Musar su Esodo 20:7

There are some [negative commandments] that are dependent upon the tongue, for which we give lashes. For so did our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say (Makkot 16a), “All the warnings in the Torah - we do not give lashes for a negative commandment that does not [involve] an action, except for one who makes an oath or curses his fellow with [God’s] name.” And even though there is no death penalty from the court with a vain oath, its punishment at the hands of the Heavens is more weighty than many sins that do have a death penalty from the court. For making an oath in vain profanes [God’s] name - as it is stated (Leviticus 19:12), “You shall not swear falsely by My name, profaning the name of your God” - and the punishment for profaning the name is more elevated than [that of] all of the sins. And it is not written like this about any of the sins besides a false oath and idolatry, as it is stated (Leviticus 20:3), “because he gave of his offspring to Molech and so defiled My sanctuary and profaned My holy name.” And it is stated in the warning about idolatry (Exodus 20:5), “You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord, your God, am a jealous God.” [This] means to say, that He will not forgive the iniquity of idolatry in the way of forgiveness for other sins - like the matter that is written (Jeremiah 5:7), “Why should I forgive you; your children have forsaken Me and sworn by no-gods!” And likewise is it written in the warning for a false oath (Exodus 20:7), “for the Lord will not clear one who swears falsely by His name.” And the warning for a false oath is written (immediately) after the warning of idolatry, most certainly because the iniquity of profaning God, may He be blessed, is found under the wings of a false oath. And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said regarding the matter of the verse (Proverbs 30:8-9), “Give me neither poverty nor riches, etc. Lest, being sated, I renounce, saying, ‘Who is the Lord,’ or, being impoverished (it is written fully with an aleph, but its meaning is, poor), I take to theft, and profane the name of my God,” that the latter is harsher than the former - as it is stated (Ezekiel 20:39), “As for you, O House of Israel, etc., go, every one of you, and worship his idols and continue, if you will not obey Me; but do not profane My holy name any more.” It is meaning to say that the iniquity of the one who swears falsely in a court is more weighty than the punishment of one who worships idolatry in private, due to the profaning of the name [involved in the former]. And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Shevuot 39a), “For all of the other transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted only from the transgressor and his family; whereas here, punishment is exacted from him and from the entire world,” And if the court obligates a man to make an oath but he knows that his mouth speaks falsely (it would be a false oath), it is forbidden to [even] take the oath upon himself, saying, “I will swear” - in order to frighten his fellow - even though he does not plan to swear. For it is stated, (Exodus 20:7), “You shall not bear” - and included in its meaning is not to accept (agree) to swear falsely. And likewise did they, may their memory be blessed, say in our Mekhilta (Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael, Yitro). And the Targum (translation of Onkelos) of, “Do not bear a vain report“ (Exodus 23:1), is “do not accept.” And it is forbidden to make a needless oath, even if he is swearing about the truth, as it is stated (Exodus 20:7), “Do not bear the name of God in vain” - and its Targum is, “for nothing.” And likewise is the iniquity of one who causes his fellow to swear for nothing, great - for example when his fellow owed him a hundred and he doubled it in his claim, in order that the law would come out that one who admits partially is obligated to make a Torah-based oath; or when he claims against his fellow for nothing and asks him for what he knows nothing about and makes him take a [rabbinic] oath of inducement. And our Rabbis said (Shevuot 39a) that this man is called a thief, as he is stealing his mind (deceiving him); and about him is it stated (Zechariah 5:4), “[But] I have sent it forth - declares the Lord of Hosts - and [the curse] shall enter the house of the thief and the house of the one who swears falsely by My name, and it shall lodge inside their houses and shall consume them to the last timber and stone.” And one who knows that if he takes an oath, people will suspect him about [the truth of] the oath, should restrain himself from [taking] the oath for the honor of the Heavens - even though the truth is with him.

The statement of our sages זכור ושמור בדבור אחד, that "remember" and "observe" -the Sabbath- was said simultaneously (i.e. the difference in the version of the Ten Commandments recorded in Exodus 20,7, and the version recorded in the Deuteronomy 5,11), is linked to the Exodus from Egypt (as distinct from the Sabbath of creation). In Deuteronomy the reason for the legislation is יציאת מצרים, the Exodus, whereas in Parshat Yitro it is מעשה בראשית. Clearly then the Exodus is equivalent to the act of creating the universe, in other words a חידוש העולם. I have explained this at greater length in my commentary on מסכת שבת and on other occasions. Originally, G–d had considered to create a universe that was to be run along the lines of strict justice, מדת הדין. This is hinted at in the story of creation. Rabbeynu Bachyah in his commentary sees a hint of this in the first-forty two letters of the Torah, concluding with the letter ה in the word ובהו. The idea is spelled out more clearly in the Pardes Rimonim of Rabbi Moses Cordovero, in the chapter dealing with names and צירופים.

