תּלמוד אויף תהילים 119:107

MISHNAH: If he swore not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, he is not liable^42,Babli 22b, 23b. In Nazir1:2 (Note 55) R. Ze`ira proclaims as undisputed what here and in the Babli is R. Joḥanan’s opinion. Since all future Jewish souls were present at Mount Sinai, he already has sworn to keep the precepts of the Torah. Therefore an oath to break Torah prohibitions is void. R. Joḥanan holds that if an oath is valid since it contains matters not involving Torah prohibitions it is valid in general since an oath is either valid or invalid. R. Simeon ben Laqish (and in the Mishnah, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai) hold that oaths can be partially invalid; the parts infringing on Torah precepts are always void (Babli 33b).<sup>92</sup>Since the oath is void, he is prevented from sacrificing if it was unintentional. If it was intentional he can be prosecuted for a vain oath, forbidden in the Ten Commandments.; to observe a commandment and did not observe it, he is not liable<sup>93</sup>The oath to keep the commandments is valid (Ps.119:107); why does breaking this valid oath not imply liability for a sacrifice or criminal prosecution?, though it would have been logical that he should be liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, since he is liable for a permitted purpose, for which he is not sworn to from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he should be liable about a commandment to which he is sworn from Mount Sinai<sup>42</sup>Babli 22b, 23b. In Nazir1:2 (Note 55) R. Ze`ira proclaims as undisputed what here and in the Babli is R. Joḥanan’s opinion. Since all future Jewish souls were present at Mount Sinai, he already has sworn to keep the precepts of the Torah. Therefore an oath to break Torah prohibitions is void. R. Joḥanan holds that if an oath is valid since it contains matters not involving Torah prohibitions it is valid in general since an oath is either valid or invalid. R. Simeon ben Laqish (and in the Mishnah, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai) hold that oaths can be partially invalid; the parts infringing on Torah precepts are always void (Babli 33b).? They said to him, no. What you say about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes”, can you say that about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”? Since one who swears not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, is not liable⁹⁴In matters not involving biblical precepts, an oath is valid whether formulated in the positive or negative. But for biblical precepts King David already did decide that one may swear to keep them (Ps.119:106); only oaths to break commandments are intrinsically void..