(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shevuos 3



(a) Rebbi learned Shevu'os after Makos - because of the case cited there at the end of the Masechta where the Tana sentences someone two sets of Malkos for shaving the Pe'os, and five for shaving the corners of the beard, which is similar to the 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' in our Mishnah.

(b) Despite the fact that the opening Mishnah in Shabbos, which also deals with the two Yetzi'os which are four, does not mention the three other cases of 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba', our Mishnah does so - because 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' is similar to Shevu'os, inasmuch as (besides the similarity of 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba') both appear together in the Parshah of Korban Oleh ve'Yored. And once the Tana mentions two of the cases, it makes sense to insert the other two as well.

(c) And in spite of having opened with 'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba', the Tana then goes on to discuss Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah first - because the details surrounding it are more brief, taking up only two Perakim, as opposed to Shevu'os, which take up the remaining five.

(a) We have a problem with establishing the author of our Mishnah, because ...
1. ... Rebbi Yishmael argues with the Mishnah's 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Shevu'os - inasmuch as, in his opinion, the two cases of the past are not included in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored.
2. ... Rebbi Akiva argues with the Mishnah's 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Tum'ah - inasmuch as, in his opinion, one is not Chayav for He'elam Mikdash (only on He'elam Tum'ah).
(b) We reject the initial suggestion that either Tana could be the author, and two of the cases are Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, whereas two are indeed Patur - because the Tana presents all four cases in the same breath, we can assume that they all follow the same pattern and, in the case of 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' of Mar'os Nega'im, all four cases are Chayav.

(c) So to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael, we establish the case of Shev'ah by Meizid and with regard to a Chiyuv Malkos (and not be'Shogeg, with regard to Chiyuv Korban, as we learned till now).




(a) The definition of ...
1. ... a Shevu'as Shav is - a Shevu'ah which attempts to change something that is common knowledge (e.g. that a man is a woman or that is a stone is gold).
2. ... a Shevu'as Sheker - is a false Shevu'ah, that changes something that is not common knowledge (e.g. that one ate something when one didn't or vice-versa).
(b) We learn from the fact that the Torah writes "la'Shav" twice - that a Shevu'as Sheker receives Malkos just like a Shevu'as Shav.

(c) Rava qualifies this - by confining it to the past ('Achalti' or 'Lo Achalti' [our source for establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael]).

(d) We would have thought that he is Patur from Malkos in that case - because it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh'. Note, that Malkos for a Shevu'as Shav (even though it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh', is a 'Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv', which we learn from "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hashem", 'Aval Beis-Din Malkin Oso u'Menakin Oso', as we will learn in the third Perek).

(a) The problem with establishing 'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Malkos, with regard to the case of 'Shevu'os Shetayim' in the future, where one made a Shevu'ah to eat something, and then failed to do so is - that it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' (whilst it is not incorporated in the D'rashah of "la'Shav", as we just explained), so why does he receive Malkos?

(b) To answer this Kashya, we establish that Rebbi Yishmael holds - 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav

(c) We reconcile this with the Sugya in 'Eilu Hein ha'Lokin' which rules that, according to Rebbi Yishmael, Chayvei Asei are not subject to Malkos because the Torah writes "La'asos" - by bearing in mind that a. it is not Rebbi Yishmael himself who is speaking in there, and b. that our Sugya will later retract from this explanation, and reinstate our Mishnah by Korban, according to Rebbi.

(a) In Makos we cited a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish in connections with someone who takes an oath to eat a loaf of bread on that day and fails to keep it. According to Resh Lakish, he does not receive Malkos because it is a Hasra'as Safek. According to Rebbi Yochanan, it is because it is a La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.

(b) This statement of Rebbi Yochanan clashes with his current interpretation of Rebbi Yishmael - inasmuch as the latter is a S'tam Mishnah, and Rebbi Yochanan always follows the ruling of a S'tam Mishnah.

(c) We answer that Rebbi Yochanan found another S'tam Mishnah that holds 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Ein Lokin Alav'. We refute the initial suggestion that the Mishnah concerned is the Mishnah in Makos 'Aval ha'Mosir be'Tahor ... Eino Lokeh' - on the grounds that the author there may well not be Rebbi Ya'akov (who, in a Beraisa, explains that Nosar does not receive Malkos because it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh'), but Rebbi Yehudah, who (in the same Beraisa, gives the reason as 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei Ein Lokin Alav').

(a) So we cite another S'tam Mishnah in support of Rebbi Yochanan's ruling. The Tana in the Mishnah in Shevu'os Shetayim Basra rules with regard to someone who declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah' - that should he subsequently eat the loaf, he will receive one set of Malkos only.

(b) We extrapolate from the Tana's following statement 'Zu Hi Shevu'as Bituy she'Chayavin al Zedonah Makos ve'Al Shigegasah Korban Oleh ve'Yored' - that a case of 'Ochal ve'Lo Achal' is not subject to Malkos at all, because it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh'.

(c) We counter the Kashya why Rebbi Yochanan sees fit to rule like the later S'tam Mishnah and not like the earlier one - by asking how in the first place, Rebbi could contradict himself from one S'tam to the next?

(d) We therefore answer both Kashyos with one stroke - by explaining that, after writing the first S'tam (which teaches us that 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav'), Rebbi changed his mind, which is why he inserted the second one.

7) Rebbi did not want to take out the first S'tam - since it was already ingrained in the minds of the Talmidim. So he left it intact, relying that people would draw the obvious conclusion that he must have retracted from the first S'tam, and understand that the Halachah is like the second one.

Next daf


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