(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Shevuos 4


(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.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,