잠언 6:29의 인용 해설

LO THISA’ (THOU SHALT NOT TAKE) THE NAME OF THE ETERNAL THY G-D IN VAIN. This verse has already been explained in the words of our Rabbis.³⁷⁷Shebuoth 21a. Maimonides’ “The Commandments,” Vol. II, commandment 62, pp. 60-61. He prohibits [here] swearing by the Glorious Name in vain, such as swearing that which is contrary to facts known to man, or swearing to [the truth of] a self-evident fact. For example: if one swears that a pillar of marble is of gold, or that it is of marble, and the pillar is right before them and they recognize it as such [that it is of marble].
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse also prohibits the taking of the Glorious Name in vain upon one’s lips [even without an oath], the usage of the term [lo thisa] being similar to these expressions: ‘Lo thisa’ (Thou shalt not utter) a false report;³⁷⁸Further, 23:1. Nor ‘esa’ (do I take) their names upon my lips.³⁷⁹Psalms 16:4. Speaking is called thisa, [which literally means “lifting”], because the speaker thereby lifts up his voice. Similarly: ‘masa’ (The burden) of the word of the Eternal;³⁸⁰Zechariah 9:1. also, In that day ‘yisa’ (shall he swear), saying: I will not be a healer,³⁸¹Isaiah 3:7. which means that he will lift up his voice to say so. And in truth, this — [i.e., just taking G-d’s Name in vain even without an oath] — is also forbidden, and in the language of the Sages,³⁸²Temurah 3b. it is called “pronouncing the Name of Heaven to no purpose.” Thus our Rabbis have already said:³⁸³Sifra, Vayikra 2. “Whence do we know that [in dedicating a beast for a sacrifice] a man should not say, ‘Unto the Eternal this is a whole-offering,’ or ‘Unto the Eternal this is a sin-offering,’ but instead he should say, ‘This is a whole-offering unto the Eternal,’ ‘This is a sin-offering unto the Eternal’?³⁸⁴The reason for the prohibition is that if he mentions the Name of G-d first and he immediately changes his mind about bringing the beast as an offering, he will have taken the Name of Heaven for no purpose (Nedarim 10 b, Rashi). Scripture therefore says, an offering unto the Eternal.³⁸⁵Leviticus 1:2. Here the word “offering” is mentioned first and then the Name of G-d follows. And must we not reason by using the method of kal vachomer?³⁸⁶See Seder Bo, Note 208. If the Torah said of him who is about to dedicate [something to Heaven], ‘Let My Name not rest on it until [he has first said] korban (sacrifice)’, is it not logical [that we must not pronounce the Name of Heaven to no purpose]!”
He has placed this commandment after the prohibition of idolatry, because just as it is proper to fear the Great and Fearful Name by not giving His Glory to another,³⁸⁷See Isaiah 42:8. so it is fitting to give glory to His Name. He who takes it in vain profanes it, similar to that which is written, And ye shall not swear by My Name falsely, so that thou profane not the Name of thy G-d.³⁸⁸Leviticus 19:12. Just as He was stringent in the case of idolatry and wrote the punishment [for transgression], i.e., that He is a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,³⁸⁹Verse 5. so did He record here the punishment that He will not hold him guiltless. He used this expression instead of saying that He will visit his sin upon him, [as He did in the case of idolatry], because people who swear [in vain] do not consider it a real sin, and they think it is proper that He forgive them. Therefore He said that whosoever toucheth that shall not go unpunished.³⁹⁰Proverbs 6:29. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has written appropriately on this verse.³⁹¹The purport of Ibn Ezra’s explanation is as follows: When one swears by the Name of G-d, his intent is to imply that just as G-d is true, so is his word true. When he fails to fulfill it, it is thus tantamount to denying Him. The same reasoning applies to an oath taken in vain.
