Shav and Sheker in a Single Utterance

Something brief for today, because of various external pressures. In today’s daf, Shevuot 20b:

מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁוְא וְשֶׁקֶר אֶחָד הֵן. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּשָׁוְא לְשֶׁעָבַר – אַף שֶׁקֶר נָמֵי לְשֶׁעָבַר? אַלְמָא ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ שֶׁקֶר הוּא!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The prohibitions against taking an oath in vain and taking a false oath are one. The Gemara suggests: What, is the baraita not teaching that if an oath taken in vain refers to the past, a false oath also refers to the past? Apparently, the statements: I ate, and: I did not eat, are both false oaths, contrary to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that a false oath is one that relates to the future.

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא. וּמַאי ״דָּבָר אֶחָד הֵן״? דִּבְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״זָכוֹר״ וְ״שָׁמוֹר״ בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ – מַה שֶּׁאֵין יָכוֹל הַפֶּה לְדַבֵּר, וּמָה שֶׁאֵין הָאוֹזֶן יָכוֹל לִשְׁמוֹעַ.

The Gemara answers: Are the cases comparable? This case, of a false oath, is as it is and that case, of an oath taken in vain, is as it is. What, then, is the meaning of the assertion of the baraita that they are one? It is that both were spoken in a single utterance at the giving of the Torah, like that which is taught in a baraita: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), and: “Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Deuteronomy 5:12), were spoken in one utterance, in a manner that the human mouth cannot say and that the human ear cannot hear.

And the gemara does not make it explicit what it means that shav and sheker were uttered in a single utterance.

Neither the gemara nor the maggid shiur I listened to on this brought it up, but what is meant by dibbur echas?

The gemara seems to take it as some practical matched legal aspect. Thus,

בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ, כִּדְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה – דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בְּקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״זָכוֹר״ וְ״שָׁמוֹר״ – כׇּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁמִירָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּזְכִירָה, וְהָנֵי נְשֵׁי הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁמִירָה אִיתַנְהוּ נָמֵי בִּזְכִירָה. אֶלָּא הָכָא לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ?

The Gemara asks: Granted, there, “remember” and “observe” were spoken in a single utterance in order to teach the halakha that Rav Adda bar Ahava says; as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: Women are obligated to recite kiddush sanctifying the seventh day, by Torah law, even though it is a positive, time-bound mitzva, since the verses state: “Remember,” and: “Observe,” indicating that anyone who is obligated to observe, i.e., is prohibited from performing labor on Shabbat, is obligated to remember, by reciting kiddush. And these women, since they are obligated to observe, they also are obligated to remember. But here, with regard to the prohibitions against taking a false oath and taking an oath in vain, for what halakha is it necessary for them to have been spoken in a single utterance?

By asking לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא, is this really asking what the practical ramifications — but of course it happened, or is it assuming that bedibur echad means that there is some practical ramification.

Of course, this is a difference in the dibrot. In an old parshablog post presenting Ibn Ezra’s analysis of the differences, this is one of them:

Ritva does note that they were different, but about lo ta’aneh / testifying. Still, if it doesn’t pertain to that, it pertains elsewhere about oaths, despite that not being a difference in that place in the dibrot.

ומאי דבר אחד הן דבדבור א' נאמרו כדתניא זכור ושמור בדבור א' נאמרו תימא דהא בין בדברות הראשונות בין בדברות אחרונו' לשוא בלחוד כתיב אלא דבדברות ראשונות לא תענה ברעך עד שקר ובאחרונות כתיב לא תענה ברעך עד שוא והא דמייתינן לה הכא לענין שבועה ואמרינן לקמן לומר כשם שלוקה ע"ז כך לוקה ע"ז י"ל דה"ק שאם אינו ענין ללא תענה תנהו ענין ללא תשא שהרי א' הן למלקות כדמפרש ואזיל.

Here is the broader bedibbur eched statement, from the parallel Yerushalmi.

שָׁוְא וְשֶׁקֶר שְׁנֵיהֶם נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. מַה שֶׁאֵי אֶיפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. זָכוֹר וְשָׁמוֹר שְׁנֵיהֶם בְדִבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ. מַה שֶׂאֵי אֶפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת וּשְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה תְמִימִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. מַה שֶׁאֵי אֶיפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ שְׁנֵיהֶן נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. וְלֹא תִסּוֹב נַחֲלָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר וְכָל־בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה שְׁנֵיהֶן בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. גְּדִילִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לְךָ לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז שְׁנֵיהֶן בְדִבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר אַחַת דִּיבֵּר אֱלֹהִים שְׁתַּיִם זוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ. וּכְתִיב הֲלֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאוּם יי֨ וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפוֹצֵץ סָלַע.

“Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Remember” and “keep” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover”, “her brother-in-law shall come to her”, both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together. “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear sha‘ṭnez”, both were said together. And so it says, “God spoke once, two I heard from this.” And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”