Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shevuos, 4

1) ASSUMING THAT THE MISHNAH IS REFERING TO "MALKUS"

QUESTION: The Gemara rejects its earlier suggestion that the Mishnah is referring to Isurim which are punishable with Malkus, because the Mishnah clearly states that in the case of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav, if there is a "Yedi'ah b'Techilah" and a Y"edi'ah b'Sof," a Korban Oleh v'Yored is brought.

What was the Gemara's original reasoning when it suggesting that our Mishnah is referring to Malkus, if the wording of the Mishnah clearly contradicts that suggestion?

ANSWER: The RITVA explains that we originally thought that the list of "two which are four " is referring to Malkus, while the next part of the Mishnah (beginning with the Yedi'os) is teaching a new Halachah regarding Korban.

4b

QUESTIONS: The verse repeats the word "v'Ne'elam" with regard to Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah. First it says, "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Tamei" (Vayikra 5:2), and then it says again "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Yada" (5:3). Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi argue about how to interpret the verse. RASHI explains their argument as follows. Rebbi Akiva learns from the first word of "v'Ne'elam" that one is Chayav only for He'elem Tum'ah but not for He'elem Mikdash. He uses the second verse, "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Yada," to teach that there was a Yedi'ah that preceded the Ha'alamah, because, Rashi explains, we place the phrase "v'Hu Yada" before the second "v'Ne'elam" and after the first, which implies that he forgot after first knowing. The second Yedi'ah (i.e. when the person eventually discovers his mistake) does not have to be stated explicitly, for it is obvious that he only brings a Korban when he discovers his mistake; if he did not discover his mistake, he obviously would not be bringing a Korban. Rebbi, on the other hand, learns from the first "v'Ne'elam" the law of He'elem Tum'ah, and from the second "v'Ne'elam" the law of He'elem Mikdash, and he does not need an extra verse to teach that the person knew about his state of being Tamei and then forgot, because that is the simple meaning of the word "v'Ne'elam."

It seems that Rashi's intention is that the Torah does not need to mention the second Yedi'ah, because he obviously is bringing a Korban only because he discovered that he sinned. Therefore, the words "v'Hu Yada," referring to the second Yedi'ah, are superfluous. This is the source for the Derashah of Rebbi Akiva, that we are supposed to place the phrase "v'Hu Yada" between the two phrases of "v'Ne'elam."

However, there are a number of difficulties with Rashi's interpretation, as TOSFOS (DH v'Ne'elam) asks.

(a) Why does Rebbi Akiva teach that because it says "v'Ne'elam" twice, we know that there was a Yedi'ah before the Ha'alamah? The Derashah is not from the second "v'Ne'elam," but from the words, "v'Hu Yada," as Rashi writes that we place the words "v'Hu Yada" between the words of "v'Ne'elam."

(b) Why indeed does the verse say "v'Ne'elam" a second time, according to Rebbi Akiva, if we already learn the first Yedi'ah from the words "v'Hu Yada!" Perhaps Rashi means that the second "v'Ne'elam" is necessary to teach that one is Chayav *only* for He'elem Tum'ah and not for He'elem Mikdash. However, this seems illogical, because Rebbi uses the repetition of "v'Ne'elam" to reach the opposite conclusion -- that one *is* Chayav for He'elem Mikdash! Indeed, Rebbi's logic is clear: without a second verse, there is no reason to think that one is Chayav for He'elem Mikdash. Why, then, does Rebbi Akiva require a second verse (of "v'Ne'elam") to teach that one is *not* Chayav for He'elem Mikdash?

(c) According to Rebbi, who learns the first Yedi'ah from the word "v'Ne'elam," why does the verse need to say "v'Hu Yada" to tell us that there was a second Yedi'ah? As Rashi writes in explaining Rebbi Akiva's view, the second Yedi'ah is obvious and there is no need to learn it from a verse!

ANSWERS: The RITVA and the MAHARSHA explain that Rashi does not mean to say that Rebbi Akiva learns the first Ha'alamah from the words "v'Hu Yada." Rather, Rashi is learning the first Yedi'ah according to Rebbi Akiva from the repetition of the word "v'Ne'elam" (this indeed is rather explicit in Rashi according to our Girsa, in DH v'Ne'elam). However, the Rishonim apparently did not have the words "v'Idach Kera Yeseirah Hu l'Derashah" in their texts of Rashi, as is evident from the way the TOSFOS HA'ROSH cites the words of Rashi.)

Although the Torah does not need to mention the second Yedi'ah, it is the manner of the verse to mention that the sinner discovered his sin, as Tosfos writes (DH v'Ne'elam). Therefore, those words ("v'Hu Yada") are not considered superfluous.

This answer all of our questions.

(a) Rebbi Akiva mentions the repetition of "v'Ne'elam" because that is the source for his Derashah.

(b) The second "v'Ne'elam" is not extra, because it is that word that teaches us about the first Yedi'ah.

(c) Rebbi does not need to explain the words "v'Hu Yada," since it is the manner of the verse to mention one's discovery of his sin even if it is self-evident.

We may ask why, according to this, does Rashi write that according to Rebbi Akiva, we place "v'Hu Yada" between the two words of "v'Ne'elam?" He should have said simply that we learn from the second "v'Ne'elam" that there must have been another Yedi'ah!

The answer to this question rests in the Girsa of Rashi in the Beraisa, which is cited by the RAMBAN and other Rishonim. According to Rashi's Girsa, Rebbi Akiva's words were "v'Ne'elam *Mimenu v'Hu Yada* v'Ne'elam" (without the words "Shtei Pe'amim"). Rebbi Akiva himself reversed the order of the verse, placing "v'Hu Yada" before the second "v'Ne'elam," to show that there was a first Yedi'ah before the Ha'alamah.