Midrash su Levitico 5:4

1) (Vayikra 5:5): "Then it shall be, if he be guilty for one of these, then he shall confess where he has sinned." Whence is it derived that he is liable for each one of these ("hearing the voice, etc.") utterance of the lips, and tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects) individually, and that all three are not required for liability? From "for one." Each one is implied (in all of its possible applications).

1) (Vayikra 5:4) ("Or if a soul swear, to pronounce with the lips, to do harm or to do good, for all that a man will pronounce with an oath, and it be hidden from him, and he knew, and he is guilty in one of these") I might think (the intent of the verse to be that if one violates any pronouncement of the lips, including) a vow to become a Nazir or to bring a sacrifice, he is liable for an offering; it is, therefore, written: "if a soul swear" — It is for an oath that one is liable, and not for the others.

2) I might think that if one thought (the oath) in his heart (but did not utter it) he were liable; it is, therefore, written "with the lips," not with the heart. Or I might think that I exclude what is resolved in one's heart (as in an instance when one resolves upon a loaf of wheat, but utters (only) "a loaf." It is, therefore, written "to utter" (i.e., so long as there is no contradiction between the utterance and the resolution of the heart, the resolution stands.)

3) I might think that if one swore to do harm to others (but did not do so) he were liable (for an offering); it is, therefore, written "to do harm or to do good." Just as doing good is one's option — to exclude one's swearing to do harm to others (which is not his option).

4) I might think that if one thought to harm himself (but did not do so) he were exempt (from an offering); it is, therefore, written "to do harm or to do good." Just as doing good is one's option, so doing harm is one's option — to include in liability (for an offering) one who swears to harm himself.

5) I might think that in the instance of a court-imposed oath ("hearing the voice," viz. Vayikra 5:1), where deliberate violation (of the oath) is equated with unwitting violation (in respect to bringing an offering," "and it be hidden" not being written in that regard), he is liable for each one, but in the instance of an oath of pronouncement, (viz. Vayikra 5:4) where deliberate violation is not equated with unwitting violation, "and it be hidden" (i.e., unwitting) being written in that regard), I might think that he is liable for one (offering) alone; it is, therefore, (to negate this), written (Vayikra 5:5): "for one," to impose liability for each one.

5) I might think that I exclude (from offering-liability) even one who swears to do good to others — "or to do good" includes doing good to others.

6) Or I might think that if one swore to transgress a mitzvah (but did not do so) he were liable (for an offering); it is, therefore, written: "to do harm or to do good" — Just as doing good is optional, so doing harm is optional, which excludes one who swears to transgress a mitzvah (which is mandatory).

(Ibid. 7) "You shall not take the name of the L rd your G d in vain": A vain oath, too, was included in (Leviticus 19:12) "You shall not swear falsely in My name," and Scripture removed it from its class to exempt it from an oath, viz. (Leviticus 5:4) "Or if a soul swear in uttering with his lips, etc.", Scripture being more stringent with it (a vain oath) and exempting it from an offering — I would think that just as it is exempt from an offering, it is exempt from stripes. It is, therefore, written "You shall not take the name of the L rd your G d in vain" — It was exempt from an offering, but not from stripes.

7) I would exclude swearing to transgress a mitzvah, but I would not exclude swearing to fulfill a mitzvah from liability (for non-fulfillment), as per R. Yehudah b. Betheirah, viz.: If for something optional against which he is not forsworn from Mount Sinai he is liable, does it not follow a fortiori that for something against which he is forsworn from Mount Sinai he should be liable (for breaking his oath)! — No, in an optional oath (as in "to do harm or to do good") the positive (e.g., to eat) is equated with the negative (not to eat) as opposed to a mitzvah oath, where the positive (e.g., to eat matzah) is not equated with the negative (not to eat matzah).

8) "to do harm or to do good": This tells me only of things which are susceptible of "harm" and "good." Whence do I derive the same for (neutral) things, which are not thus susceptible? From (the superfluous) "that a man will pronounce." This tells me only of (an oath to do something in) the future. Whence do I derive that this (also) applies to (an oath of something having been done in) the past? From "all that a man will pronounce." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says "to do harm or to do good" connotes the future. R. Akiva: If so, this should apply only to (matters of) "harm and good." Whence do I derive that it applies (also) to other (i.e., neutral) matters? R. Yishmael: From the superfluous verse ("that a man will pronounce"). R. Akiva: If the verse is superfluous for this (neutral matters), it is also superfluous for that (an oath re the past).

9) "a man … with an oath": This excludes one who swore falsely by mistake (assuming that he was telling the truth). "and it be hidden from him": This excludes one who swore falsely deliberately (and repented of it, in which instance he does not bring an offering). "and it be hidden from him": That the oath was "hidden" (i.e., forgotten by) him (e.g., "Did I say that I will or that I will not eat?") or that the object of the oath were "hidden" from him ("Did I say 'wheat bread' or 'barley bread'?") — "an oath and it be hidden from him" implies that he is liable for "hiddenness" of the oath but not for "hiddenness" of the object.

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN…, AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes < upon one > for eleven things:³²Tanh., Lev. 5:4; cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for blessing (i.e., for cursing) the name, (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon³³In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing falsely, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say: for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly). [Moreover, you < can > expound them all < from Scripture >.]

