MESHECH CHOCHMAH
based on Rabbi Immanuel Bernstein
You shall not swear falsely by My Name, thereby desecrating the Name of your God (19:12)
The connection between the two concepts mentioned in our pasuk is quite clear, a false oath in made in Hashem’s Name is a desecration of that Name. It is interesting to note, however, that while the pasuk opens by referring to the false oath in the plural form (לא תשבעו ) it then proceeds to refer to the desecration of Hashem’s Name in the singular form (וחללת). The Meshech Chochmah provides three explanations for this shift.
First Approach: Past And Future Oaths
A false oath that a person makes regarding an event can take one of two forms:
- An oath regarding the past – for example, if he swears that he ate something while in fact he did not.
- An oath regarding the future – for example, if he swears that he will eat something and then does not do so. (Rambam Hilchos Shevuos 1:3)
Of these two possibilities, it is only the first oath which is false at the time that he swears, for in the second case, at the time he swears that he will eat it is entirely possible that it is his intention to do so. Indeed, Rashi (Shevuous 46b) states that, for this reason, only one who has taken the first type of false oath is thereby disqualified from acting as a witness in a beis din.
Therefore, the pasuk phrases the prohibition against taking a false oath in the plural, reflecting the fact that there are two types of false oath. However, with regards to the desecration of Hashem’s Name, the pasuk then shifts to the singular, since only one of those two types of oaths entails that desecration.
Second Approach: Oaths in Monetary Disputes – Are Two Better Than One?
The Gemara (Shevuos 45a) records the view of Ben Nanas that in the event that a monetary dispute needs to be settled by means of an oath, only one side should be chosen to take the oath; for if both sides swear, then we are certainly witness to someone taking a false oath.
It is possible to see an allusion to this opinion in our pasuk, which phrases the prohibition against taking a false oath in the plural, i.e. where two people are called upon to take opposing oaths. In this case, between them they will have taken a false oath, which will certainly lead to one of them desecrating Hashem’s Name.
Third Approach: Chillul HaShem Depends on the Person
While prohibitions apply equally to all people, the consequences of violating those prohibitions will depend on the person; for the more prestigious the personality, the greater will be the chillul Hashem resulting from his misdeeds (Yoma 86a).
Therefore, the prohibition against taking a false oath is stated in the plural – as the same prohibition is directed towards everyone; while the result of desecrating Hashem’s Name is phrased in the singular, indicating that this is something whose measure can vary depending on the person involved.
