Shas:Oaths – Positive Commandment or Objectionable Necessity/2/en

Shas:Oaths – Positive Commandment or Objectionable Necessity?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators disagree regarding the meaning of an oath. While the Rambam views swearing true oaths as fulfilling a positive commandment and glorifying Hashem's name, R. Yehuda HeChasid and R. Elazar HaRokeach view even true oaths as desecrating Hashem's name. Raavad and Ramban are positioned in the middle, viewing oaths as neutral, being neither positively commanded nor actively discouraged.

Positive Commandment

Swearing a true oath is a positive action, which fulfills a positive commandment and glorifies Hashem's name.

Sources:RambamPositive Commandments 7Mishne Torah Postive Commandments List 7Hilkhot Shevuot IntroductionHilkhot Shevuot 2:2-4Hilkhot Shevuot 11:1-3Hilkhot Shevuot 12:12About R. Moshe b. Maimon

"וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ" – The Rambam understands these words to be a commandment to swear oaths in the name of Hashem, whenever it is necessary to make a declaration or statement.

Differences between types of oaths – The Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvot does not differentiate between different oaths, viewing them all as a fulfillment of the commandment.¹

Understanding Temurah 3b – According to the Rambam, the initial possibility raised by the Bavli was that oaths are proscribed, and that even when one swears an oath in court to avoid monetary loss, one receives lashes. However, the Bavli dismisses this understanding, and learns from one of the "וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ" verses that one is commanded to take oaths, and from the second verse that one may take an oath to fulfill other commandments of the Torah.

Threatening the oath taker – According to this approach, when a man is required to swear in court he is threatened only that he refrain from swearing falsely, but not so that he should refrain from swearing at all. Like warnings to would-be witnesses, the threats apply only if the oath-taker lies, but if he tells the truth he fulfills a positive commandment.²

Metaphysical meaning of oath-taking – The Rambam views oath-taking as a form of worship and glorification of Hashem.

Neutral Law

Taking a true oath is permissible, but does not have any inherent value.

Sources:RaavadPostive Commandments List 7About R. Avraham b. David, RambanSefer HaMitzvot Positive Commandments 7Devarim 6:13About R. Moshe b. Nachman, SemagPositive Commandments 123About R. Moshe of Coucy,³ Semak108About R. Yitzchak of Corbeil

"וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ" – According to this option, one may understand the commandment of "וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ" in a number of ways:

• According to Raavad and Ramban, the commandment is the positive converse of the prohibition to swear in the names of foreign gods. If one swears, one must swear by the name of Hashem, and not any other god.
• According to Semag, the commandment is only a technical requirement of certain oaths. If one is required to swear in court, one must do so by the name of Hashem.
• According to Semak, the commandment is not a requirement to take an oath, but rather that if one is obligated to swear, one must make sure to do so truthfully.

Understanding Temurah 3b – According to Ramban, the prior understanding of the Bavli was that oaths are proscribed, except when one swears an oath in court. However, the Bavli dismisses this understanding, and learns from one appearance of "וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ" that one is permitted to swear even oaths not required by court, and from "וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק" that one may swear oaths to fulfill other commandments of the Torah.⁴

Threatening the oath taker – According to this approach, when a man is required to swear in court he is threatened in order that he refrain from swearing falsehood, not that he refrain from swearing at all.

Metaphysical meaning of oath-taking – This view does not attach any special meaning to the swearing of a true oath.

Objectionable Necessity

Swearing any oath, even a true one, has negative consequences, and should be avoided at all costs.

Sources:YerushalmiShevuot 6:5About the Yerushalmi, Bemidbar Rabbah22:1About Bemidbar Rabbah, R. Yehuda HeChasidSefer Chasidim 418-419Sefer Chasidim (Parma) 1405About R. Yehuda HeChasid, R. Elazar HaRokeachHilkhot Teshuva 25About R. Elazar HaRokeach

"וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ" – According to Bemidbar Rabbah, "וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ" is not a requirement, but rather permission. If one fulfills all of the conditions mentioned earlier in the verses (fearing Hashem, worshiping Him, and adhering to Him), then (and only then) is one permitted to take oaths in his name.

Understanding Temurah 3b – According to this approach, the preliminary position considered by the Bavli was that swearing oaths is punishable by lashes, and the final understanding is that one learns from one occurrence of "וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ" that one is permitted to swear oaths, and from the other occurrence that one may swear oaths to fulfill other commandments of the Torah. The fact that a punishment for any swearing of oaths was conceivable by the Bavli (even if this idea was later rejected), supports this approach's negative view of oaths.

Threatening the oath taker – This approach views the threats against the oath-taker in court as a means to avoid any swearing at all, and the consequences mentioned in the threats apply even to a true oath-taker.

Metaphysical meaning of oath-taking – According to the Rokeach, swearing any oath, even a true one, is tantamount to desecrating Hashem's name.

¹ In Hilkhot Shevuot 11:1, however, the Rambam seems to limit the commandment to cases when the oath was required by the court (שבועת הדיינים). Since the Rambam does not distinguish elsewhere in this matter between oaths required by the court and personal oaths (שבועת ביטוי), it is possible he is only giving an example, and not limiting the breadth of this commandment.

² See Radbaz, who maintains that the Rambam's positioning of the details of the commandment right before he details the laws of oaths required by the court is an attempt to reassure the true oath-taker that he need not worry. See also Ran, who has a variant version of the Bavli's analysis of the threats, which makes clear that they only apply to one swearing falsehood ("האי דקא משתבע בשקרא"), and not any oath-taker.

³ The Semag bases his language here on that of the Rambam. However, he omits the phrases describing oaths as being a form of worship, and adds a reference to the technical discussion in Bavli Shevuot 38b, regarding the requirement to mention Hashem's name when swearing an oath. These changes imply that the Semag viewed the commandment as only a technical requirement when an oath is required, and not a positive commandment to swear oaths.

⁴ Ramban understands the second citation in the Bavli, of "ובו תדבק ובשמו תשבע", as centering on the words "ובו תדבק", not "ובשמו תשבע". This leaves Ramban with an extra "וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ", from which he learns the prohibition to swear in the name of foreign gods.