transgresses the prohibition by speech alone, without an action.


###### Temurah 3b:7
[Temurah 3b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:7)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא דְּקָא מְרַבֵּה ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ מֵ״אוֹכַל״ וְלֹא אָכַל? אָמַר רָבָא: בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁקֶר דּוֹמֶה לְשָׁוְא, מָה שָׁוְא לְשֶׁעָבַר, אַף שֶׁקֶר לְשֶׁעָבַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different** about an oath concerning the past, **that** the verse **includes** one who takes an oath of: **I ate, or: I did not eat,** as liable to be flogged, more **than** one who takes an oath of: **I will eat, and** then **did not eat?** In both cases, there is no action performed. **Rava says: The Torah explicitly includes** a case of **a false** oath that is **similar to** a case of an oath taken **in vain: Just as** an oath taken **in vain** refers **to the past, so too,** the **false** oath for which one is flogged must pertain **to the past.**


###### Temurah 3b:8
[Temurah 3b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״, וַאֲכָלָהּ — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְזוֹהִי שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי, שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קׇרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. זוֹהִי לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְלֹא ״אָכַלְתִּי״, דְּלָא לָקֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Abbahu** from a mishna (*Shevuot* 27b): If one says: I take **an oath that I will not eat this loaf;** I take **an oath that I will not eat it;** I take **an oath that I will not eat it, and he** then **ate it, he is liable** for **only one** violation. **And this is** the **oath of an utterance for which one is liable** to receive **lashes for its intentional** violation, **and** to bring **a sliding-scale offering for its unwitting** violation. Rabbi Yirmeya asks: When the mishna uses the limiting term: **This is** the oath, **what** does it serve **to exclude?** Is it **not to exclude** a case where one said: I take an oath that **I ate** a certain item, when in fact he did not eat it, **or:** I take an oath that **I did not eat** a certain item, when he did eat it, to teach **that** he is **not flogged** in those cases? This would contradict the explanation of Rabbi Abbahu.


###### Temurah 3b:9
[Temurah 3b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:9)

לֹא, זוֹ הִיא דְּעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן, אֲבָל ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ לָא מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן. וּמַנִּי? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, אֲבָל מִילְקָא לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** in both cases one is flogged for violating the prohibition intentionally. Rather, the phrase means: **This is** the oath **for which** one **brings an offering for its unwitting** violation, **but** in a case where one unwittingly said: **I ate** a certain item, when he in fact did not eat it, **or: I did not** eat a certain item, when he did eat it, **he does not bring an offering. And whose** opinion does this mishna represent? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who said:** One is **liable** to bring an offering **only for** an oath that refers to **the future, but** one is **flogged** even for an oath that pertains to the past.


###### Temurah 3b:10
[Temurah 3b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:10)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: זוֹהִי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר. ״זוֹהִי״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״, דְּלָא לָקֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: But **say the latter clause** of the mishna (*Shevuot* 29a): If one takes an oath that a stone is gold or some similar absurdity, **this is** the **oath** taken **in vain, for which one is liable** to receive **lashes** if he utters **it intentionally and for** which **one is exempt** from bringing an offering if he utters **it unwittingly. What** does the limiting term: **This is** the oath, used by the mishna serve **to exclude?** Does it **not** serve **to exclude** a case where one said: **I ate** a certain item, when he in fact did not eat it, **or: I did not eat** a certain item, when he did eat it, to teach **that he is not flogged** in those cases?


###### Temurah 3b:11
[Temurah 3b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:11)

לֹא, זוֹהִי דְּעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר מִקׇּרְבָּן, אֲבָל ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ — מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן. וּמַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן לְשֶׁעָבַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** in both cases one is flogged for violating the prohibition intentionally. Rather, the phrase means: **This is** the oath **for which one is exempt from** bringing **an offering** if he utters **it unwittingly, but** in a case where one said: **I ate** a certain item, when he in fact did not eat it, **or: I did not eat** a certain item, when he did eat it, **he brings an offering. And whose** opinion does this represent? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who said: One brings an offering** even **for** the violation of an oath that refers to **the past.**


###### Temurah 3b:12
[Temurah 3b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:12)

וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל! אֶלָּא, מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְרֵישָׁא לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״, אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי ״אוֹכַל״ וְלֹא אָכַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara protests: **But didn’t you say** earlier that **the first clause** represents the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** that one does not bring an offering for a false oath pertaining to the past? **Rather,** from the fact **that the latter clause** represents the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** it follows that **the first clause** must represent the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva as well. And** one must therefore suggest an alternative explanation of **the first clause.** The phrase: This is the oath, employed there does **not,** as previously claimed, serve **to exclude** a case where one said: **I ate** a certain item, **or: I did not eat** a certain item. **Rather,** it serves **to exclude** a case where one said: **I will eat** a certain item, **and he did not** subsequently **eat** it.


###### Temurah 3b:13
[Temurah 3b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:13)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי בִּלְהַבָּא — מְמַעֵט לְהַבָּא, קָאֵי בִּלְהַבָּא — מְמַעֵט לְשֶׁעָבַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different** about an oath pertaining to the future, that the mishna should exclude it specifically? The Gemara responds: **Since** this clause of the mishna **deals with** an oath that pertains to **the future,** it stands to reason that it would **exclude** an oath pertaining to **the future.** If it **deals with** an oath that pertains to **the future,** why would it **exclude** an oath pertaining to **the past?** In summary, the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The first clause excludes from the punishment of lashes the passive violation of an oath pertaining to the future, and the latter clause includes in the obligation to bring an offering a false oath pertaining to the past if he uttered it unwittingly. Neither clause contradicts the explanation of Rabbi Abbahu.


