Yerushalmi Shevuot 4:10 ירושלמי שבועות ד׳:י׳

MISHNAH: “I put an oath upon you, I command you, I bind you,” these are liable¹⁰⁶These are valid versions of a summons to testify.. “By Heaven and Earth,” they are not liable¹⁰⁷“Heaven” is not a sobriquet of God’s Name.. “By א-ד, by י-ה, by the Almighty, by Sabaoth, by the Gracious and Merciful, by the Forbearing and Most Benevolent,” and all substitute names¹⁰⁸א-ד stands for Adonay, י-ה for YHWH. A substitute name is any translation of any Name of Attribute of God in any vernacular., they are liable. One who curses by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable¹⁰⁹The crime of blasphemy (Lev. 24:15) refers only to blaspheming the Name (Sanhedrin 7:14).. One who curses his father or mother by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable¹¹⁰The same holds for cursing father and mother (Ex. 21:17).. One who curses himself or another person by any of these violates a prohibition¹¹¹Lev. 19:14; Sifra Qedošim Parashah 2(13).. “May God punish you, so may God punish you,” this is the imprecation mentioned in the Torah. “May He not punish you, may He bless you, may He do well with you,” Rebbi Meїr declares liable¹¹²If the claimant says “may He not punish you if you come to testify”, or “may He bless you if you come to testify”, for R. Meїr this implies the opposite, i. e., “may he punish you if you do not come to testify” etc. but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable¹¹³For R. Jehudah, what has been said explicitly is the only thing that counts.
The Mishnah versions in the Babli and in the independent Mishnah mss. all read “but the Sages declare not liable.” It is clear from the Halakhah that this also was the reading in the Yerushalmi underlying the Halakhah since it was necessary to state that the Mishnah represents R. Jehudah’s opinion..

HALAKHAH: “I put an oath upon you,” etc. to the end. “I put an oath upon you” without addition¹¹⁴Obviously he has to add what he actually demands from them but he does not have to invoke the Name, neither does he have to state that this is an oath; the verb alone is sufficient., they are liable. “I am binding you, I am roping you in,” they are liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, as our Mishnah¹¹⁵This seems to be a scribal error; one should read as in the next sentence כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתִין “so is our Mishnah.”. But some say, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is our Mishnah: “Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.¹¹³For R. Jehudah, what has been said explicitly is the only thing that counts.
The Mishnah versions in the Babli and in the independent Mishnah mss. all read “but the Sages declare not liable.” It is clear from the Halakhah that this also was the reading in the Yerushalmi underlying the Halakhah since it was necessary to state that the Mishnah represents R. Jehudah’s opinion.” Rebbi Meїr follows his own opinion and Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, as we have stated: “If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meїr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution.¹¹⁶Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:14. Only here is opinion of the Sages attributed to R. Jehudah; in the Babli (Sanhedrin 66a) it is attributed to R. Menaḥem ben R. Yose.”

“One who curses himself or another person by any of these violates a prohibition.” What about flogging? The colleagues say, he cannot be flogged. Rebbi Yose said to them, why? Because it is a prohibition not involving an action. But is not one who substitutes and one who swears falsely also a prohibition which involves no action¹¹⁷Cf. Chapter 3:11, Notes 166–168, and the parallels indicated there. It seems that R. Yose considers any speech as an action, against the consensus that speech can be considered action only if recognized as such by a verse.?

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meïr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive¹¹⁸This is the position of the Yerushalmi here and in 7:1 (Note 11), Eruvin 3 (21b l. 24), Qiddušin 3:4 Note 136, Nedarim1:4 Note 158. (The explanation given there that the statement of R. Yasa in the name of R. Joḥanan is a rhetorical question is incorrect; the statement is a straightforward declarative sentence.) The Babli (36a, Nedarim 11a,13b, Soṭah 17a) is totally opposed; it proposes to switch the attributions in the Mishnah between R. Meїr and the Sages.. “May He not punish you if you come and testify for me.” Therefore, if you do not come and testify for me He shall punish you. There is not only an imprecation accompanied by an oath. From where one not accompanied by an oath be like one which is accompanied by an oath? The verse says, and heard an imprecation, and heard a voice¹¹⁹Lev. 5:1., to make one without imprecation like one with an imprecation. Therefore not an imprecation without an oath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference; an imprecation without oath is the same as an oath without an imprecation¹²⁰Babli 36a, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 8(2)..