Shevuot 3a — the Talmud in English

And for

shaving the corners 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 corners that it is forbidden to shave,

and

in addition, he is liable for one more lash

one,

for shaving the corner of the chin

from below.

And since at the conclusion of tractate Makkot we learned a matter of

one

warning [of shaving]

for which he is liable for two

lashes [and even more], therefore

the tan[nay]

taught as a continuation, similarly to it—

Oaths: two that are four,

for he receives lashes for one warning concerning an oath—two, and even four, lashes.

And the Gemara continues to discuss and explain the Mishna:

What is different here,

in tractate Shevuot,

that it taught all of them

the matters of “two that are four,”

and what is different

in tractate Shabbat,

concerning the Shabbat departures, and

in tractate Nega’im, concerning

“the appearances of afflictions,” that it did not teach all of them

the matters of “two that are four”?

They said,

to answer and explain:

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

in the portion of Leviticus,

and resemble one another

in the obligation of

an offering,

for in both of them he brings an offering

of ascending and descending,

therefore

it taught 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” was taught, the tan[nay] did not need to write all of them.

And the Gemara continues to discuss: how did

the tan[nay] begin

of the Mishna

with “Oaths

two that are four” without explaining them,

and explain

the second halakha of

awarenesses of impurity?

And why did the tan[nay] not explain for us the law of the oath first?

And the Gemara answers:

since their matters are few,

since the matters of awarenesses of impurity are not many [for they are only in two chapters of tractate Shevuot], the tan[nay] preferred in our Mishna

to cut them off and release them,

to sever and release its connection with them. That is, to precede the explanation of awarenesses of impurity, in order to be free to deal with the numerous and lengthy matters of oaths.

And afterward, it taught

the matters of

oaths, for their matters are many.

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

Oaths: two that are four—

two

explicit 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 that I did not eat!”

b.

Awarenesses of impurity: two that are four—

two

explicit:

awareness of the impurity of sacred things,

for he forgot his impurity, and therefore ate sacred meat,

and awareness of the impurity of the Sanctuary,

for he forgot his impurity and therefore entered the Sanctuary.

That are four,

with the addition of two that are not explicit:

awareness of sacred things,

for he knew that he was impure, but forgot that the meat he was eating was sacred meat.

Awareness of the Sanctuary,

for he knew of his impurity, but did not know that the place into which he was entering was the place of the Sanctuary.

c.

The Shabbat departures: two that are four—

two

explicit:

the departure of the poor person,

who extends his hand into the private domain and takes out into it, to the place where he is standing in the public domain.

And the departure of the homeowner,

who is standing in the private domain and takes out into the public domain.

That are four,

with the addition of two that are not explicit:

the insertion of the poor person,

from the public domain into the private domain,

and the insertion of the homeowner,

who extends his hand into the public domain and brings it into the private domain.

d.

The appearances of afflictions: two that are four—

two

explicit afflictions:

se’et and baheret, that are four,

with the addition of two afflictions that are not explicit and that are derived from the word “sapahat,” which hints at the offshoot of se’et and the offshoot of baheret. And all the appearances of afflictions are found to be four:

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

And now the Gemara wonders:

Whose is the Mishna? Not Rabbi Ishmael

in the law of oaths,

and not Rabbi Akiva

in the laws of awarenesses of impurity.

If it is Rabbi Ishmael, he said: he is liable

for an offering of ascending and descending

only

for oaths of expression

concerning the future,

and not for the past [and it follows according to his words that the obligations of an oath offering are only two and not four].

If it is Rabbi Akiva, he said

that only

for forgetting impurity is he liable

for an offering of ascending and descending,

and he is not liable

for an offering

for forgetting the Sanctuary

and its sacred things. [And it follows according to his words that the obligations of awarenesses of impurity are only two and not four]!?

And the Gemara answers:

If you wish, say: Rabbi Ishmael; if you wish, say: Rabbi Akiva.

If you wish, say: Rabbi Ishmael—

this is the explanation of the Mishna: “Oaths: two that are four”—there are

some of them for liability

for an offering, such as when he swore concerning the future,

and there are some of them for exemption

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

If you wish, say: Rabbi Akiva,

and as we answered for Rabbi Ishmael—

some of them for liability

for forgetting impurity,

and some of them for exemption

for forgetting the Sanctuary and its sacred things.