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 4
1) LASHES FOR A LAV THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE AN ACTION (cont.)
(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);
2) WHO IS THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH?
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).
(b) Question: The two unauthored Mishnayos contradict each
other - why does R. Yochanan rule according to this one?
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).
1. Counter-question: How do you understand why Rebbi
codified unauthored Mishnayos that contradict each
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.
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
1. One is not lashed for a Lav that is punishable by
(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,
(g) Question: Lashes only apply to an intentional sinner - if
so, it should not say 'Yedi'os' of Tum'ah, rather
(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
(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
(k) Objection #3: The Mishnah continues, he brings an Oleh
(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
(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
3) INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
2. Rebbi says, one "v'Ne'elam" and "V'Hu Yada" connotes
two times that he knew (at the beginning and at the
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
(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
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;
(c) Question (Ravina): But elsewhere Rebbi expounds
generalities and specifics!
i. From a inclusion, exclusion, inclusion we
include everything except for one thing (that
is very different than the exclusion) -
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
ii. This excludes land, slaves (since they are
equated to land) and documents (since documents
have no intrinsic value).
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
2. Answer: "V'Lakachta" - anything that may be taken in
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.