ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 4
(a) Having established 'Shevu'os' by Malkos, we can assume that the entire
Mishnah speaks by Malkos. Based on the Pasuk "Hishamer be'Nega Tzara'as",
Malkos will apply to 'Mar'os Nega'im' - if one cuts off the affected spot.
(b) We learn this from the principle stated by Rebbi Avin ... Amar Rebbi
Yochanan - 'Kol Makom she'Ne'emar "Hishamer", "Pen" "ve'Al", Eino Ela Lo
(c) The problem with establishing the source of Malkos by 'Yetzi'as
ha'Shabbos' as "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah" is - that this a 'La'av she'Nitan
le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din' (the La'av acts as a warning for Misah, and
cannot therefore be used for Malkos, in the way that regular La'avin are).
(d) A reminder that the author of our Mishnah is currently Rebbi Yishmael
will solve the problem however - because Rebbi Yishmael holds 'La'av
she'Nitan le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din, Lokin Alav' (as we learned in Makos).
(a) Bearing in mind that, according to Rebbi Yishmael, we just established
our Mishnah by Malkos, the problem this create with the earlier statement
that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Akiva, because he holds that
one is not Chayav a Korban on 'He'elam Mikdash' is - why can we not
establish the Mishnah by Malkos according to him too, by changing 'Yedi'os
ha'Tum'ah' to 'Hasra'os di'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' (which we anyway need to do,
even according to Rebbi Yishmael).
(b) We would prefer to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva if we could -
because, as we have learned many times, Rebbi Akiva is 'the father' of all
S'tam Mishnahs and major S'tam Beraisos.
(c) The problem with 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' is - that this implies Shogeg,
whereas for Malkos, the Tana ought to have stated 'Hasra'os Yedi'as
(d) We try to solve the problem - by amending our Mishnah accordingly.
(a) The problem this amendment now creates regarding the Lashon ...
1. ... 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' is - that in fact, there are only two cases
(and not four), since for Hasra'os (for Malkos), the sinner needs to be
aware of both Tum'ah and Mikdash.
(b) The third problem with the continuation of the Mishnah is - the
statement 'Harei Zeh be'Olah ve'Yored', which dismisses our current
interpretation of the Mishnah outright.
2. ... 'es she'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ve'He'elam be'Emtza' is -
that if there is a He'elam, then the sinner cannot receive Malkos.
(c) We finally establish Rebbi as the author of our Mishnah - and he
establishes 'Shevu'os' like Rebbi Akiva, and 'Yedi'os' like Rebbi Yishmael
(thereby eliminating our original Kashya (that 'Shevu'os' does not go like
Rebbi Yishmael, nor 'Yedi'os', like Rebbi Akiva).
(d) When Rav Ashi told Rav Kahana Rav Yosef's conclusion - the latter added
that one should not think that Rebbi learned the Mishnah this way only in
order to establish it, but that in fact, this is how he rules.
(a) To prove his point, Rav Kahana cites a Beraisa, which discusses the two
Pesukim "Ve'ne'elam Mimenu ve'Hu Tamei" and "Ve'ne'elam Mimenu ve'Hu Yada".
1. ... the first Pasuk Rebbi Akiva learns - that one is only Chayav a Korban
Oleh ve'Yored for He'elam Tum'ah, but not for He'elam Mikdash.
(b) Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Akiva's second D'rashah. He considers the
second Pasuk unnecessary to teach us that - since it is obvious to him that
once there has been a Ha'alamah, there must also be a second Yedi'ah.
Otherwise, why would the sinner bring a Korban?
2. ... the second Pasuk, he learns - that one requires a Ha'alamah between
two Yedi'os in order to be Chayav.
(c) He therefore learns from it - that one is Chayav for He'elam Mikdash
too, a proof that he holds like Rebbi Yishmael.
(a) By the same token, we assume that Rebbi holds like Rebbi Akiva with
regard to 'Shevu'os le'she'Avar'. The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi
Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael whether to include 'Shevu'os le'she'Avar' or not
is - whether we Darshen the Torah by means of 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' (Rebbi
Yishmael) or 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' (Rebbi Akiva).
(b) Had the Torah just written "O Nefesh Ki Sishava Levatei bi'Sefasayim
Le'hara O Le'heitiv" - Rebbi Akiva would have included whatever is similar
to the P'rat ("Le'hara O Le'heitiv").
(c) From the second Ribuy ("le'Chol Asher Yevatei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah") - he
now includes Shevu'os le'sha'Avar.
(d) Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the last K'lal to include whatever is similar to
"Le'hara O Le'heitiv" (but only in the future, like "Le'hara O Le'heitiv") .
Had the Torah only written "O Nefesh Ki Sishava Levatei bi'Sefasayim Le'hara
O Le'heitiv" - he would have precluded anything that is not 'Le'hara O
Le'heitiv', as well as any Shevu'ah in the past.
(a) Bearing in mind that Rebbi holds like Rebbi Akiva with regard to 'Ribuy,
Miy'ut ve'Ribuy', he Darshens ...
1. ... the Miy'ut ve'Ribuy in the Pasuk " ... be'Erk'cha Kesef Chameishes
Shekalim ... Tifdeh" - to include everything.
(b) The Rabbanan Darshen the Pasuk (in the form of a 'K'lal u'P'rat
u'K'lal') - to preclude from "be'Erk'cha Kesef Chameishes Shekalim" whatever
is not similar to money ...
2. ... the first Ribuy "u'Feduyav mi'ben Chodesh" - to preclude Sh'taros
(which have no intrinsic purchasing power).
(c) ... incorporating 'Karka' (which cannot be transported), Avadim, who are
compared to Karka, and Sh'taros, which have no intrinsic value (as we just
(a) In similar vein, the Pasuk "Ve'lakachta ... es ha'Martze'a ... Ve'nasata
be'Ozno" lends itself to the above two interpretations.
1. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah includes a sharp piece of wood, a thorn,
a needle, an awl and a style - from the 'Ribuy' of "Ve'lakachta".
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah precludes from "Martze'a" - things like
ointment, which do not pierce by means of a drilling action.
2. ... Rebbi precludes anything that is not metal - from the 'K'lal u'P'rat
u'K'lal' (since an awl in biblical times was made of wood).
(c) We will reconcile the fact that Rebbi Darshens 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal'
as we just concluded, with ...
1. ... the previous Beraisa, where he Darshened "u'Feduyav mi'ben Chodesh
Tifdeh, be'Erk'cha Kesef Chameishes Shekalim" as a 'Ribuy, Miy'ut
ve'Ribuy' - by citing Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who learns that whenever
the two K'lalim are next to each other (like they are here 1. "u'Feduyav
mi'ben Chodesh 2. Tifdeh", then they are transformed from a 'K'lal u'P'rat
u'Klal' into a 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy'.
(d) Ravina informs us that the Rabbanan who argue with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael interpret two K'lalim that are next to each other - as an ordinary 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal (like they said in Eretz Yisrael - that).
2. ... Rebbi himself, who established 'Shevu'os in our Mishnah like Rebbi
Akiva, only because he Darshens 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' - by modifying Rav
Kahana's statement, confining it to 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' where Rebbi holds
like Rebbi Yishmael. He does not however, hold like Rebbi Akiva as regards
'Shevu'os', even though he establishes our Mishnah like him.