Why is this third Dibrah, "Lo Sisa," placed after "Lo Yihyeh"?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 39, p. 117): One who swears falsely does not sin against Hashem Himself, or downplay His existence (as do those who violate the first and second Dibros respectively), yet he does profane the Name and the honor of Hashem. 1
What are the connotations of "Lo Sisa ... la'Shav"?
Rashi, Ramban, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: 'It means 'Do not swear 1 falsely by the Name of Hashem. 2
Seforno: It means that one who swears falsely (refer to 20:7:2:3) is subject to a curse, for he implies 3 that Hashem too (Kevayachol) is false. We learn that he is cursed from Melachim I 8:31.
Berachos 33a: One who recites an unnecessary Berachah transgresses "Lo Sisa." 4
Shabbos 120a: We learn from here that "Sisa" is a Lashon of Shevu'ah.
Seforno: Because when someone swears by Hashem's Name, he is declaring that, just as Hashem is Emes, so is what he is saying Emes. This is a blatant act of blasphemy and Chilul Hashem - as the Pasuk writes specifically in Vayikra (19:12).
Oznayim la'Torah: Or someone who mentions the Name of Hashem in vain. See also Torah Temimah, note 39.
"Lo Sisa" includes not only a false oath (Sheker), but also an oath in vain (Shav) - for example, swearing that a stone is a stone. It is also the source that prohibits an unnecessary Berachah (Berachah she'Einah Tzerichah) - Berachos 33a. What is the rationale for including these in the same prohibition?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 39, p. 119): Just as one who swears falsely profanes the honor of Hashem, so too does one who attaches His Great Name to a matter that cannot be, or that is pointless. 1
Maharal (loc. cit.) then explains the sources in Chazal, that one who mentions the Name in vain, a. violates a Mitzvas Aseh, b. is liable to excommunication, c. will come to poverty. Also see Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Yir'as Hashem Ch. 3, p. 29) at length - Physical entities cannot remain extant alongside the Name of Hashem; thus one who mentions the Name in vain will himself become negated. Also see Gitin 57a - Har ha'Melech was destroyed because they would regularly swear, [albeit] in truth (see Yalkut Shimoni, Matos, 784). All existence is pushed aside from before His Name, when it is mentioned for no reason - and how much more so if used falsely!
Why does the Torah not write 'Lo Sishava'?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because the Torah is not concerned here with the defilement of one's speech, but with the defilement of Hashem's Name (which is implied in the words "Lo Sisa ... "). 1
Shabbos 120a: To teach us that "Sisa" is a Lashon Shevu'ah. 2
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, end Ch. 39, p. 120): The Mechilta derives that even before he takes the actual [false] oath, from the moment he accepts upon himself to do so, Hashem is set as a judge against him. 3 The expression "Lo Sisa" implies 'to bear, to accept upon oneself;' thus to accept that one will swear is the start of the actual oath. Furthermore, the oath itself is verbal and involves no action, and will happen swiftly - therefore Hashem sits as a judge immediately. 4
Oznayim la'Torah: Lit., "bearing the Name of Hashem" in an inappropriate manner. Refer also to 20:7:2.1:1.
See Torah Temimah, note 40.
The Mechilta derives the prohibition of a false oath itself, from the Pasuk in Parshas Kedoshim, "And do not swear by My Name in falsehood" (Vayikra 19:12).
Maharal: If, on the other hand, he does not accept to take the oath, Hashem treats him with mercy. We interpret the Pasuk as "Lo Sisa Es Shem, Hashem" (If you do not raise the Name in an oath, then the Name Hashem - indicating the Attribute of Mercy - will be activated for you).
"Lo Sisa Es Shem Hashem Elokecha la'Shav." What if someone swears by one of the Names of Hashem other than that of Havayah?
Rashi (to Vayikra 19:12): "V'Lo Sishave'u bi'Shemi la'Shaker" (loc. cit.) incorporates all Names of Hashem, not just that of Havayah. See Vayikra 19:12:1:1 .
Why does the Torah mention the word "la'Shav" twice?
Rashi (citing Targum Onkelos): They both refer to swearing by the Name of Hashem inappropriately; the first time in vain, 1 the second time, falsely 2 ('Im Eino Inyan' - Shevuos 21b).
Ramban: The first "la'Shav" is a prohibition against swearing in vain - to change or to uphold something that is known; 3 the second, to mentioning Hashem's Name in vain. 4
Seforno: The first refers to swearing falsely, the second, to swearing in vain, even if it is true.
