Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE TWO THAT ARE FOUR

(a) (Gemara) Question: The previous tractate was Makos - how is Shevu'os a fitting continuation?
(b) Answer: A Mishnah in the last Perek of Makos teaches 'One who cuts the hair of (both) sidelocks receives two sets of lashes, one for each; one who shaves the (five) corners of the beard receives five sets of lashes, for the two corners on each side and the chin';

1. Multiple lashes for one transgression is similar to two primary oaths of Bituy, of which there are four in all.

(c) Question: In our Mishnah, after teaching that there are two primary oaths of Bituy and four in all, we taught everything which has two primary cases and four in all;

1. In the Mishnayos of Shabbos and Tzara'as (that teach the two primary cases that are four in all)` why didn't the Tana teach all such matters?

(d) Answer: Shevu'os and Tum'os are similar - they are written in the same verse, the sacrifice for each is an Oleh v'Yored, so Tum'os were taught with Shevu'os;

1. Once teaching these two, all such matters were taught.

(e) Question: The Tana mentioned Shevu'os first - why does he explain Tum'os first (he does not explain the oaths until the third Perek)?
(f) Answer: Since there are less laws of Tum'os to teach, he teaches them first, and then teaches Shevu'os.
(g) The two primary oaths (of Bituy): 'I will eat' or 'I will not eat';

1. The two secondary oaths: 'I ate' or 'I did not eat'.

(h) The two primary Yedi'os of Tum'ah (that obligate one to bring a sacrifice): Knowledge (that he was Tamei) and forgetting this when he ate Kodesh or entered the Mikdash;

1. The two secondary Yedi'os: (when he knew that he was Tamei) he forgot that meat was Kodesh and ate it, or forgot that this was the Mikdash and entered.

(i) The two primary forms of Yetzi'ah of Shabbos: a poor person (standing in the public domain) sticks his hand in a house, takes a basket from the owner and takes it outside; or, the owner sticks out his hand (holding a basket) from his house, and puts in the poor person's hand.

1. The two secondary Yetzi'os of Shabbos: the poor person sticks his hand (holding a basket) into the house, and puts in the owner's hand; or, the owner sticks his hand out of the house, takes a basket from the poor person and takes it inside.

(j) The two primary appearances of Tzara'as (on the skin): Baheres (brightness, white as snow) and S'eis (like white wool);

1. The two secondary appearances: the offshoot of Baheres (like the plaster of the Heichal) and the offshoot of S'eis (like the inner membrane of an egg).

(a) Question: Our Mishnah is not like R. Yishmael nor like R. Akiva!

1. It is not like R. Yishmael - he only obligates regarding (false) oaths about the future, not for the past!
2. It is not like R. Akiva - he only obligates for one who forgot that he was Tamei, not one who forgot the place of the Mikdash!

(b) Answer #1: The Mishnah can be R. Yishmael - one is liable for some of the four oaths, exempt for others;
(c) Answer #2: The Mishnah can be R. Akiva - one is liable for some of the four Yedi'os, exempt for others.

(d) Rejection (of both answers): Presumably, all the cases are similar to appearances of Tzara'as, i.e. one is liable for all four!
(e) Answer #3: Really, the Mishnah is R. Yishmael;

1. R. Yishmael exempts from a sacrifice for a false oath about the past, but he obligates lashes, like Rava.
2. (Rava): The Torah explicitly teaches that one is lashed for a false oath like a vain oath:

i. Just as a vain oath is about the past (i.e. it is not contingent on future events), one is liable for a false oath about the past.

(f) Question: Why does R. Yishmael obligate lashes for all four oaths?

1. We understand false oaths about the past, i.e. '(is`) I ate' or 'I did not eat', as Rava taught;
2. We also understand (one kind of) false oath about the future, i.e. 'I will not eat' - he transgresses by eating, an action;
3. But if he swears 'I will eat' and he does not, why is he lashed - he did not sin through an action!

(g) Answer: R. Yishmael holds that one is lashed even for a Lav that does not involve an action.

(a) Question: If so, R. Yochanan contradicts himself!

1. (R. Yochanan): The Halachah follows an unauthored Mishnah (the beginning of our Mishnah is unauthored);
2. (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): If Reuven swore 'I will eat this loaf today' and he did not eat it, he is not lashed;

i. (R. Yochanan): He is not lashed because this Lav does not involve an action;
ii. (Reish Lakish): He is not lashed because he cannot receive definite warning (perhaps he will eat the loaf later), and doubtful warning is invalid.

(b) Answer: R. Yochanan does not rule according to our unauthored Mishnah because another unauthored Mishnah argues with it.
(c) Question: What is the other Mishnah?

1. Suggestion (Mishnah): One who leaves over from a Tahor Pesach sacrifice or breaks a bone of a Tamei Pesach sacrifice, he is not lashed.
2. We understand why he is exempt for breaking a bone of a Tamei Pesach - "V'Etzem Lo Sishberu Vo" - we are commanded only about a Kosher sacrifice, not a disqualified sacrifice;

i. Question: Why is he exempt for leaving over?
ii. Suggestion: He is not lashed because this Lav does not involve an action, one is not lashed for such a Lav.

3. Rejection: There is no necessity to explain that Mishnah thusly, like R. Yakov - it could be like R. Yehudah! (He is not lashed because there is an Aseh after the Lav.)

i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "You may not leave over (from the Pesach sacrifice) until morning; you will burn what is left over" - the Torah gives a Mitzvas Aseh after the Lav, to exempt from lashes.
ii. (R. Yakov): No - one is not lashed because this Lav is not transgressed through an action, rather through inaction.