(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) Why did Rebbi learn Shevu'os after Makos? What does the Mishnah of Hakafas ha'Rosh have to do with our current Mishnah?

(b) Seeing as the opening Mishnah in Shabbos, which also deals with the two Yetzi'os which are four, did not mention the three other cases of 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba', why did our Mishnah do so?

(c) And having opened with 'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba', why does the Tana then go on to discuss Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah first?

(a) We have a problem with establishing the author of our Mishnah.
In which point does ...
  1. ... Rebbi Yishmael argue with the Mishnah's 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Shevu'os?
  2. ... Rebbi Akiva argue with the Mishnah's 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Tum'ah?
(b) On what grounds do 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?

(c) So how do we establish the case of Chayav le'she'Avar, to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael?

Answers to questions



(a) What is the definition of ...
  1. ... a Shevu'as Shav?
  2. ... a Shevu'as Sheker?
(b) What do we learn from the fact that in Yisro, the Torah writes "la'Shav" twice?

(c) How does Rava qualify this?

(d) What is the Chidush? Why would we have thought that he is Patur from Malkos in that case?

(a) What problem does 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?

(b) How do we establish Rebbi Yishmael, to answer this Kashya?

(c) How do 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" (implying that he holds 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin')?

(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.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(b) In what way does this statement of Rebbi Yochanan clash with his current interpretation of Rebbi Yishmael?

(c) We answer that Rebbi Yochanan found another S'tam Mishnah that holds 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Ein Lokin Alav'. On what grounds do we refute the initial suggestion that the Mishnah concerned is the Mishnah in Makos 'Aval ha'Mosir be'Tahor ... Eino Lokeh'? If the reason there is not because 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh Ein Lokin Alav', then what might it be?

(a) So we cite another S'tam Mishnah in support of Rebbi Yochanan's ruling.
What does the Tana in the Mishnah in Shevu'os Shetayim Basra rule with regard to someone who declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah'? How many sets of Malkos will he receive if he subsequently eats the loaf?

(b) What do 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'?

(c) How do we counter the Kashya why Rebbi Yochanan sees fit to rule like the later S'tam and not like the earlier one?

(d) How do we therefore answer both Kashyos with one stroke?

7) Instead of leaving us with two contradictory S'tam Mishnah's, why did Rebbi not take out the first S'tam?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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