POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 19
1) THE ARGUMENT OF R. ELIEZER AND R. AKIVA
(a) Question: What does R. Eliezer learn from "Bah"
2) ONE WHO FORGETS BOTH "TUM'AH" AND "MIKDASH"
(b) Answer: This excludes one who was Misasek (he intended to
do a permitted activity, and mistakenly did a different
action which is forbidden).
(c) Answer #2 (to Question 3:b, 18B - R. Yochanan and Rav
Sheshes): They do not argue about the law, only about how
we derive it.
1. Since Rav Sheshes held that they do not argue about
the law, he was not careful and sometimes switched
the opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Akiva.
(a) Question (Rava): If someone forgot that he was Tamei
*and* the place of the Mikdash (or that this meat is
Kodesh), what is the law (according to R. Eliezer and R.
Akiva, that one is liable for forgetting the Tum'ah, not
for forgetting the Mikdash)?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Since he forgot the Tum'ah, he
1. Question: Why not say the contrary, since he forgot
the Mikdash, he is exempt!
(c) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It depends: if he would have
refrained had he remembered the Tum'ah, this is like
forgetting the Tum'ah, he is liable;
1. If he would have refrained had he remembered the
Mikdash, this is like forgetting the Mikdash, he is
(d) Objection (Ravina): If he only remembered one of them, he
would not refrain!
(e) Answer #3 (Ravina): Rather, in either case he is exempt.
(f) (Beraisa): There are two paths, somewhere along one of
them there is a Mes under the ground spanning the entire
width of the path, anyone who walks on that path will
1. If a man walked on one path, and later on the other
path, and then entered the Mikdash, he is liable
(since he is surely Tamei);
(g) Question: Does R. Shimon ben Yehudah exempt even in the
first case? No matter which path is Tamei, he was Tamei
when he entered the Mikdash!
2. If he man walked on one path, entered the Mikdash,
was sprinkled (with Mei Chatas, to become Tahor with
certainty), walked on the other path and entered the
Mikdash, he is liable (since one of the times he
entered the Mikdash he was Tamei);
3. R. Shimon exempts him;
4. R. Shimon ben Yehudah cites R. Shimon to say that he
is exempt in every case.
(h) Answer (Rava): The case is, when he walked on the second
path he forgot that he had walked on the first path, so
he never knew for sure that he was Tamei.
***** PEREK SHEVU'OS SHETAYIM *****
1. The first Tana holds (according to R. Shimon) that
partial knowledge is like full knowledge (that he
(i) (Beraisa): If he man walked on one path, entered the
Mikdash, was sprinkled, walked on the other path and
entered the Mikdash, he is liable; R. Shimon exempts him.
2. R. Shimon ben Yehudah holds (according to R. Shimon)
that partial knowledge is not like full knowledge.
(j) Question: Why does the first Tana obligate him - each
time he entered the Mikdash, he only knew (initially and
forgot) that he was *doubtfully* Tamei!
(k) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Here, knowledge of a doubt is
considered like (full) knowledge;
(l) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Beraisa is R. Yishmael, who
does not require initial knowledge.
(m) Question: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish both contradict
what they said elsewhere!
1. (Beraisa): A person unknowingly ate doubtful Chelev,
then found out (that he ate doubtful Chelev); he
again ate and found out.
(n) Ap1 We can resolve the contradiction in R. Yochanan: we
only *inferred* that Yedi'ah is needed regarding Tum'ah
from "V'Nelam", therefore doubtful Yedi'ah is considered
2. Rebbi: Just as a person brings a Chatas for each
time he (unknowingly) ate (definite) Chelev (after
having learned of his previous mistake), so he
brings an Asham Taluy (doubtful guilt-offering) for
each time he (unknowingly) ate doubtful Chelev
(after having learned);
3. R. Shimon ben Yehudah and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon
say, he only brings one Asham Taluy;
i. "Al Shigegaso Asher Shagag" - the Torah says
that one Asham Taluy atones for many mistakes.
4. (Reish Lakish): Rebbi holds that Yedi'ah that one
doubtfully transgressed separates, and obligates him
to bring separate Chatas offerings (if he later
leans that he truly transgressed) for his
transgressions before the Yedi'ah and after, just as
it separates regarding Asham Taluy (it obligates him
to bring another Asham for doubtful transgressions
after the Yedi'ah);
5. (R. Yochanan): Just as definite Yedi'ah separates
regarding Chatas, doubtful Yedi'ah separates
1. Regarding Chatas, it explicitly says "O Hoda Elav",
full Yedi'ah is needed.
(o) Question: But if Reish Lakish holds (according to Rebbi)
that doubtful Yedi'ah is considered Yedi'ah (even
regarding Chatas), why did he establish the Beraisa like
R. Yishmael (who does not require initial Yedi'ah), it
could be (like Chachamim, who require initial Yedi'ah)
according to Rebbi!
(p) Answer: Reish Lakish wanted to teach that R. Yishmael
does not require initial Yedi'ah.
(q) Objection: This is obvious! Since he expounds "v'Nelam"
to obligate for forgetting the Mikdash, he has no source
to require initial Yedi'ah!
(r) Answer: One might have thought, he has no source from the
verses, but he has a tradition from Moshe from Sinai to
1. Reish Lakish teaches, this is not so.
3) THE PRIMARY OATHS
(a) (Mishnah): There are two primary kinds of Shevu'os (of
Bituy), there are four in all;
1. The two primary kinds are 'I swear that I will eat'
and 'I swear that I will not eat';
(b) R. Akiva says, if one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate
any amount, he is liable;
2. The other two are 'I swear that I ate' and 'I swear
that I did not eat'.
(c) Chachamim: We never find that someone is liable for
eating any amount!
(d) R. Akiva: We never find that someone brings a sacrifice
for speaking! (The sacrifice is for transgressing his
words - his intention was not to eat at all, if he eats
any amount he transgressed!)
(e) (Gemara) Inference: Our Mishnah teaches that 'She'Ochel'
means 'I will eat'.
1. Contradiction (Beraisa (Tosfos - an abridged form of
a Mishnah)): 'I swear that I will not eat your food'
or 'I swear She'Ochel (your food)' or 'I do not
swear that I will not eat' - he is forbidden to eat;