Now the language of this verse, the Name of the Eternal thy G-d, implies that it is as if Moses was speaking, and so also in the case of all the following commandments, whereas in the first two verses³⁹²“First two verses.” When the Ten Commandments are read in public, all the five verses contained in the first and second commandments are read as if they were one verse. Ramban’s language must then be understood as: “the first two commandments.” G-d is speaking: I; Who brought thee out; before Me; For I; Of them that love Me and keep My commandments. It is for this reason that our Rabbis of blessed memory have said:³⁹³Makkoth 24a. “We heard the two commandments — I am the Eternal thy G-d and Thou shalt have no other gods — from the Almighty Himself,” for they are the root of everything. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra asked [concerning this tradition of the Rabbis] that Scripture says, And G-d spoke all these words,³⁹⁴Above, Verse 1. and still more clearly it is written [following the Ten Commandments], These words the Eternal spoke unto all your assembly,³⁹⁵Deuteronomy 5:19. and again it is written there, And He wrote them down upon two Tablets of stone,³⁹⁶Ibid., 4:13. meaning that as He said the Ten Commandments to all your assembly, so He wrote them down upon the Tablets!³⁹⁷According to Ibn Ezra, all these verses apparently stand in contradiction to that which the Rabbis have said, i.e., that we heard only the first two commandments from the Almighty Himself. Ramban proceeds to remove the difficulty.
I will explain to you the tradition of our Rabbis [that we heard the first two commandments from the Almighty Himself]. Surely all Israel heard the entire Ten Commandments from the mouth of G-d, as the literal meaning of Scripture indicates. But in the first two commandments, they heard the utterance of speech and understood their words even as Moses understood them. Therefore He spoke to them directly [in the first person], just as a master speaks to his servant, as I have mentioned. From then on, in the rest of the commandments, they heard a voice of speech but they did not understand it, and it became necessary for Moses to explain to them each and every commandment until they understood it from Moses. And so [the Rabbis] explained:³⁹⁸Guide of the Perplexed, II, 33: “Moses spoke, and G-d answered by a voice. In explanation thereof, the Sages said in the Mechilta that Moses brought to them every commandment as he heard it.” I have not been able to identify the exact quotation in the Mechilta. Moses spoke, and G-d answered him by a voice.³⁹⁹Above, 19:19. Therefore [the rest of the Ten Commandments] were addressed by G-d to Moses so that he should tell them thus. The reason [that the first two commandments were spoken to the people directly by G-d] was so that they should all be prophets in the belief of G-d, [His existence, and His Unity], and in the prohibition of idolatry, as I have explained.⁴⁰⁰Ibid., 19:9. Those are the root of the whole Torah and the commandments, just as He said, Assemble Me the people, and I will make them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days.⁴⁰¹Deuteronomy 4:10. But in the rest of the Ten Commandments, they received their explanation from the mouth of Moses after having heard a voice of words,⁴⁰²Ibid., Verse 12. while in all other commandments [of the whole Torah], they believed in Moses completely.

We have observed an example of the punishment which accrued to the Jewish people who had sworn an oath in public in the matter of פלגש בגבעה, (Judges 20,9) not to go home until they had punished the men of Givah for their vicious rape. This oath was a public declaration in the presence of Pinchas the High Priest (20,28). We find there that the people of Yavesh Gilead who had not participated in the punitive expedition against the people of Benjamin were killed, men, women and children because they had dishonoured their publicly given oath (Judges 21,10).This was a harsher punishment than is applied to people who desecrate the Sabbath. Another instance where the severity of not complying with a public oath is demonstrated was the edict of King Saul that no one was to taste any food until after the battle against the Philistines (Samuel I 14,24). Yonatan, King Saul’s eldest son, who had been unaware of his father’s decree and the public oath accepting it, had tasted a little honey in all innocence. In spite of Yonatan’s not having heard the prohibition the King was going to execute him had not the people intervened. (verses 44-45). At any rate, we learn from there that when someone deliberately violates his oath, (or an oath that he had agreed to though not initiated, he is subject to the death penalty.
I can show you that the Torah has compared the severity of violating an oath to the sin of adultery The Torah writes here in connection with swearing a false or unnecessary oath that G’d will never totally forgive a person guilty of this. You will also find the expression לא ינקה in Proverbs 6,29 where Solomon applies it to someone who indulges in sexual intercourse with someone else’s wife. We find that G’d punished the entire nation by a famine because King Saul had failed to honor an oath sworn to the Gibeonites by the leaders of the Jewish people under the rule of Joshua. G’d told David in Samuel II 21,1 that the famine was the punishment for Saul having killed some Gibeonites in contravention of an holy oath sworn to them at the time of Joshua. Only after this gross injustice had been wiped out by David handing over seven descendants of Saul did G’d again turn to His people with goodwill. (Samuel II 21,14).
Another tragedy involving non-compliance with an oath was the killing of Shimi ben Geyrah who had been sworn by Solomon on pain of death not to leave Jerusalem where he had been under house arrest since the death of David. Kings I 2,42 makes it clear that Solomon executed him for violating this oath. It is noteworthy that in all the Ten Commandments we find a specific reward promised for compliance only in connection with the commandment to honour father and mother, whereas a specific punishment is reserved for violation of the commandment not to worship idols and not to swear an unnecessary oath.
