Temurah 3B

אין מנקין אותו, אבל בית דין של מטה מלקין אותו ומנקין אותו.

does not hold him guiltless, as repentance alone will not atone for the sin, but the lower, i.e., earthly, court flogs him, thereby allowing him to atone, and absolves him of guilt.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי: ואימא לא תיהוי ליה נקיות כלל! אמר ליה: אם כן, לכתוב קרא ״לא ינקה״ ולישתוק, ״ה׳״ למה לי? בית דין של מעלה הוא דאין מנקין אותו, אבל בית דין של מטה מלקין ומנקין אותו.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But why not say that the verse means he cannot be absolved of guilt at all? Abaye said to him: If so, let the verse write only: “Will not hold him guiltless,” and be silent. Why do I need the verse to specify: “For YHWH will not hold him guiltless”? This serves to teach that it is the higher court that will not hold him guiltless, but the lower court flogs him and absolves him of guilt.

אשכחן שבועת שוא, שבועת שקר מנלן? רבי יוחנן דידיה אמר: ״לשוא״ ״לשוא״ שני פעמים, אם אינו ענין לשבועת שוא ⁠— תניהו ענין לשבועת שקר, דלוקה.

§ The Talmud continues: We found a source for the halakha that one who takes an oath in vain using the name of God is flogged. From where do we derive that the same holds for a false oath? The Talmud answers: R' Yoḥanan himself says the derivation: The verse states with regard to an oath taken in vain: “You should not take the name of YHWH your God in vain; for YHWH will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). It says: “In vain…in vain,” twice in this verse. If the second instance of the term is not necessary for the matter of an oath taken in vain, which is derived from the first instance, apply it to the matter of a false oath, to teach that one who takes such an oath is flogged.