Shevuot 4bשבועות ד׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shevuot 4b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
4bד׳ ב

ונעלם מכלל דידע והוא ידע הרי כאן שתי ידיעות אם כן מה ת"ל (ויקרא ה, ב) ונעלם ונעלם לחייב על העלם טומאה ועל העלם מקדש

“And it was concealed,” which indicates, by inference, that initially he had been aware, and nevertheless the verse continues to state: “And he was aware” (Leviticus 5:3). It emerges that the verse refers here to two different periods of awareness, one before the transgression and one afterward. But if so, why must the verses state: “And it was concealed,” “and it was concealed,” mentioning it twice? It is in order to render one liable both for a violation due to a lapse of awareness of the fact he was ritually impure and for a violation due to a lapse of awareness of the fact that the place he entered was actually the Temple. From this baraita it is apparent that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion concerning which types of lapses of awareness render one liable to bring a sliding-scale offering.

אשכחן בידיעות דאית ליה טעמיה דנפשיה שבועות דלית ליה טעמיה דנפשיה מנלן סברא הוא

The Gemara asks: We have found with regard to cases of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has explained his own reasoning and it accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. With regard to oaths, where he has not explained his own reasoning, from where do we derive that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning.

(לישנא אחרינא אשכחן בידיעות דסבר לה כר' ישמעאל בשבועות דסבר לה כר"ע מנלן סברא הוא)

The Gemara presents another formulation of the preceding comment: The Gemara asks: We have found an explicit statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to cases of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods indicating that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. With regard to oaths, from where do we derive that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning.

ר"ע מאי טעמא קא מחייב לשעבר דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי רבי נמי דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי

The Gemara explains the logical reasoning: What is the reason that Rabbi Akiva deems one liable for oaths pertaining to the past? The reason is that he expounds verses using the method of amplifications and restrictions (see 26a). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also expounds verses using the method of amplifications and restrictions, and consequently he arrives at the same opinion as Rabbi Akiva.

דתניא רבי אומר בכל פודין בכור אדם חוץ מן השטרות ורבנן אמרי בכל פודין בכור אדם חוץ מעבדים ושטרות וקרקעות

The Gemara demonstrates its point: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one can redeem a woman’s firstborn son with any item worth five shekels, except for promissory notes. And the Rabbis say that one can redeem a woman’s firstborn son with any item worth five shekels, except for Canaanite slaves, promissory notes, and land.

מאי טעמא דרבי דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי (במדבר יח, טז) ופדויו מבן חדש ריבה (במדבר יח, טז) בערכך כסף חמשת שקלים מיעט תפדה חזר וריבה

The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He expounds verses using the method of amplifications and restrictions. Accordingly, he expounds the verse: “And its redemption from one month shall you redeem, according to the valuation of five silver shekels by the sacred shekel” (Numbers 18:16), as follows: Concerning the phrase: “And its redemption from one month,” since it does not specify that only certain items can be used for the redemption, the verse amplified the category of items that can be used to redeem the firstborn, intimating that many different items can be used. Then, with the phrase: “According to the valuation of five silver shekels,” the verse restricted the category to items that are similar to silver shekels. Then, with the term: “Shall you redeem,” the verse again amplified the category.

ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי ריבה כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט שטרות

According to the hermeneutical principle that when a verse amplified and then restricted and then amplified, it amplified the relevant category to include everything except for the specific matter excluded in the restriction. The Gemara elaborates: What is included by the fact it amplified? Almost everything. And what is excluded by the fact it restricted? It restricted only promissory notes, which are the most fundamentally dissimilar to silver shekels.

ורבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי ופדויו מבן חדש כלל בערכך כסף חמשת שקלים פרט תפדה חזר וכלל

The Gemara explains the reasoning of the Rabbis: And the Rabbis expound verses through the method of generalizations and details. Accordingly, they expound the verse as follows: The phrase: “And its redemption from one month,” is a generalization which suggests that many different items can be used to redeem the firstborn. Then, the phrase: “According to the valuation of five silver shekels,” is a detail, which suggests that only items that are similar to silver shekels can be used. Then, with the term: “Shall you redeem,” the verse again makes a generalization.

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון יצאו קרקעות שאינן מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות אע"פ שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון

Based on this exegetical method, whenever a verse has a generalization and then a detail and then a generalization, the principle is that you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail; in this case, just as the detail, i.e., silver shekels, is explicitly something that is movable and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, anything that is movable and has intrinsic monetary value can be used. This excludes land, which is not movable property; it excludes Canaanite slaves, who are halakhically compared to land; and it excludes promissory notes, because even though they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value.

א"ל רבינא לאמימר רבי דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי והא רבי כללי ופרטי דריש

Ravina said to Ameimar: Does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi really expound verses through the method of amplifications and restrictions? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expound verses through the method of generalizations and details?

דתניא (דברים טו, יז) מרצע אין לי אלא מרצע מנין לרבות הסול והסירה המחט והמקדח והמכתב ת"ל (דברים טו, יז) ולקח' כל דבר שנלקח ביד דברי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה רבי אומר מרצע מה מרצע מיוחד של מתכת אף כל של מתכת

This is as it is taught in a baraita: The Torah provides the process by which a Hebrew slave who has already completed his six years of servitude may continue on as a slave of his master: “And you shall take the awl and put it through his ear and in the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17). From this verse, I have derived only that an awl can be used; from where do I know to include the thorn of a palm [hasol], and a thorn, a needle, and a gimlet, and a stylus for writing on wax, as valid tools for piercing his ear? The verse states: “And you shall take,” which indicates that anything that can be taken by hand is a valid tool. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not all these items can be used. Rather, since the verse specifies an “awl,” only items similar to an awl can be used; just as an awl is distinct in that it is fashioned of metal, so too, anything fashioned of metal can be used.

ואמרינן במאי קא מיפלגי רבי דריש כללי ופרטי ורבי יוסי בר' יהודה דריש

And we say with regard to this dispute: About what do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expounds verses using the method of generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, expounds verses