Targum Yonasan: Both pertain to swearing in vain. 5
Shevuos 21a: 'Shevu'ah she'Achalti' or 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Achalti' (which turns out to be false) is a Shevu'as Sheker, which we learn from "v'Lo Sishave'u vi'Shemi la'Shaker" (in Parshas Kedoshim, Vayikra 19:12); whereas "Shevu'as Shav" is where one swears to describe a specific object that everybody knows to be something else. 6
Rashi: Such as swearing that a pillar of wood is made of wood, or that one of stone is made of stone.
That a stone pillar is made of gold.
Ramban: To swear that a marble pillar that is located in view of the person swearing is made of gold or of marble.
Ramban: As it falls under the heading 'Motzi Shem Shamayim l'Vatalah' (see Ramban). 'Lo Sisa' means 'Don't speak (take) upon your lips' (as in Shemos 21:1, and Tehilim 16:4).
See Na'ar Yonasan.
See answer #1. See also Torah Temimah, note 43, who elaborates.
By the prohibition regarding Shevu'as Sheker in Parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:11-12), the Torah mentions "Ish ba'Amiso" (a man against his fellow). Why does it not mention it here?
Oznayim la'Torah: The Pasuk in Kedoshim is referring to the Shevu'ah that one makes to a person in order to cheat or trick him, which incorporates a Chilul Hashem, since one swears by the Name of Hashem, whose seal is Emes. The Pasuk here on the other hand, 1 is referring to the Chilul Hashem that one performs by swearing falsely, even when the Shevu'ah does not affect a person - as implied in the word "la'Shav." 2
Like the other four Mitzvos contained on the first of the two Luchos.
Refer to 20:7:1:2* & 20:7:2:2** .
What are the connotations of "Ki Lo Yenakeh... "?
Seforno: Someone who swears in vain is displaying disrespect towards Hashem's Name - which should only be used to confirm something that cannot otherwise be confirmed. 'He will not be let off the hook' for his display of disrespect. 1
Hadar Zekenim: Someone who steals can return the theft and cleanse himself. One who swears falsely and desecrates Hashem's name 'has no way of cleansing himself.' 2
Shevuos 39a: When someone comes to swear in Beis-Din, they say to him, 3 'Know, that when Hashem declared "Lo Sisa... ", the entire world 4 shook! Regarding all other Aveiros, the Torah writes "v'Nakei;" 5 whereas here it writes "Lo Yenakeh!"' 6
Shevuos 39a: All Aseh's and Lo Sa'aseh's fall under the category of 'Aveiros Kalos' (light sins), exept for the current Lav, which is grouped together with Chayavei Kareis and Misos Beis-Din. 7
Seforno: And how much more so someone who swears falsely will be punished, on the Great Day of Judgment (in the World to Come - Targum Yonasan [See Na'ar Yonasan]).
Hadar Zekenim: This is why the Torah writes in Vayikra 19:11-12 "Do not steal and deny and lie... and do not swear falsely in My name" - The former leads to false oaths, which cannot be cleansed. And this explains why people refrain from a Safek Shevu'as Sheker, but not from Safek Gezel.
See Torah Temimah, note 42.
Provided the sinner did Teshuvah. Refer to Shemos 34:7:3.
The Gemara (Yoma 86a) points out that "Lo Yenakeh" is confined to Shevu'as Shav; it does not apply to the standard Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh (i.e. those not subject to Kareis). See also answer #4 and refer to 20:7:3.1:2 .
See Torah Temimah, note 41.
What are the implications of "[Ki Lo Yenakeh] Hashem"?
Shevuos 21a: It implies that Hashem will not cleanse him from the Shevu'as Shav, 1 but Beis-Din can, by giving him Malkos 2 - even though it is a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.
Shevuos 18b: It teaches us that Shevu'os are more stringent than Nedarim - in connection with which the Torah does not write "Lo Yenakeh." 3
The Gemara (Shevuos 39a) highlights the severity of the prohibition, "Lo Sisa"; a. The world trembled when Hashem pronounced it; b. Regarding all other Mitzvos Hashem says "v'Nakei" (He wipes away the sin), but of "Lo Sisa" He says - "Lo Yenakeh!" c. Payback is exacted upon him, his family, and the entire world. d. For other sins, there might be a reprieve of two or three generations before punishment, whereas here the payback is immediate. e. It can destroy even that which fire and water cannot destroy. Why is a false oath so much more severe than other prohibitions?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 39, p. 118): The severity inherent in a false oath, is his falsehood upon Hashem's Name. He does not deny the Name, yet he profanes it - and Hashem's Name is indicative of His Self. 1 Hence, a. The world trembled, because a false oath sins against Hashem's honor, and the world itself is His honor. 2 b. Other sins can be "wiped away" if one changes and does Teshuvah, but a false oath sins against Hashem's Name - which is a Sichli entity, and Sechel does not change. 3 c. Hashem's Name is not called upon individuals (Prat), rather upon the whole (Klal) - just as Sechel itself is a whole. Therefore, the consequences of "Lo Sisa" affect the whole world (first from the sinner himself, then from his family, then from the world at large). d. His sin is at the level of the Sichli - which is not under time. 4 e. Fire and water act based on their physical attributes, and they are not always able to act. But Hashem's Name acts at once, and can consume everything (and this person has now profaned the Name).
