Shevuot 4a — the Talmud in English

He is liable

for an offering

only

for one oath

alone.

Once he swore concerning the loaf that he would not eat it, it thereby became forbidden to him to eat, and his second oath came to fulfill the mitzva to which he had obligated himself; and one who swears to fulfill a mitzva is exempt from an offering.

And the Mishna adds by saying:

This is the oath of expression

concerning the future

for whose intentional violation one is liable to lashes,

because he swore concerning the future and violated his oath through the act of eating,

and for whose unintentional violation one brings an ascending-and-descending offering.

And we infer from the wording of the Mishna:

“This is

the oath of expression concerning the future

for whose intentional violation one is liable to lashes,”

because he violated his oath through an act.

But

if he swore,

“I will eat

this loaf,”

and he did not eat

it,

he is not lashed,

because he violated his oath without an act. And it is proven that the anonymous Mishna’s tanna held that one is not lashed for a prohibition that does not involve an act.

But it is still difficult:

Granted,

these are

one anonymous [Mishna] and that is another anonymous [Mishna],

and if so,

what did Rabbi Yohanan see

that

he acted in accordance with this anonymous [Mishna]? Let him act in accordance with that anonymous [Mishna]!

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning,

you should raise a difficulty against

Rabbi,

the arranger of the Mishna,

himself—

how did he formulate one anonymous [Mishna] this way here and another anonymous [Mishna] that way there?

Rather,

the words of Rabbi are to be explained as follows:

At first Rabbi held

that

one is lashed for a prohibition that does not involve an act,

and therefore he

formulated it anonymously

in this manner in the Mishna at the beginning of the tractate.

And afterward he held

that

one is not lashed for it, and he formulated it anonymously

[in the Mishna below, on page 27b].

And the first Mishna,

even though Rabbi retracted from it,

did not move from its place.

That is to say: After the Mishna had been taught to the students and had spread among them, the later generations no longer had the ability to annul it. And the Sages left both Mishnayot in their places, while the discerning person will understand that the later Mishna is the principal one, and that the halakha is that Rabbi retracted from the first one. Therefore Rabbi Yohanan ruled in accordance with the later Mishna, since Rabbi too retracted and taught it as the halakha, as the later Mishna.

But it is still necessary to raise a difficulty:

How did you establish the Mishna

of “two that are four”

in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael,

and our Mishna speaks not of liabilities for offerings but of liabilities for

lashes,

and Rabbi Ishmael holds that one is lashed for a prohibition that does not involve an act? If so, a difficulty arises: How can we establish the law of

the appearances of lesions

of “two that are four” as referring to liability for lashes? After all,

what lashes are there

for lesions? [But if we establish our Mishna as referring to the law of an offering, it is well, since the person afflicted with leprosy brings an offering for his purification].

And we answer:

It is referring to one who cuts off his lesion. And it is in accordance with Rabbi Avin who said in the name of Rabbi Ila’a. For Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ila’a: Everywhere that the Torah says “take heed,” “lest,” or “do not,” it is only a prohibition,

and concerning lesions it says, “Take heed concerning the lesion of leprosy,” and one is liable to lashes for cutting them off.

Therefore the intent of the words of the Mishna, “The appearances of lesions are two that are four,” is to teach us that for the four types of lesions—se’et and its derivative, and baheret and its derivative—one is liable to lashes for cutting them off.

But it is still difficult: This works with regard to the appearances of lesions, which can be established as referring to intentional violation and to lashes. But concerning that which we learned:

The transfers of Shabbat

are two that are four,

what lashes are there?

After all, the labor of transferring is

a prohibition for which a warning of execution by

the court

is given, and for every prohibition for which a warning of execution by the court is given, one is not lashed? [The reason that one is not lashed for it is that for such a prohibition the punishment of execution is stated, while the punishment of lashes is not stated for it].

And we answer:

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

For this reason I establish

the Mishna

in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael, who says: A prohibition for which a warning of execution by the court is given

is nevertheless

one is lashed for it,

and it is properly stated that one is liable for two that are four lashes in the transfers of Shabbat.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against the wording of the answer, “For this reason I establish it in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael,” which implies:

If not for this,

were it not for the difficulty concerning imposing lashes for the labor of transferring,

our Mishna would stand

properly

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

Yet above

there is a difficulty

for us concerning the law of

knowledge

of impurity according to Rabbi Akiva, who obligates only for lack of awareness of the impurity and not for lack of awareness of the Sanctuary and its sacred things; according to him, one is liable for only two and not four?!

