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 5
1) INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS (cont.)
(a) Answer (Ameimar): Normally, Rebbi expounds generalities
and specifics; redemption of a firstborn is different, as
Tana d'vei R. Yishmael taught.
2) FORGETTING AFTER KNOWING
1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): It says twice
"Ba'Mayim", generalities, (regarding Simanim of
Kosher fish) before the specifics - this teaches
that we expound through the method of inclusion,
(b) Question: Since Rebbi normally expounds according to
generalities and specifics, surely he holds like R.
Yishmael regarding oaths!
2. Chachamim put the specifics in the middle and
expound by the method of generality, specific,
(c) Answer: Indeed, Rebbi taught R. Akiva's opinion regarding
oaths even though he disagrees.
(a) (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
3) THE "YETZI'OS" OF SHABBOS
(b) Rebbi says, "v'Ne'elam" connotes that he knew - "V'Hu
Yada" also teaches this!
1. The extra "v'Ne'elam" obligates him, whether he
forgot the Tum'ah or the Mikdash (or Kodshim) - this
is like R. Yishmael.
(c) Question: Rebbi says that "v'Ne'elam" connotes that he
knew - how is this implied?
(d) Answer #1 (Rava): Because it does not say 'It is hidden
from him' (which would imply that he never knew).
(e) Objection #1 (Abaye): If so, regarding Sotah, it says
"v'Ne'lam me'Einei Ishah" - will you say that he knew and
1. "V'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon and she will bear her sin" -
the water only tests her if her husband acted
properly (and forgetting that she became forbidden
to him is a gross negligence).
(f) Objection #2 (Abaye): Regarding Torah, it says
"v'Ne'elmah me'Einei Kol Chai" - will you say that it was
1. "Lo Yada Enosh Erkah" (no person knows its worth)!
(g) Answer #2 (Abaye): Rebbi considers having learned the
laws of Tum'ah (Rashi - and having felt the rodent when
it touched him, even though he did not reflect and
realize that he is Tamei) as having once known. (Had he
thought about the Tum'ah, he would have known to avoid
(h) Question (Rav Papa - Mishnah): If he never knew of the
Tum'ah (and entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim), and
later was told that he was Tamei;
1. Surely, any adult once learned the laws of Tum'ah!
(i) Answer (Abaye): The case is, he was captured by Nochrim
as a child (and never learned the laws of Tum'ah).
(a) (Mishnah): There are two primary forms of Yetzi'ah on
Shabbos, there are four in all.
(b) (Mishnah (in tractate Shabbos)): There are two primary
forms of Yetzi'ah and two secondary forms inside (Rashi -
bringing something into a private domain; Tosfos -
regarding a person standing in a private domain);
1. There are also two primary and two secondary
(c) Question: Why does our Tana only mention four of the
(d) Answer #1: There, the focus of the tractate is the laws
of Shabbos, the Tana also mentions the derivative
1. Our tractate does not focus on the laws of Shabbos
(it is merely brought in passing), the Tana only
mentions the Av Melachos.
(e) Question: The Av Melachos are Yetzi'os - there are only
two of them (yet our Mishnah mentions four)!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah mentions Avos one is
liable for and those one is exempt for!
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): There, the focus of the tractate is
Shabbos, the Tana mentions Yetzi'os one is liable for and
also those one is exempt for;
2. Rejection: Presumably, the Yetzi'os are similar to
appearances of Tzara'as, i.e. one is liable for all
1. Our tractate does not focus on the laws of Shabbos,
the Tana only mentions Yetzi'os one is liable for.
(g) Question: There are only two Yetzi'os one is liable for
(yet our Mishnah mentions four)!
(h) Answer: There are also two Hachnasos (bringing something
into a private domain).
(i) Question: But the Tana says there are a total of four
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): Hachnasos are also called Yetzi'os.
1. Question: What is the source to say this?
4) PRIMARY APPEARANCES OF "TZARA'AS"
2. Answer (Mishnah): One who is Motzi from one domain
to another domain is liable.
(k) Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #2 (Rava): The Tana (there)
says that there are two domains of Shabbos, which lead to
four prohibitions inside and four outside.
i. This includes taking from a public domain to a
private domain, and the Tana calls it Hotza'ah!
3. Question: Perhaps it only refers to taking from a
private domain to a public domain!
4. Answer: If so, it should have said 'One who is Motzi
from a private domain to a public domain';
i. Rather, it says 'from one domain to another
domain' to teach both directions;
5. Support (Ravina - Mishnah): There are two primary
forms of Yetzi'ah and two secondary forms inside,
and two primary and two secondary Yetzi'os outside;
ii. Any uprooting of an object from its place is
i. The Tana then details the Yetzi'os, and some
(l) Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #2 (Rava): The Tana (there)
says that (transferring between) domains of Shabbos
entails two prohibitions for which one is liable (and
four in all) inside and two prohibitions of liability and
four in all outside.
(a) (Mishnah): There are two primary appearances of Tzara'as,
there are four in all.
(b) (Mishnah (in tractate Nega'im)): There are two primary
appearances of Tzara'as, there are four in all: Baheres
is as bright as snow, its secondary appearance is k'Sid
(like plaster of) the Heichal; Ses is like white wool,
its secondary appearance is k'Karom (like the membrane
of) an egg.
(c) (R. Chanina): This latter Mishnah is not like R. Akiva.
1. Version #1 (Rashi, Tosfos): R. Akiva says that
different appearances (that join together to
complete the area of plagued skin that is Metamei),
one is (directly) whiter than another (i.e. without
another of the four appearances in between).
2. If the Mishnah was R. Akiva, k'Sid would not join
with any appearance!
i. It cannot join with Baheres, because Baheres is
not directly whiter than it (Ses is in
3. (Other versions: Ba'al ha'Ma'or - our Mishnah holds
that there are only three different shades of white,
Ses is also k'Sid, but plagues of Ses and k'Sid have
different textures; Ramban - R. Akiva holds that all
the appearances are the same shade of white, they
only vary in intensity; Gra - R. Chanina holds that
R. Akiva says that Ses is whiter than k'Sid, unlike
our Mishnah which puts k'Sid second to Baheres. We
shall only explain according to Rashi and Tosfos.)
ii. It cannot join with Ses, because our Mishnah
says that it is not a secondary appearance of
Ses! (Tosfos - to teach just this, that it does
not join with Ses; R. Akiva himself holds that
it joins to Ses even though it is second to
Baheres; Rashi - R. Akiva holds that k'Sid is
secondary to Ses).
4. Question: If so, also k'Karom would not join with
i. It cannot join with Ses, because Ses is not
directly whiter than it (k'Sid is in between);
5. Rejection: No, "Vela'Ses vela'Sapachas" teaches that
the secondary appearance of Ses joins with Ses, even
though Ses is not directly whiter than it.
ii. It cannot join with k'Sid, because it is from a
different primary appearance than k'Sid!
i. The question from k'Sid remains (if the Mishnah
is R. Akiva, nothing joins with it);
ii. We conclude that the Mishnah is not R. Akiva.