Shevuot 3aשבועות ג׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shevuot 3a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
3aג׳ א

ועל הזקן שתים מיכן ושתים מיכן ואחת מלמטה

And for marring the edges of his beard there are two edges from here, on one side of his face, and two from there, on the other side, and one from below.

חדא דמיחייב עלה תרתי תנא שבועות שתים שהן ארבע

The Gemara explains: As apparent from the mishna in Makkot, this is a case where there is one prohibition for which one is liable to receive two punishments. Continuing on this theme, the tanna taught in the beginning of tractate Shevuot examples of other sets of halakhot that can be formulated similarly, beginning with: With regard to oaths on an utterance, there are two types that are actually four types.

מאי שנא הכא דתני להו לכולהו ומאי שנא גבי יציאות שבת ומראות נגעים דלא קתני להו לכולהו

The Gemara inquires: What is different here, in tractate Shevuot, that the mishna teaches all the sets of halakhot that can be formulated as: Two that are four, and what is different with regard to the chapter beginning: The acts of carrying out that are prohibited on Shabbat, i.e., the first chapter of tractate Shabbat, and the chapter beginning: And the shades of leprous marks, i.e., the first chapter of tractate Nega’im, where the mishna does not teach all of them, rather only the specific set of halakhot relevant to that tractate?

אמרי שבועות וידיעות הטומאה דגבי הדדי כתיבין ודמיין אהדדי בקרבן עולה ויורד תני להו גבי הדדי ואיידי דתנא תרתי תנא כולהו

The Sages say in explanation: Since the passages of oaths and of liability based on one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods are written together in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:2–4), and they are also similar to each other in that they can both incur liability to bring a sliding-scale offering, the mishna therefore taught both of them together here. And once it already taught two sets, it continued and taught all of them.

פתח בשבועות ומפרש ידיעות הטומאה איידי דזוטרין מילייהו פסיק שרי להו והדר תני שבועות דנפישן מילייהו

The Gemara inquires further: Tractate Shevuot opens with a reference to oaths, but then proceeds to explain the cases of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, returning to discuss oaths only in the third chapter. Why? The Gemara explains: Since the cases of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods are relatively few, the tanna addressed them directly and dispensed with them, and then afterward returned to teach the halakhot of oaths, which have numerous details.

שבועות שתים שהן ארבע שתים שאוכל ושלא אוכל שהן ארבע אכלתי ושלא אכלתי

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to oaths on an utterance, there are two types that are actually four types. The Gemara explains: The two types are where one states: On my oath I will eat, and where he states: On my oath I will not eat. If he violates either oath he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. These two types are actually four types because they also include the cases where a person falsely states: On my oath I ate, and where he falsely states: On my oath I did not eat.

ידיעות הטומאה שתים שהן ארבע שתים ידיעת טומאת קדש וידיעת טומאת מקדש שהן ארבע קדש ומקדש:

The mishna continues: With regard to cases of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, for which one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, there are two cases that are actually four. The Gemara explains: The two cases are where one’s lack of awareness of the fact that he was ritually impure led him to eat sacrificial food, and where one’s lack of awareness of the fact that he was ritually impure led him to enter the Temple. These two types are actually four types, because one is also liable where he was aware that he was impure, but had a lapse of awareness about the status of the sacrificial food or the identity of the Temple.

יציאות שבת שתים שהן ארבע שתים הוצאה דעני והוצאה דבעל הבית שהן ארבע הכנסה דעני והכנסה דבעל הבית

The mishna continues: With regard to acts of carrying out that are prohibited on Shabbat, there are two types that are four. The Gemara explains the cases by using the analogy of a poor person who remains in the public domain and a homeowner who remains in the private domain and one passes an item to the other: The two types are the carrying out by a poor person of an item from the private domain to the public domain and the carrying out by a homeowner of an item from the private domain to the public domain. These two types are actually four types because they also include the bringing in by a poor person of an item from the public domain to the private domain and the bringing in by a homeowner of an item from the public domain to the private domain.

מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבעה שנים שאת ובהרת שהן ארבעה שאת ותולדתה בהרת ותולדתה

The mishna’s final example: With regard to shades of leprous marks, there are two shades that are actually four. The Gemara explains: The two shades are of a wool-white leprous mark [se’et] and of a snow-white leprous mark [baheret]. These two are actually four because they also include a se’et and its secondary mark, i.e., one similar to it, and a baheret and its secondary mark, i.e., one similar to it.

מני מתניתין לא רבי ישמעאל ולא ר' עקיבא אי רבי ישמעאל האמר אינו חייב אלא על העתיד לבוא אי ר' עקיבא האמר על העלם טומאה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש

§ The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael nor the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara elaborates: If one suggests that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, that suggestion can be refuted, as doesn’t he say with regard to oaths: One is liable only for oaths pertaining to the future, but not for those pertaining to the past? The mishna states that one is liable also for oaths pertaining to the past. And if one suggests it is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that suggestion can be refuted, as doesn’t he say: For having defiled the Temple or its sacrificial foods during a lapse of awareness of the fact that one is ritually impure one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, but one is not liable for having done so during a lapse of awareness of the fact that the place he entered was actually the Temple? The mishna states that one is liable also in such a case.

איבעית אימא רבי ישמעאל איבעית אימא ר' עקיבא איבעית אימא רבי ישמעאל מהן לחיוב ומהן לפטור ואיבעית אימא רבי עקיבא מהן לחיוב ומהן לפטור

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and if you wish, say that the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and the intent of the mishna is that while there are four types of oaths, among them are types for which there is liability to bring an offering for one who violates them and among them are types for which there is exemption from liability for one who violates them. And if you wish, say that the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and the intent of the mishna is that while there are four cases defined by one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, among them are cases for which there is liability to bring an offering and among them are cases for which there is exemption from liability.

לפטור

The Gemara asks: How can one say that the mishna teaches types for which there is exemption from liability?