(Bamidbar 5:19) "And the Cohein shall beswear her": The Cohein administers the oath and she does not swear of herself. For it would follow (that she does), viz.: It is written here "swear," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 5:4) "swear." Just as there, he swears of himself, so, here, she should swear of herself. It is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall beswear her." "and he shall say to the woman": in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of yevamah, (the instance) of lesser stringency, the other languages are not equated with the holy tongue (Hebrew) (viz. Devarim 25:9), then, (in the instance of) sotah, the graver instance, how much more so should the other languages not be equated with the holy tongue! It is, therefore, written "and he shall say to the woman" — in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This (derivation of R. Yoshiyah) is not necessary; for it is written (Bamidbar 5:22) "and the woman shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'" If she does not understand, how can she say this! — But perhaps she says "Amen" only on the curse (i.e., "to swell the belly, etc." [and not on the oath])! — (This cannot be,) for she says Amen twice — both on the curse and on the oath. What, then, is the intent of "and he shall say to the women" (according to R. Yonathan)? That the Cohein teaches her (the import of) the order of the oath. (5:19) "If no man has lain with you": We are hereby taught that he opens for merit. He says to her: Much wine causes this. Much frivolity causes this. Much childishness causes this. Many have preceded you and been swept away (by lust). Do not allow His great name written in holiness to be erased by the (bitter) waters. He recounts before her things from the tradition, things mentioned in the early writings (Iyyov 15:18) "which wise men relate and which they did not withhold from their fathers." And he says before her things which are not fit to be heard, by her and by all the families of her father's house. R. Yishmael says: In the beginning he apprises her of the strength of the bitter waters. He says to her: My daughter, what are these bitter waters like? Like a dry powder placed on raw flesh, which causes no harm, but which, when it finds a sore spot, penetrates and descends. You, too, if you are clean, drink and do not refrain, and, if you are unclean, in the end you will be swollen by these bitter, blighting waters.

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND < OF CANAAN…, AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS >. How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted?⁴⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:4. It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:33–34): < HE TURNS…; > A FRUITFUL LAND INTO A SALT MARSH BECAUSE OF THE EVIL OF THOSE WHO DWELL IN IT. For what reason did suffering come into the world? Because of the people, so that they would look, consider, and say: Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted. So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look < at them > and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One intended to exile them. The Holy One said: If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations. What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the Wicked upon all the < other > nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14): MY HAND (the hand of Sennacherib) HAS FOUND THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLES LIKE A NEST. It is also written (in vs. 13): AND I (Sennacherib) HAVE REMOVED THE BORDERS OF PEOPLES. The Holy One said: When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear my judgment. It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6–7): I HAVE ROOTED OUT THE NATIONS; THEIR CORNER TOWERS ARE DESOLATE…. AND I SAID: SURELY YOU WILL FEAR ME… ! When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One warns them and first afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, one is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH…. {Therefore, the stones are afflicted at first.} For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40): WHEN SOMEONE'S HEAD BECOMES HAIRLESS < SO THAT HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN >; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18): AND WHEN ONE HAS BOILS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH [AND IS HEALED].⁴⁷The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges {i.e., blows}: Swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.⁴⁸Numb. R. 14:4. {The Holy One} [Scripture] has said (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS]. The Holy One said: Before I created the human, I prepared all these things for him. < The situation > is comparable to an evil slave who was sold. His < new > master went to buy him. Since he knew about him being an evil slave, he took along chains and whips so that, if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him: Did you not know that I was an evil slave? Why did you buy me? He said to him: Because I knew that you were an evil slave, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them. Also before the Holy One, blessed be his name, created the human one, he prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) he knows THAT⁴⁹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” THE INSTINCT OF ONE'S HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH. He therefore prepared all these things for him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS].

(Bamidbar 30:7) "And if she be to a man, and her vows be upon her": This refers to one who is betrothed. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: In either case, (i.e., either betrothed or wed) Scripture comes to make a distinction, viz.: As long as she is in her father's house, her father and her husband (jointly) annul her vows. If she is wed, her father does not annul her vows. "and her vows be upon her": the vows that "came along" with her from her father's house to her husband's house. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows that she made on his (her husband's) domain? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If he annuls vows that she vowed not in his domain, how much more so vows that she made in his domain! Variantly: "and her vows be upon her": (Can the husband annul only) vows which were never confirmed (in her father's house) or even vows which were confirmed there? It follows (inductively), viz.: The husband annuls and the father annuls. Just as the father annuls only vows which were never confirmed or annulled, so, the husband. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the father, who has an exclusive prerogative (over his daughter's vows) can annul only vows which were never confirmed, how much more so, the husband, who does not have such a prerogative! — No, this may be true of the father, who does not annul in her maturity — wherefore he annuls only vows which were never confirmed, as opposed to the husband, who does annul (the vows of her) maturity — wherefore he can annul every vow, (even those confirmed in her father's house)? Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination, we must revert to Scripture, viz.: "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter. Scripture likens the husband to the father, viz.: Just as the father can annul only those vows which were never confirmed, so, the husband. "or the utterance (mivta) of her lips": "bitui" (like "mivta") connotes an oath, as in (Vayikra 5:4) "Or if a soul swear 'levatei' with his lips."