Shevuot 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

this side, And for

shaving the sideburns of

the beard

he is liable for

two

lashes

from here, and two

lashes

from here.

For on each side of the cheeks there are two sideburns that one is forbidden to shave,

and

in addition, he is liable for one more set of lashes

one,

for shaving the lower part of the chin

from below.

Since at the conclusion of tractate Makkot we learned the matter of

one

warning [for shaving

for which he is liable for two

sets of lashes [and even more], therefore,

the tanna

formulated this as a continuation in a similar manner:

There are two oaths that are four,

for one is lashed for a single warning concerning an oath—two, and even four, sets of lashes.

And the Gemara continues to discuss and explain the Mishna:

What is different here,

in tractate Shevuot,

that it teaches all of them

the cases of “two that are four,”

and what is different

in tractate Shabbat,

with regard to the acts of carrying on Shabbat, and

in tractate Nega’im, with regard to

the appearances of afflictions, that it does not teach all of them

the cases of “two that are four”?

They say

to resolve and explain:

Oaths and awarenesses of impurity, which are written alongside one another

in the portion of Leviticus,

and are similar to one another

with regard to the obligation to bring an

offering,

as in both cases one brings

an offering that varies according to his means,

therefore

it teaches them

in our Mishna

alongside one another. And since it taught two,

two matters of “two that are four,”

it taught

also

all of them.

But in tractate Shabbat or in tractate Nega’im, where only one matter of “two that are four” is taught, the tanna did not need to write all of them.

And the Gemara continues to discuss: How is it that

the tanna

of the Mishna

began with “oaths”

“two that are four” without explaining them,

and explains

the second halakha concerning

awarenesses of impurity?

And why did the tanna not first explain the law of oaths for us?

The Gemara answers:

Since their matters are few,

as the matters of awarenesses of impurity are not numerous [as they appear only in two chapters of tractate Shevuot], the tanna preferred in our Mishna

to sever and release them,

to cut off and release his connection with them; that is, to explain the awarenesses of impurity first, so that he would be free to deal with the numerous and lengthy matters of oaths.

And afterward, it teaches

the matters of

oaths, whose matters are numerous.

And now the Gemara explains all the matters of “two that are four” mentioned in our Mishna: a.

There are two oaths that are four—

two

explicitly stated in the Torah: one who swears

“that I will eat, and that I will not eat.” That are four,

with the addition of the two oaths concerning the past that are not explicit—

“I ate, and I did not eat!”

b.

There are two awarenesses of impurity that are four—

two

explicitly stated:

awareness of the impurity of sacrificial food,

where he forgot his impurity and therefore ate sacrificial meat,

and awareness of the impurity of the Temple,

where he forgot his impurity and consequently entered the Temple.

That are four,

with the addition of two that are not explicit:

awareness of sacrificial food,

where he knew that he was impure but forgot that the meat he was eating was sacrificial meat;

awareness of the Temple,

where he knew of his impurity, but did not know that the place he was entering was the Temple.

c.

There are two acts of carrying on Shabbat that are four—

two

explicitly stated:

the carrying out of the poor person,

who extends his hand into the private domain and carries an object from there to his place of standing in the public domain;

and the carrying out of the homeowner,

who is standing in the private domain and carries an object out to the public domain.

That are four,

with the addition of two that are not explicit:

the carrying in of the poor person,

from the public domain to the private domain,

and the carrying in of the homeowner,

who extends his hand into the public domain and carries an object from there into the private domain.

d.

There are two appearances of afflictions that are four—

two

explicitly stated afflictions:

se’et and baheret, which are four,

with the addition of two afflictions that are not explicit and are derived from the word “sapahat,” which alludes to the derivative of se’et and the derivative of baheret. Thus all the appearances of afflictions are four:

se’et and its derivative, baheret and its derivative!

And now the Gemara asks:

Who is the author of our Mishna? Not Rabbi Yishmael

with regard to the laws of oaths,

and not Rabbi Akiva

with regard to the laws of awarenesses of impurity.

If it is Rabbi Yishmael, he says that one is not liable

to bring an offering that varies according to his means

except

for oaths of utterance

concerning the future,

and not concerning the past [and according to his view, the obligations to bring an offering for an oath are only two, not four].

If it is Rabbi Akiva, he says

that only

for forgetting the impurity is he liable

to bring an offering that varies according to his means,

but he is not liable

to bring an offering

for forgetting the Temple

and its sacrificial foods. [And according to his view, the obligations concerning awarenesses of impurity are only two, not four]!?

The Gemara answers:

If you wish, say it is Rabbi Yishmael; if you wish, say it is Rabbi Akiva.

If you wish, say it is Rabbi Yishmael—

this is the meaning of the Mishna: There are two oaths that are four; some of them are

for liability

to bring an offering, such as when one swore concerning the future,

and some of them are for exemption

from bringing an offering, such as when one swore concerning the past.

If you wish, say it is Rabbi Akiva,

as we explained regarding Rabbi Yishmael:

some of them are for liability

for forgetting the impurity,

and some of them are for exemption

for forgetting the Temple and its sacrificial foods.