Many people think that the sin of murder and adultery are far worse than the sin of swearing a needless oath and they wonder why the Torah has reserved its condemnation for the sin of swearing an unnecessary oath rather than for committing murder or adultery. The answer is simple. Murder and adultery are the kinds of sins which cannot be committed all the time. One needs a special opportunity in order not to be caught; in the case of adultery one also needs a willing partner. Not only that; having murdered one person whom one hates is unlikely to lead to the same person again murdering other people against whom he harbors no ill will. Similarly, it is unlikely that someone wants to commit adultery again and again with different women as his libido may not have been aroused by them. Committing the sin of swearing unnecessary oaths, however, does not satisfy one’s evil urge and is not subject to special opportunities but is likely to become a way of life with a person who has indulged in that sin without being caught. The very fact that he who commits this sin generally does not even get a feeling of special satisfaction from doing it makes it such a dangerous sin, one which is liable to become a norm rather than the exception. This is why the Torah reserved the warning that G’d will never completely forgive someone who knowingly commits this sin. If Israel were guilty of no other sin than indulging in such oaths this would be enough to add years to our collective exile. Thus far the words of Ibn Ezra on this subject.

AND THOU SHALT NOT LIE CARNALLY³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. WITH THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “For there is a threefold purpose to sexual intercourse: one is to beget children, a second is to relieve the body of its fluids, and the third is for passion, which is likened to that of the animals. Now when Scripture said l’zara,³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. it means ‘even l’zara’ [i.e., even for the purpose of begetting children], and thus it prohibited [having intercourse with another man’s wife] altogether.” It is possible that He said l’zara in order to mention the reason for the prohibition, since it will not be known to whom “the child” belongs, and as a result, great and wicked abominations³⁰⁹See Ezekiel 8:6 and 9. might be done by both.³¹⁰I.e., both the child and the father. For not knowing their true relationship, they might marry one of the forbidden relations, etc. Now Scripture did not mention [this expression l’zara further on when it speaks] of the punishment [for this sin],³¹¹Further, 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife … both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. because even for intimacy of the first stage without emitting seed, he is already liable to punishment. It is for this reason that [in the case of a suspected adulteress] Scripture states, and a man lie with her carnally,³¹²Numbers 5:13. The Hebrew shichvath zera literally means “a lying of seed.” for it is on account of the zera³¹³Literally: “seed.” In the light of what Ramban has written above, it may also mean that his jealousy is aroused on account of his children, whose legitimacy will henceforth be questioned. that he suspects her. Similarly in the case of a betrothed bondswoman it also says, lieth carnally³¹⁴Further, 19:20. Here too the term used is shichvath zera, which literally means “a lying of seed.” with her, because the prohibition is on account of the child that he will beget from a bondwoman [who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant].³¹⁵Kerithoth 11 a.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that since another man’s wife is completely forbidden to one, whosoever toucheth her shall not go unpunished,³¹⁶Proverbs 6:29. therefore Scripture had to say here l’zara.³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. For had it said only: “and thou shalt not lie with thy neighbor’s wife,” it would have appeared that it forbids [by punishment of excision] even lying with her just for embracing and kissing, since here [in this section] it speaks only of those forbidden relations that are punishable with excision. Therefore it was necessary to mention that the intimacy was l’zara,³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. in order to explain that He is prohibiting here sexual intercourse. This is also the reason for the expression in the case of the betrothed bondswoman,³¹⁴Further, 19:20. Here too the term used is shichvath zera, which literally means “a lying of seed.” because she is like another man’s wife. Similarly it states in the case of another man’s wife, And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife,³¹⁷Further, 20:10. and it does not state “lieth,” for it is not mere lying with her that He prohibits [under punishment of death]. He does not state here [in the verse before us forbidding intercourse with another man’s wife], “to uncover her nakedness,” for He only mentions this expression with reference to the next of kin and a menstruant,³¹⁸Verse 19. since the prohibition there is because of the uncovering, just as He said, for he hath made naked his near kin.³¹⁹Further, 20:19.

May those who fear You...return to me For the Sanhedrin separated from him when he became a mezora because of that iniquity [with Bath-sheba]. Even if she was divorced, whoever puts his eyes on her, anyone who touches her, will not be guiltless.