Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LASHES FOR A LAV THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE AN ACTION (cont.)

(a) Answer (Mishnah (in the third Perek)): Reuven swore 'I will not eat this loaf', and again swore 'I will not eat this loaf'' (and he ate it) - he is only lashed once (i.e. one set of 39 lashes);

1. This is the oath of Bituy for which one is lashed (if he intentionally transgressed) or brings an Oleh v'Yored (if he unintentionally transgressed).
2. Inference: For this oath of Bituy he is lashed (if he intentionally transgressed), but not for 'I will eat' (and he did not eat).

(b) Question: The two unauthored Mishnayos contradict each other - why does R. Yochanan rule according to this one?

1. Counter-question: How do you understand why Rebbi codified unauthored Mishnayos that contradict each other?!
2. Answer: You must say, originally Rebbi held that one is lashed even for a Lav that does not involve an action, and he taught our Mishnah (that obligates for all four kinds of oaths);

i. Later, he retracted, and taught the Mishnah of the third Perek.
ii. Since the first Mishnah was already ingrained in the Talmidim, it was left in the Mishnayos.

(a) Question: How can we establish the Mishnah according to R. Yishmael, regarding lashes - lashes do not apply to appearances of Tzara'as!
(b) Answer: Lashes do apply, for one who cuts off the plagued skin (or a Siman of absolute Tzara'as), according to R. Avin.

1. (R. Avin): Whenever the Torah says "Hishamer", "Pen" or "Al", this is a Lav.

(c) Question: Lashes do not apply to Shabbos, for desecration of Shabbos is punishable by death (administered by Beis Din);

1. One is not lashed for a Lav that is punishable by death.

(d) Answer: We established the Mishnah to be R. Yishmael because he holds that one is lashed for a Lav that is punishable by death.
(e) Question - Inference: If not for this, we would have established it to be R. Akiva;

1. But we were unable to establish it to be R. Akiva, because he holds that there are only two Yedi'os of Tum'ah for which one must bring a sacrifice!

(f) Answer: Just as we established it like R. Yishmael, regarding lashes, we can establish it like R. Akiva, regarding lashes!
(g) Question: Lashes only apply to an intentional sinner - if so, it should not say 'Yedi'os' of Tum'ah, rather 'warnings'!
(h) Answer: The Mishnah means, Yedi'os of warnings.
(i) Objection #1: Why does it say 'two primary kinds, there are four in all' - since he sins intentionally, there are only two kinds (a Tamei person who enters the Mikdash or eats Kodshim)!
(j) Objection #2: Why does it say 'If a person knew that he became Tamei, and later forgot, and later remembered' - forgetting is not a factor to obligate someone to be lashed!
(k) Objection #3: The Mishnah continues, he brings an Oleh v'Yored sacrifice!
(l) Answer #4 (to Question 4:a, (Daf 4B) - Rav Yosef): The Mishnah is Rebbi - regarding Tum'ah, he teaches according to R. Yishmael; regarding oaths, he teaches according to R. Akiva.
(m) (Rav Kahana): Rebbi did not merely teach according to other Tana'im - he himself holds thusly!

1. (Regarding Tum'ah) - (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "v'Ne'elam...v'Ne'elam" - this teaches that one brings a sacrifice only if he knew at the beginning and at the end, and forgot in between (when he transgressed);

2. Rebbi says, one "v'Ne'elam" and "V'Hu Yada" connotes two times that he knew (at the beginning and at the end);

i. The extra "v'Ne'elam" obligates him, whether he forgot the Tum'ah or the Mikdash (or Kodshim) - this is like R. Yishmael.

3. Regarding oaths, R. Akiva obligates for an oath of the past because he expounds using the method of inclusions and exclusions;

i. Rebbi also expounds using the method of inclusions and exclusions, surely he holds like R. Akiva

(a) (Beraisa - Rebbi): Anything (worth 5 Shekalim) may be used to redeem a firstborn son, except for documents;
(b) Chachamim say, anything except for slaves, documents and land.

1. Rebbi expounds inclusions and exclusions: "U'fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh" - this is an inclusion; "Kesef Chameshes Shekalim" - this is an exclusion; "Tifdeh" - this is another inclusion;

i. From a inclusion, exclusion, inclusion we include everything except for one thing (that is very different than the exclusion) - documents.

2. Chachamim expound generalities and specifics: "U'fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh" - this is a generality; "Kesef Chameshes Shekalim" - this is a specific; "Tifdeh" - this is another generality;

i. From a generality, specific, generality we include things that are similar to the specific, i.e. Metaltelim that have intrinsic value;
ii. This excludes land, slaves (since they are equated to land) and documents (since documents have no intrinsic value).

(c) Question (Ravina): But elsewhere Rebbi expounds generalities and specifics!

1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah) Question: The Torah says to bore through the slave's ear with a "Martze'a" - how do we know that one may use a sharp wooden tool, a thorn, a needle, a drill, or a writing tool?
2. Answer: "V'Lakachta" - anything that may be taken in the hand.
3. Rebbi says, just as an awl is made of metal, also any metal tool may be used.

i. Question: On what do they argue?
ii. Answer: Rebbi expounds generalities and specifics, R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah expounds inclusions and exclusions.