לא תשא. Even a king of flesh and blood insists on not lending his good name to something criminal or dishonourable. How much more so is the Creator of the entire universe entitled to have His Holy Name respected! We must remember that the existence of the Lord our G–d, i.e. His eternal existence, is not comparable to any other existence in this universe. This awareness must be reflected whenever we utter His Name, something that must be accompanied by feelings of awe and reverence. One does not use His Holy Name in light-hearted conversation. It is not appropriate to bring G–d's Name into conversations which deal with transient matters. Needless to say that it is even less appropriate to associate His name with lies and cheating.

From all of our elaborating until now on the greatness of the punishment for lashon hara in this world and the next, it should be understood how much we must distance ourselves from the sin of machloketh. For aside from the sin itself, which is a grave one, as we shall explain, it is a potent cause of other grave sins, namely: vain hatred, lashon hara, rechiluth, anger, verbal wronging, "whitening of the face" [in shame], revenge, bearing a grudge, vain curses, undermining a person's livelihood, and, sometimes, even desecration of the Name, G-d forbid, an extremely grave transgression. And it is also common to come through this to the sin of flattery, whereby one gains adherents for his quarrel, as we find with Korach, as Chazal have said (Sanhedrin 52a) on the verse (Psalms 35:16): "Because of the flattery of the quaffing of a draught, he has ground his teeth against me" — Because of the flattery they accorded Korach for the drinks that he plied them with, the plenipotentiary of Gehinnom ground his teeth against them." And machloketh also leads to levity, to mock the opposing party and thereby draw adherents to one's counsel. And all this was the conduct of the first man of machloketh — Korach, as we find in Midrash Rabbah, Korach. And it is known that the punishment for levity begins with suffering and ends with destruction, as Chazal have said. And more than this. It is found that when the yetzer entices one to strengthen the machloketh and to draw men to his counsel, and he fears lest they turn away from him and leave him by himself, the yetzer entices him to create a strong bond [of unity] by means of an oath. All this we find in the Midrash and in the Gemara in respect to Korach, Dathan, and Aviram. And see, my brother, how much blindness there is in this. For the oath is close to being a vain one, their having sworn to transgress a mitzvah [See Yoreh Deah 236:2, and the Shach there, section 4]. And even if he fulfills his oath, it still does not leave the category of "a vain oath" [See 238:5]. And the severity of the punishments for a vain oath is well known, the Holy One Blessed be He not absolving one for this, as it is written (Shemoth 20:7): "The L-rd will not absolve one who takes His name in vain" [See Shevuoth 39a]. I have written all of this only to show to all the great "blindness of the eyes" that inheres in this. And even if in the beginning he does not intend such evil, still, in the end, he will not be absolved of the aforementioned transgressions, as should be clear to anyone with a knowledge of the world.

On Proverbs 6,32, נואף אשה חסר לב, "anyone who commits adultery with a woman lacks undertanding," the Midrash comments that anyone who accepts the mantle of authority thinking he would benefit therefrom is no better than an adulterer who enjoys the body of a woman. Rabbi Menachem son of Yaakov makes the same point based on Proverbs 25,8, אל תצא לריב מהר, "do not be in a hurry to get involved in a quarrel!" He points out that the word Riv, quarrel, is spelled without the letter Yud and can be read as Rav i.e. Rabbi, or leader. The verse in Proverbs there continues "for what will you do in the end, when your neighbour has shamed you? What will you answer them when they ask you questions on the morrow?" Rabbi Zeyrah tries to prove the point from the third command-ment not to swear a false oath (Exodus 20,7). He reasons that if that verse were to prohibit perjury, the Torah had already written "do not swear falsely in My name!" (Leviticus 19,12). The meaning of the verse in Exodus then must be that a person should not seek to assume office involving authority over people, unless he is fit for such a position. [The commentary is obviously based on the expression תשא, meaning "to elevate," in this case to elevate oneself, לשוא, inappropriately, vaingloriously. Ed.] Rabbi Abahu said, quoting G–d, "I have been called קדוש, holy, and you the Jewish people, have been called "holy." Unless you possess all My attributes, do not seek out positions of authority." Why did we need four different statements purporting to prove the same point? In which respect is one different from the other?

לא תשא את שם ידו"ד אלהיך. The Rekanati describes anyone who swears a vain or false oath as קוצץ בנטיעות cutting planted trees, i.e. damaging G–d's universe. This is the reason the Torah used the expression לא תשא instead of לא תשבע. By using the expression תשא the idea is conveyed that the groom should not be separated from the bride, [the word is used as נישואים marriage. Ed.] When the Torah continues כי לא ינקה השם, "that G–d will not clear one who does so," this is a reference to another verse in which a person has been cleared, ונקתה, and the resulting union with her husband is fruitful (Numbers 5,28). He who separates will not be cleared, however. Thus far the Rekananti. I have already explained elsewhere how the word שבועה, oath, is derived from שבעה, seven, and is connected with the בנין the "structure" of the universe, something G–d created in seven days. You may read up about this in my treatise שבועות, פרק תורה אור, חלק תורה תמימה.