Comentario sobre Levítico 5:4

בשפתים [OR IF A SOUL SWEAR, PRONOUNCING] WITH HIS LIPS [FOR HARM, OR FOR GOOD] — with his lips but not merely in his heart (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 9 2; Shevuot 26b).

But not with his heart. I.e., if he decided in his heart by making an oath silently without verbalizing not to eat, and then he ate, he is not liable to bring an offering.

לאחת מאלה, “be guilty concerning one of these things.” Concerning this Rashi asks what the Torah means to tell us with these words? (Actually on verse 13, where the same expression occurs, not on this verse) he answers that the three different sins all involving oaths that are being mentioned here are being treated equally. He answers that I could have thought that the type of offering demanded would be determined by the relative severity of the sin, whereas theTorah reveals that it is determined by the economic status of the sinner concerned. For example: if the person concerned had by mistake eaten part of an offering, he basically has to atone for this by offering a sheep or female goat. If he had committed a less serious sin, by failing to testify to something he had been a witness of, he has to bring a bird offering. If his inadvertent sin consisted of swearing an oath concerning what he would or would not do, and had forgotten that he had expressed this by words that made it an oath, he will bring a meal offering as atonement consisting of about two kilos of flour.

להרע TO DO HARM to himself,

To himself. This excludes if he took an oath to harm others, for instance, [he said:] “I will hit Ploni,” but he forgot and did not hit him, he is not liable to bring an offering. Rashi’s proof is from what it is written: “To do harm or to do good” — we make a hekeish (comparison) between the two — just as to do good is optional, so too to do harm is optional, excluding harming others, which is not optional, as it is written (Devarim 25:3): “He shall flog him with forty [lashes]; he shall not exceed.” With regard [to an oath] to do good, however, he is liable [for failing to keep an oath] even towards others. [You might ask: If so,] why does Rashi write: “Do good” — for himself? [The answer is:] Since he said that doing harm is for himself, he said that doing good is also for himself, but in fact he is liable [even for failing to keep an oath] to do good for others, as it is explained in the third chapter of Shavuos (26b).

או להטיב OR TO DO GOOD to himself, — as for instance, if he swears: “I shall eat” (which is להטיב), or, “I shall not eat” (להרע), “I shall sleep” (להטיב) or, “I shall not sleep” (להרע) (cf. Shevuot 27a).

And he violated. Scripture is truncated; it should have written: “This was concealed from him and he violated.” Otherwise, for what would he bring an offering? Would he bring an offering because it was concealed from him? [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not explain here upon the word, “ואשם (and he incurs guilt)” as he does above, with regard to the word ואשם in the verse dealing with impurity (v. 2, 3)? The answer is: The word ואשם written here is followed by the phrase, “for any one of these,” which implies that it refers to all the aforementioned sins. Therefore, perforce we must say that the verse, “And it was concealed from him” is a truncated verse, and it is as if it says: “It was concealed from him and he violated his oath, when he realizes [his sin],” i.e., when he finds out afterwards. It then returns: “And he incurs guilt for any one of these... He shall bring his guilt-offering” (Re”m).

לכל אשר יבטא WHATSOEVER IT BE THAT A MAN PRONOUNCETH [WITH AN OATH] whatsoever it be: — this is intended to include the case where the oath refers to something that happened in the past (e.g., he swore, “I have eaten” etc. but he has not) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 9 8; Shevuot 26a).

A sliding scale sacrifice. Meaning: If he is wealthy he brings a female lamb or she-goat; if he is poor he brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons; and if he is of the poorest of the poor he brings a tenth of an eiphah. Therefore, this offering is called the sliding scale sacrifice.

‎‏ונעלם ממנו AND IT BE HID FROM HIM (he forgot that he had taken such an oath) and consequently he violated his oath. — All these cases come under the law of “a sacrifice of higher or lesser value” (according to pecuniary conditions), as is set forth here (vv. 6—13): but an oath which involves the false repudiation of a claim to money does not come under the law of this sacrifice but under that of a guilt-offering (v. 25).

As is explained. Although Rashi does not need to say all this, for Scripture is clear about it, as it explicitly stated in this section, nevertheless, he says it so that he can say: “But [violation] of an oath...” as it says in the end of the parshah (v. 21): “If a person sins and wrongfully deviates...”

That is that He also commanded us to bring a variable burnt-sacrifice for certain specific sins. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are impurification of the Temple and its sanctified objects; an oath of speech; and an oath of testimony. And that is one who is impure from one of the primary sources of impurity - as we set out in the introduction to the Order of Purities (Commentary on the Mishnah) - and entered the Temple or ate consecrated [food] inadvertently; and that is impurification of the Temple and its consecrated objects. Or that he swore falsely, as with an oath of speech that he inadvertently transgressed; or if he swore falsely with an oath of testimony - whether inadvertently or volitionally. Behold for any of these actions, he must bring a sacrifice that is called a variable burnt-offering. And that is His saying, "And if a person sin, and hear the voice of adjuration [... Or when a person touches any unclean thing...] and it be hid from him [and he come to know of it, and be guilty]. Or if a person swear, speaking with his lips [...] And it shall be, when he shall be guilty [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering [...]. But if his means do not suffice" (Leviticus 5:1-7). And for this reason is it called a variable burnt-offering - because it does not remain one type; but rather he will once bring this type, and another time that type. Everything is according to what the means of the sinner, who is obligated to offer the sacrifice, suffice. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot and in Shevuot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 10.)

That is that He commanded us to administer the nullification of vows - meaning the precept that He instructed us about these laws. However the content is not that we are obligated to annul vows no matter what. And you should understand this issue itself from me - any time you hear me counting one of the laws [as a commandment], it [need] not be a command of a specific compulsory action. Rather it is a commandment by virtue of our being commanded to administer this law for this thing (when it arises). That the husband and the father can annul them is, behold, already explained in Scripture (Numbers 30). But the tradition comes [and informs us] that a sage can also annul a vow, as well as an oath. And the hint to this is in His saying, "he may not void his word" (Numbers 30:3) - he may not void his word, but others may void it for him. More generally, there is certainly no proof to this from Scripture; and they say (Chagigah 10a), "The annulment of vows floats in the air." So it does not have any [bona fide] support, but it is rather [known] from the true tradition. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Nedarim. (See Parashat Matot; Mishneh Torah, Vows 12.)