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 3
1) THE TWO THAT ARE FOUR
(a) (Gemara) Question: The previous tractate was Makos - how
is Shevu'os a fitting continuation?
2) WHO IS THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH?
(b) Answer: A Mishnah in the last Perek of Makos teaches 'One
who cuts the hair of (both) sidelocks receives two sets
of lashes, one for each; one who shaves the (five)
corners of the beard receives five sets of lashes, for
the two corners on each side and the chin';
1. Multiple lashes for one transgression is similar to
two primary oaths of Bituy, of which there are four
(c) Question: In our Mishnah, after teaching that there are
two primary oaths of Bituy and four in all, we taught
everything which has two primary cases and four in all;
1. In the Mishnayos of Shabbos and Tzara'as (that teach
the two primary cases that are four in all)` why
didn't the Tana teach all such matters?
(d) Answer: Shevu'os and Tum'os are similar - they are
written in the same verse, the sacrifice for each is an
Oleh v'Yored, so Tum'os were taught with Shevu'os;
1. Once teaching these two, all such matters were
(e) Question: The Tana mentioned Shevu'os first - why does he
explain Tum'os first (he does not explain the oaths until
the third Perek)?
(f) Answer: Since there are less laws of Tum'os to teach, he
teaches them first, and then teaches Shevu'os.
(g) The two primary oaths (of Bituy): 'I will eat' or 'I will
1. The two secondary oaths: 'I ate' or 'I did not eat'.
(h) The two primary Yedi'os of Tum'ah (that obligate one to
bring a sacrifice): Knowledge (that he was Tamei) and
forgetting this when he ate Kodesh or entered the
1. The two secondary Yedi'os: (when he knew that he was
Tamei) he forgot that meat was Kodesh and ate it, or
forgot that this was the Mikdash and entered.
(i) The two primary forms of Yetzi'ah of Shabbos: a poor
person (standing in the public domain) sticks his hand in
a house, takes a basket from the owner and takes it
outside; or, the owner sticks out his hand (holding a
basket) from his house, and puts in the poor person's
1. The two secondary Yetzi'os of Shabbos: the poor
person sticks his hand (holding a basket) into the
house, and puts in the owner's hand; or, the owner
sticks his hand out of the house, takes a basket
from the poor person and takes it inside.
(j) The two primary appearances of Tzara'as (on the skin):
Baheres (brightness, white as snow) and S'eis (like white
1. The two secondary appearances: the offshoot of
Baheres (like the plaster of the Heichal) and the
offshoot of S'eis (like the inner membrane of an
(a) Question: Our Mishnah is not like R. Yishmael nor like R.
1. It is not like R. Yishmael - he only obligates
regarding (false) oaths about the future, not for
(b) Answer #1: The Mishnah can be R. Yishmael - one is liable
for some of the four oaths, exempt for others;
2. It is not like R. Akiva - he only obligates for one
who forgot that he was Tamei, not one who forgot the
place of the Mikdash!
(c) Answer #2: The Mishnah can be R. Akiva - one is liable
for some of the four Yedi'os, exempt for others.
(d) Rejection (of both answers): Presumably, all the cases
are similar to appearances of Tzara'as, i.e. one is
liable for all four!
3) LASHES FOR A LAV THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE AN ACTION
(e) Answer #3: Really, the Mishnah is R. Yishmael;
1. R. Yishmael exempts from a sacrifice for a false
oath about the past, but he obligates lashes, like
(f) Question: Why does R. Yishmael obligate lashes for all
2. (Rava): The Torah explicitly teaches that one is
lashed for a false oath like a vain oath:
i. Just as a vain oath is about the past (i.e. it
is not contingent on future events), one is
liable for a false oath about the past.
1. We understand false oaths about the past, i.e.
'(is`) I ate' or 'I did not eat', as Rava taught;
(g) Answer: R. Yishmael holds that one is lashed even for a
Lav that does not involve an action.
2. We also understand (one kind of) false oath about
the future, i.e. 'I will not eat' - he transgresses
by eating, an action;
3. But if he swears 'I will eat' and he does not, why
is he lashed - he did not sin through an action!
(a) Question: If so, R. Yochanan contradicts himself!
1. (R. Yochanan): The Halachah follows an unauthored
Mishnah (the beginning of our Mishnah is
(b) Answer: R. Yochanan does not rule according to our
unauthored Mishnah because another unauthored Mishnah
argues with it.
2. (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): If Reuven swore 'I
will eat this loaf today' and he did not eat it, he
is not lashed;
i. (R. Yochanan): He is not lashed because this
Lav does not involve an action;
ii. (Reish Lakish): He is not lashed because he
cannot receive definite warning (perhaps he
will eat the loaf later), and doubtful warning
(c) Question: What is the other Mishnah?
1. Suggestion (Mishnah): One who leaves over from a
Tahor Pesach sacrifice or breaks a bone of a Tamei
Pesach sacrifice, he is not lashed.
2. We understand why he is exempt for breaking a bone
of a Tamei Pesach - "V'Etzem Lo Sishberu Vo" - we
are commanded only about a Kosher sacrifice, not a
i. Question: Why is he exempt for leaving over?
3. Rejection: There is no necessity to explain that
Mishnah thusly, like R. Yakov - it could be like R.
Yehudah! (He is not lashed because there is an Aseh
after the Lav.)
ii. Suggestion: He is not lashed because this Lav
does not involve an action, one is not lashed
for such a Lav.
i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "You may not leave over
(from the Pesach sacrifice) until morning; you
will burn what is left over" - the Torah gives
a Mitzvas Aseh after the Lav, to exempt from
ii. (R. Yakov): No - one is not lashed because this
Lav is not transgressed through an action,
rather through inaction.