Shevuot 47B

אי אמרת בשלמא אביו כי האי גוונא מיחייב, איצטריך קרא למיפטר גבי יורשין; אלא אי אמרת אביו כי האי גוונא נמי פטור, קרא גבי יורשין למה לי?

Rabba continues: Granted, if you say that his father, in a case like this, would be liable to take an oath, due to his partial admission, then the verse was necessary to exempt the heirs from taking the oath. But if you say that in a case like this, his father is also exempt from taking an oath, why do I need a verse about exempting the heirs? Evidently, an oath reverts to one who is liable to take it, and when he cannot take that oath he must pay the claim against him.

ורב ושמואל ⁠– האי ״שבעת ה׳״ מאי קא דרשי ביה?

The Talmud asks: And as for Rav and Shmuel, who hold that one who cannot take an oath does not have to pay, and therefore there is no difference between the heirs and the father, what do they derive from this verse: “The oath of YHWH should be between them both” (Exodus 22:10)?

מיבעי ליה לכדתניא, שמעון בן טרפון אומר: ״שבעת ה׳ תהיה בין שניהם״⁠ – מלמד שהשבועה חלה על שניהם.

The Talmud answers: It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon ben Tarfon says: The verse: “The oath of YHWH should be between them both,” teaches that when one litigant imposes an oath on the other, and he takes a false oath, the oath applies to them both, i.e., they are both held responsible for the desecration of God’s name.

שמעון בן טרפון אומר: אזהרה לעוקב אחר נואף, מנין? תלמוד לומר: ״לא תנאף״⁠ – לא תנאיף.

Since this Sage was mentioned, the Talmud cites some of his other statements. Shimon ben Tarfon says: With regard to the prohibition of following after an adulterer, i.e., providing him with assistance in carrying out adultery, from where is it derived? The verse states: “You should not commit adultery [lo tinaf ]” (Exodus 20:13). If the verse is vocalized slightly differently, it may be read: You should not cause adultery [lo tanif ].