Maharal adds - In a way, a false oath is more severe than one who [violates the first two Dibros and] denies Hashem's existence - because what can a mortal man actually do against Hashem Himself?! Whereas one who swears falsely indeed profanes Hashem's honor. Maharal adds in Chidushei Agados (Vol. 4, p. 15, to Shevuos Perek 6) - Even a denier of Hashem's existence accomplishes nothing against his Divinity; and even if one engages in idolatry, his acts are inherently meaningless. But to swear falsely in Hashem's Name is tantamount to dismissing His Name from the world.
Maharal (Chidushei Agados, ibid.): The entire world was created with Hashem's Name; as such, the world trembled when it heard that a false oath is possible, because it would be the negation of the world itself. That trembling came about due to the Name of Hashem that is extant in the world - similar to how the Kohanim, upon hearing the Name of Hashem from the mouth of the Kohen Gadol, fell and bowed . Also see Rav Hartman Edition (Tif'eres Yisrael, ibid.) note 24. See also Maharal ibid. p. 140, to Arachin 16a.
Teshuvah is feasible because Man is Chomer - capable of change and transformation. But when a sin originates in the Sechel aspect of Man - then Teshuvah is not as feasible. (For more on Maharal's terminology "Sechel," see Shemos 12:17:1.2:1*) Also see Maharal in Gevuros Hashem (end Ch. 31, p. 120), Nesivos Olam (beg. Nesiv ha'Teshuvah, p. 147), Derech Chayim (p. 185, to Avos 4:14).
See Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 169, to Avos 4:4) at length.
What does a Shevu'ah signify?
Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 1, p. 158, to Kesuvos 77b): A planned action may or may not end up being done. Yet when one takes an oath to do something, he connects that act to Hashem's Name - ratifying it and rendering it not merely possibility, but as obligatory. The Targum of the word "Shevu'ah" is "Keyama" - to uphold or ratify. 1
Maharal: When a Tzadik who is worthy of taking a Shevu'ah, does so [truthfully], he receives Kiyum (confirmed existence) from Hashem. He becomes connected and at one with Hashem, and merits eternal existence - he himself will be of necessity and not merely a possibility. (The Gemara there limits this to a person who never had to ask Beis Din to be Matir a Shevu'ah for him.)
Why are "Lo Sisa," "Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos," and "Kabed Es Avicha v'Es Imecha" incorporated on the first of the two Luchos?
Ramban: Just as it is not befitting to share Hashem's Kavod with others, 1 so too, is it indeed befitting to ascribe Kavod to the Name of Hashem. Someone who swears by the Name or mentions it in vain, desecrates it. 2
Rashbam: Because honoring Shabbos, and honoring one's parents, 3 and likewise not swearing falsely or in vain using Hashem's Name, are all connected to the Kavod of Hashem.
Ramban: As the Torah writes in Vayikra 19:12. And that explains why the Torah writes "Keil Kana" by the former, and "Lo Yenakeh" by the latter.
Rashbam: Whose honor is placed on a par with that of Hashem, as the Torah indicates in Mishlei 3:9.
Why does the Torah write "Ki Lo Yenakeh" and not just 'Ki Yifkod Alav'?
Ramban #1: Refer to 20:7:4:1 and note .
Ramban #2: To counter those who think that swearing in vain using Hashem's Name is not such a serious offense and is therefore subject to Divine Pardon.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "[The first instance of 'la'Shav' is as Targum translates, 'l'Magana'] - This refers to one who swears 'l'Chinam ul'Hevel' (for no reason and for naught)." Why does Rashi need two terms?
Gur Aryeh: "Chinam" can also mean 'free' - for no monetary gain - such that one might think that he may swear in such a manner when he indeed stands to gain money! Rashi therefore adds "Hevel" (clarifying that it means a pointless oath of no import).
