Comentário sobre Êxodo 20:7

לשוא IN VAIN — for no valid reason, idly. What is a שבועת שוא, an oath taken for no valid reason? If one takes an oath declaring something, the nature of which is evident, to be different from what it is: e. g., swearing about a stone pillar that it is of gold (Shevuot 29a).

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.

לא תשא, invoking the name of G’d when swearing an oath. The word נשא is used in this sense in Kings I 8,31 ונשא בו אלה לאלותו, “when someone utters a curse against another in retaliation, using the curse to make his adversary swear an oath,”

לא תשא את שם ה׳ אלוקיך לשוא. "Do not utter the name of the Lord your G'd in vain." There is a tendency for people to believe that if they include the name of G'd in an unnecessary oath no harm is done as the very mention of G'd's name is proof that they revere the Lord's name and this adds to His glory. Besides, they argue that as long as the one to whom such an oath is sworn is unaware that the oath is false, how could G'd's name have been desecrated? All the second party knows is that the G'd mentioned in the oath is the G'd of the person swearing it. So what harm is done? G'd replies to such thoughts by saying: לא תשא "do not (even) elevate the name of the Lord your G'd, etc. Even if you have the intention of conferring honour upon My name, do not do it; G'd will not let anyone get away with such use of His name." The reason is that His name was used falsely or needlessly.

לא תשא, both this commandment, as well as the two following deal with the honour due to G’d. We know that the commandment to honour parents is also almost on the same par as honouring G’d, as in Proverbs 3,9 the verse to honour G’d is introduced with the same word כבד as is the Torah’s instructions to honour one’s parents.

לא תשא את שם ה' אלוקיך לשוא, “Do not mention the name of the Lord your G’d in vain;” according to our sages what is meant is to swear an unnecessary oath, confirming the truth of something universally known as true, by using the name of the Lord According to the plain meaning of the text what is also included is that the holy name of the Lord must not be mentioned in vain even if it is not part of an oath. The use of one’s mouth or lips for speaking is referred to on occasion as נשיאות קול, raising one’s voice. The reason why this commandment follows on the heels of the prohibition to engage in anything related to idolatry is to remind us that just as it is forbidden to accord any part of the reverence, respect, etc., due to the Lord, the Creator to any other phenomenon, so we must not bandy about His name for our own purposes, thereby demeaning it, and making use of Him instead of serving Him. Using G’d’s name in order to confirm one’s own words as true, is as if saying that just as He is truth incarnate, so our words are truth incarnate, a real desecration of His Holy Name. Because this is considered such a serious offense, the Torah warns that this sin is beyond G’d’s willingness ever to forgive completely. Punishment for committing this offense deliberately, just like that of idolatry, may drag out through four generations.

One who swears for naught and meaninglessly. . . Rashi is explaining that we should not think Onkelos’s translation of למגנא , “for nothing,” implies that the one who swears derives no benefit from it — but if he would derive benefit, it would be permitted. Therefore Rashi explains that it means להבל , i.e., an empty and meaningless oath. (Gur Aryeh) See Shavuos 29a, which lists four types of vain oaths.

V. 7. נשא שם השם erscheint geradezu als begriffliche Umschreibung von השָבֵעַ Wir haben dies bereits (Bereschit 21, 23) als die Unterstellung unserer ganzen sichtbaren Existenz unter die Macht des unsichtbaren Einen erkannt, für den Fall, dass ein ausgesprochenes Wort nicht mit der Wirklichkeit übereinstimme, oder nicht verwirklicht werde. Ganz dasselbe heißt נשא שם ד׳, den Namen Gottes auf sich nehmen, d.h. sich dem Namen Gottes unterstellen, sich der in das Irdische eingreifenden Gottesmacht, die sein Name ausdrückt, unterwerfen, sie auf sich herabrufen für den Fall, dass das gesprochene Wort nicht wahr sei oder nicht wahr gemacht werde. Es ist klar, wie im Schwur die beiden Seiten der Anerkennung Gottes: die Überwachung und Leitung unserer Tatäußerungen, wozu ja auch wesentlich das Wort gehört, und die Gestaltung unseres Geschickes vereinigt zum höchsten Ausdruck gelangen. Setzt doch der Schwur beides voraus und will mit der tatsächlichen Unterwerfung unserer ganzen Zukunft unter die Geschick gestaltende Macht Gottes die Wahrhaftigkeit unseres Wortes und die Redlichkeit unseres Handelns beweisen. Daher ist auch umgekehrt ein falscher Eid die höchste Verleugnung in der höhnendsten Weise.

לא תשא את שם, “do not utter the sacred name, etc.” Seeing that you have not ever seen a visual image of G-d, you can obviously not utter an oath by invoking someone else as a deity. Even so, you must not even swear an oath in His name unless there is an absolute necessity to do so, as G-d does not allow His sacred name to be used for profane reasons, or for secular purposes. This is one sin which will not be subject to being wiped out even by repentance, i.e. כי לא ינקה, “He will not consider such a person as being free from guilt.”