###### Temurah 3b:14
[Temurah 3b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:14)

וּמֵימֵר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא: לָא תִּתְנִי ״וּמֵימֵר״, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In listing those who incur the punishment of lashes even though they did not perform an action in their transgression, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili was cited above as including: **And one who effects substitution.** The Gemara adds: **Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the *tanna*** who would recite the *baraitot* in his academy: **Do not teach: And one who effects substitution,** in this regard, **because** one who effects substitution **performs an action** of consecration **by his speech.**


###### Temurah 3b:15
[Temurah 3b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:15)

הַמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַּשֵּׁם. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״אִם לֹא תִשְׁמֹר״, וּכְתִיב ״וְהִפְלָא ה׳ אֶת מַכּוֹתְךָ״. הַפְלָאָה זוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשּׁוֹפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו״ — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: הַפְלָאָה זוֹ מַלְקוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Rabbi Yosei HaGelili also lists **one who curses another using the name** of God as liable to be flogged. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? **Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Oshaya says: The verse states: “If you will not observe** to perform all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 28:58). This refers to one who curses using the name of God. **And it is written** immediately thereafter: **“Then the Lord will make your plagues wondrous [*vehifla*]”** (Deuteronomy 28:59). With regard to **this** term ***hafla’a*, I do not know what its** meaning **is. When it says: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down [*vehippilo*] and to be beaten before him”** (Deuteronomy 25:2), **you must say** that the term ***hafla’a* is** referring to **lashes.**


###### Temurah 3b:16
[Temurah 3b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:16)

אֵימַר: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁבוּעַת אֱמֶת? בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב: ״שְׁבוּעַת ה׳ תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why not **say** that **even** one who utters **a true oath** is flogged, as this too could be considered exhibiting insufficient fear of God’s name? The Gemara answers: **It is written explicitly** that a bailee may take an oath in court, as the verse states: **“The oath of the Lord shall be between them both,** to see whether he has not damaged his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:10).


###### Temurah 3b:17
[Temurah 3b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:17)

אֵימַר הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְפַיֵּיס אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲבָל מִילְקָא לִילְקֵי? לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דְּהָכְתִיב ״וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: Why not **say** that **this statement** in the verse means only that a bailee is able **to appease the other,** i.e., the owner, and exempt himself from payment for the damaged goods, **but** he **should** nevertheless **be flogged?** The Gemara answers: **You cannot say** this, **as it is written:** “You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve, **and by His name you shall swear”** (Deuteronomy 6:13). This verse clearly indicates that it is permitted to take a truthful oath using the name of God.


###### Temurah 3b:18
[Temurah 3b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:18)

הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין לְקַיֵּים אֶת הַמִּצְוֹת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי וָאֲקַיֵּמָה לִשְׁמוֹר מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ״. הָכְתִיב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t **that** verse **required** as a source **for** the *halakha* **of Rav? As Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said: From where** is it derived **that** it is permitted for one to **take an oath** obligating himself **to fulfill the mitzvot?** It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated: “I have sworn, and have confirmed it, to observe Your righteous ordinances”** (Psalms 119:106). The Gemara counters that there is another source: **Isn’t another verse written:** “You shall fear the Lord your God; Him you shall serve; **and to Him you shall cleave, and by His name you shall swear”** (Deuteronomy 10:20). This second verse teaches that it is permitted for one to take a truthful oath.


###### Temurah 3b:19
[Temurah 3b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:19)

אֶלָּא לְמַאי אֲתָא — לִמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַּשֵּׁם. וְאֵימָא — לְמוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה? מִי גָּרַע מְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַּשֵּׁם מִמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resumes the discussion of one who curses another: **Rather,** the term *vehifla* in Deuteronomy 28:59 **comes to** teach **what?** It comes **to** teach that **one who curses another using the name** of God is flogged. The Gemara asks: **But** why not **say** that that verse refers **to one who pronounces the name of Heaven in vain?** The Gemara answers: Even if it does, **is cursing another using the name** of God any **less** of a sin **than pronouncing the name of Heaven in vain?** If one is flogged for the latter, certainly one is flogged for the former.


###### Temurah 3b:20
[Temurah 3b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3b:20)

אֲנַן, הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לַן: אֵימָא מוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה — תִּיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בְּמַלְקוֹת, אֲבָל מְקַלֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ בַּשֵּׁם, כֵּיוָן דְּקָעָבֵיד תַּרְתֵּי, דְּקָא מַפֵּיק שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה וְקָמְצַעַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ — לָא תִּיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בְּמַלְקוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies its question: **This is what is difficult for us:** One can **say** that **for one who pronounces the name of Heaven in vain, it is sufficient for him** to receive **lashes** to atone for his act, **but** in the case of **one who curses another using the name of God, since he has performed two** improper acts, first **that he pronounces the name of Heaven in vain, and** second that **he inflicts pain on another, it should not be sufficient for him to** receive **lashes** to atone for his act.