And the Gemara answers: Now, after we established above the law of the Mishna concerning knowledge of impurity as referring to intentional violation and to lashes, it would have been possible to establish the Mishna in the same manner also according to Rabbi Akiva:

Is it not so that

you

said

that our Mishna, which says “knowledge of impurity is two that are four,”

is Rabbi Ishmael, and [it refers] to lashes?

If so,

Rabbi Akiva too

it is possible to establish our Mishna in accordance with him,

and [it refers] to lashes.

[And, to the contrary, it is preferable to establish it in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, because an anonymous Mishna is Rabbi Meir, and he received it from Rabbi Akiva]. Therefore it is properly stated that only because the law of lashes for transferring on Shabbat is difficult for him did we establish our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael; but were it not for this, it would properly be established in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, and [it would refer] to lashes.

But it is still difficult: How is it possible to establish the law of knowledge of impurity as referring to intentional violation and to lashes? For a difficulty arises:

If so,

does

“knowledge”

of impurity indeed obligate one for two that are four? After all,

“warnings”

of impurity

it should have been necessary for him

for the tanna to say?

And the Gemara attempts to resolve this by proposing a new version of the Mishna:

This is not difficult. Teach: “Knowledge of warnings.”

But the Gemara returns and rejects this, for the new version will not help us either:

If so,

since our Mishna speaks of intentional violation, how can there be at all

two that are four?

After all, only

two

lashes

there are—for a warning not to eat sacrificial meat, and for a warning not to enter the Sanctuary in a state of impurity—and there is no more!

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty: How can the Mishna be established as referring to intentional violation? After all, the Mishna explicitly says

“one in which there is knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end, with lack of awareness in between.”

And if it is speaking of intentional violation,

what business does “lack of awareness” have with lashes?!

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty: It is explained in the Mishna:

This is

with an offering

of ascending and descending.

But in the case of intentional violation, there is no liability for an offering, only for lashes?!

Rather, Rav Yosef said,

our Mishna does not come entirely neither in accordance with Rabbi Akiva nor in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael; rather, it is the method of

Rabbi.

And it speaks of an offering and not of lashes.

And Rabbi adopted it in accordance with the tannaim,

for he wrote the Mishna according to differing methods—

With regard to knowledge

of impurity,

he adopted it in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael,

and obligates an offering both for lack of awareness of the Sanctuary and its sacred things and for lack of awareness of impurity. Whereas

with regard to oaths he adopted it in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

who obligates an offering both for the future and for the past.

And according to the words of Rav Yosef, the Mishna should be read as follows:

Oaths, according to Rabbi Akiva, are two that are four.

Knowledge of impurity, according to Rabbi Ishmael, is two that are four!

Rav Ashi said: I stated the teaching

of Rav Yosef

before Rav Kahana,

according to the version that Rabbi Akiva is the one who obligates with regard to oaths, and Rabbi Ishmael is the one who obligates with regard to knowledge of impurity.

And he said to me,

Rav Kahana:

Do not say: Rabbi adopted it in accordance with the tannaim, but he himself did not hold accordingly.

Do not err to say that Rav Yosef said to read into the Mishna the names of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael because thereby it is implied that Rabbi merely brought their words but did not rule in accordance with them.

Rather, Rabbi explained his own reasoning,

for he himself holds, for his own reason, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva with regard to oaths and in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael with regard to knowledge of impurity.

For it was taught: From where [do we know] that he is not liable

for an offering for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things

except

for impurity

in which there is knowledge at the beginning,

that he became impure,

and knowledge at the end,

that he learned that while in his impurity he ate sacred meat or entered the Sanctuary,

and lack of awareness

of the impurity

in between,

at the time that he entered or ate?

The verse states: “And it was hidden,” “and it was hidden,” twice; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. [The two verses are written]:

“And it was hidden from him, and he was impure,” and “And it was hidden from him, and he knew.” And Rabbi Akiva expounded: From here [we learn] that before his lack of awareness there must be knowledge, and also after the lack of awareness; for if he did not know that he had sinned, how would he bring an offering?].