לשוא, committing perjury thereby; without doubt this oath will backfire on the one uttering it; כי לא ינקה ה' את אשר ישא את שמו לשוא, for having used His holy name to utterly no purpose. Even if the person swearing such an oath had spoken the truth he will not be free from this sin, how much more so if someone used G’d’s name to swear falsely. It is not compatible with G’d’s honour and dignity that man use His Holy name for his own ends. The only time such an oath is permissible, or in some instances even mandatory, is when it is impossible to arrive at the truth by any other means there being no witnesses to the matter under dispute. As far as swearing a false oath, i.e. perjuring oneself is concerned, the Torah has a separate commandment in Leviticus 19,12 spelling this out. ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, “and you must not swear an oath in My name when that oath is a lie.”

Another reason why using G'd's name to make a lie believable is out of the question is because by doing so the person swearing the oath loses his צלם אלוקים, the image of G'd he has been created with and is known by. Such a person will become known instead as שוא, vain, false, worthless. G'd's name is "truth." Anyone associating that name with a lie, makes the name of G'd "fly away," seeing the person doing so has chosen something vain. An apt translation of this verse would be: "do not remove from yourself the name of the Lord your G'd on account of the pursuit of something that is vain, worthless."

Hier ist nun zunächst nicht von dem falschen Eide, sondern von dem unnützen Eide, שבועת שוא, die Rede. שוא, verwandt mit שוה: gleich sein. In eigentümlicher Weise verbindet der jüdische Sprachgedanke die Begriffe des Ähnlich- und Gleichseins mit Begriffen der Nichtigkeit, des Nichtseins. So heißt נדמה ebensowohl: es ist ähnlich geworden, als es ist vernichtet worden. Und so heißt in noch höherm Grade שוה: gleich sein und שוא: nicht seiend, nichtig. Es scheint als wesentliches Merkmal eines wirklichen Seins die Besonderheit, die Eigentümlichkeit begriffen zu sein. Jedes Wirkliche muss ein Merkmal besitzen, das es von allem andern unterscheidet. Jedes Wirkliche ist individuell. Was absolut שוה, d. h. was allem gleich ist, was nicht etwas entgegen zu setzen hat, ist überhaupt nicht, ist: שוא. Ähnlich, aber nicht ganz so ist der Gebrauch des Begriffes: gleich in: gleichgültig zum Ausdruck desjenigen, dessen Sein oder Nichtsein keinen Unterschied macht. Hier ist das: gleich nur relativ oder subjektiv, während in שוא der Begriff absolut und objektiv erscheint. — לשוא heißt nun: zu nichts, somit: zwecklos, erfolglos und שבועה לשוא ist ein zweckloser, erfolgloser Eid, ein Eid, der an sich keine Wirkung hat und haben kann. Das Gesetz kennt vier Arten: 1) ,נשבע לשנות את הידוע לבטל את המצות (4 ,שאי אפשר לו (3 , לקיים את הידוע (2, ein Eid, der die bekannte Wirklichkeit verneint, daß z. B. Stein Gold sei; — der die bekannte Wirklichkeit bejaht, daß z. B. zwei zwei seien; — der sich zu physisch Unmöglichem verpflichtet, z. B.: in siebenmal vierundzwanzig Stunden nichts zu essen; — der sich zu moralisch Unmöglichem verpflichtet, z. B. das Gebot der Zizit nicht zu erfüllen, sich an jemandem zu rächen; — in allen diesen Fällen ist der Eid entweder unnütz, überflüssig, oder zweck- und erfolglos, die Eidessünde ist da auch bei den gelobenden Eiden in dem Moment des Schwörens begangen, der Schwörende ist sofort strafbar, der Eid aber hat keine Folge. Ein unnützer, überflüssiger, zweck- und erfolgloser Eid ist ein Spiel getrieben mit dem ernstesten aller ernsten Verhältnisse des Menschen, mit der Unterstellung seiner Worte und Taten unter die richtende, Geschick bestimmende Waltung Gottes.

לשוא, “in vain.” Do not make a habit of prefacing any parts of your speech by invoking the name of G-d (unless as a pseudonym), even if what you say is the truth. The very habit of uttering G-d’s name on too many occasions will lead you to do so when it is a blasphemy, or an outright lie. If that were to happen it would result in an unforgivable sin, i.e. כי לא ינקה.

There is also an allusion here that a Jew should not bandy about the name of G'd giving the impression to all and sundry that he is a true servant of the Lord whereas in reality in his heart he does not serve the Lord. This is why the Torah chose the expression לשוא, i.e. creating a false impression. It is a warning not to pretend to be G'd-fearing. G'd will not allow such people to go unpunished.

כי לא ינקה ד׳; wirklichen, tatsächlichen Einsetzung des ganzen irdischen Geschickes des Schwörenden für die Wahrheit oder Wahrmachung seines Wortes. כל העולם כולו נזדעזע, die ganze Welt ward erschüttert, lehren die Weisen, Schebuoth 39 a., als Gott am Sinai sein לא ינקה aussprach. Denn eben mit diesem לא ינקה ward die ganze Welt dem Worte des Schwörenden zur Vollstreckung des göttlichen Gerichtes an ihm dienstbar gemacht.