The third of the Ten Commandments is the prohibition, “Lo Tisa Et Shem Hashem Elokecha La’shav” – “You may not bear the Name of G-d in vain” (Shemot 20:7). The Gemara understands this command as forbidding several different kinds of false or meaningless oaths uttered in G-d’s Name. One is swearing about something which is obviously untrue, such as swearing that a rock is a piece of gold. The second example is an oath about something which is obviously true, such as swearing that a rock is a rock. Thirdly, it is prohibited to swear that one will not fulfil a Misva, such as swearing that one will not wear Tefillin. Since we are all bound by the commitment declared by our ancestors at the time the Torah was given, such an oath is meaningless, and thus forbidden. The fourth kind of forbidden oath is a vow to do something which is impossible, such as if one swears he will not sleep for three days, or that he will not eat for seven days. Likewise, this prohibition requires that if somebody swears in G-d’s Name to do something, or to refrain from doing something, then he must fulfill his vow, as otherwise it will have been uttered falsely. The Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that these oaths are forbidden because they constitute a grave disparagement of G-d’s Name. We may invoke G-d’s Name only for meaningful and important purposes, and one who invokes His Name for a meaningless or false oath disrespects it. Moreover, when one invokes G-d’s Name when swearing to do something, he does so in order to lend greater credence to his words. The person in effect says that just as G-d is permanent and everlasting, and He exists forever, his word is likewise permanently binding. By extension, if one violates his oath, then he shows that just as his word is not permanent, G-d is likewise not permanent, Heaven forbid. It thus turns out that if one swears by G-d’s Name and then violates the oath, he has spoken heresy, by indicating that G-d is impermanent like his word. In discussing this command, the Sefer Ha’hinuch makes a grammatical observation, noting that the Hebrew verb for “swear” – “Nishba” – is always used in the Nif’al construction. The usual construction would yield “Shaba,” but the word instead is formulated “Nishba,” in the “Nif’al” form. This form is normally used for a passive verb, which describes something being done to a person, as opposed to an action which a person performs. The Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that the “Nif’al” form is used for this verb because we are influenced by the words we speak. When a person swears, he is affected by the oath, and is motivated and driven to fulfill his world, and therefore the passive “Nif’al” construction is used in reference to a person who takes an oath. The Gemara in Masechet Temura establishes that one who violates this command is liable to Malkut, despite the fact that he did not commit an action. According to one view, speech does not qualify as a Halachic “Ma’aseh” (“action”), in which case prohibitions violated through speech should fall under the category of “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” – prohibitions transgressed without committing an action, for which one is not liable to Malkut. Nevertheless, the Gemara teaches, the prohibition of “Lo Tisa” marks an exception to this rule, due to its unique gravity, and one who swears in G-d’s Name falsely or meaninglessly is, indeed, liable to Malkut even though he did not commit an action. Rav Yehonatan Eibshutz (1690-1764), in his work Urim Ve’tumim, addresses the question of whether one violates this prohibition if he makes a false oath in writing. Does this prohibition forbid swearing falsely only verbally, or does it include even written oaths? Rav Eibshutz proves from the Gemara that a written oath does not fall under this prohibition. The Gemara resorts to a textual inference from a verse to establish that one is liable to Malkut for violating this prohibition even though no action has been committed. Rav Eibshutz notes that if it is possible to tra