Shevuot 5a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda expounds ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

extensions and limitations,

and therefore he extends to every matter, and limits only the piercing with a drug.

And by virtue of this explicit proof from the beraita, the Gemara retracts its explanation that Rabbi expounds extensions and limitations, and says:

No,

indeed,

in general, Rabbi expounds generalizations and particulars,

and not extensions and limitations.

But here,

in the redemption of the firstborn,

this is the reason

that Rabbi expounds by means of extensions and limitations: because here it is impossible to learn by means of generalizations and particulars, since the particular was not written between the two generalizations; rather, the generalizations were written at the beginning, and only afterward the particulars. And in such a case Rabbi holds

in accordance with what was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael,

that one learns by means of a generalization and a particular only when there is an extension and a limitation.

For it was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael:

It is stated in the portion of Shemini [Leviticus 11]: “These you shall eat from all that is

in the waters:

whatever has fins and scales

in the waters,

in the seas and in the streams, them you shall eat.”

Twice.

And from the fact that “in the waters” is written twice, and only afterward “in the seas and in the streams” is stated, it is proven that

this is not a generalization and a particular, but rather an extension and a limitation.

Because two generalizations followed by a particular are expounded by means of a generalization and a particular only as an extension and a limitation, because we say: place the limitation of “in the seas and in the streams” between the two extensions of “in the waters” [but with a generalization and a particular, we do not say: place the particular that comes after the generalizations between them].

And we raise a difficulty:

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi concerning the redemption of the firstborn and learn by means of generalizations and particulars—how did they learn in this manner? But the two generalizations preceded the particular?

Ravina said:

The Rabbis have

in accordance with what they say in the West: Wherever you find two generalizations adjacent to one another

and the particular follows them,

place the particular between them and expound them as a generalization and a particular

[and a generalization].

And the Gemara concludes explaining Rabbi’s method in our Mishna:

Now that you have said that Rabbi—

expounds generalizations and particulars, you are forced to say that the oaths are difficult!

For if one learns by means of a generalization and a particular and not by means of extensions and limitations, he is liable only for two concerning the future, analogous to the particular [to do harm or to do good]; and why did Rabbi write in the Mishna: “Oaths are two that are four”?

Rather,

necessarily,

with regard to oaths, he posited

that they are two that are four

according to Rabbi Akiva,

[who expounds extensions and limitations].

But as for him, he does not hold so,

for he himself expounds generalizations and particulars!

The body of the matter: From where is it known that he is liable

for an ascending-and-descending offering for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things

only for

impurity

in which there is knowledge at the beginning, and knowledge at the end, and unawareness in between?—

Scripture says [

Leviticus 5 ]:

“And it was hidden” “and it was hidden,” twice; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi says: He does not need it! For it says, “And it was hidden,” indicating that he knew at the beginning,

and it is also written

“and he knew”; here there are two acts of knowledge.

One at the beginning and one at the end.

If so, what does “and it was hidden” “and it was hidden” teach?—

To make him liable

also

for unawareness of the impurity,

and also

for unawareness of the Temple.

The master said: “And it was hidden”—

indicating that he knew.

And the Gemara analyzes:

What does this indicate?

From where do we know this? For it is possible that the meaning of “and it was hidden” is that he did not know at all?

Rava said: Since it is not written, “and it was concealed from him,”

which is an expression of complete unawareness, even at the beginning.

Abaye said

to Rava:

But if that is so, concerning a sota, of whom it is written [

Numbers 5 ],

“And it was hidden from the eyes of her husband,”

we should also say:

indicating that he knew previously,

that the husband initially knew that she had secluded herself or committed adultery, but afterward it became hidden from him. But this matter is impossible, for

if he knew, who caused the water to test her? For it was taught: “And the man shall be clear of iniquity

and that woman shall bear her iniquity”: When the man is clear of iniquity, the water tests his wife; if the man is not clear of iniquity—

the water does not test his wife.

For if he forgot that she had secluded herself or committed adultery, then presumably he had intercourse with her, and it follows that he is not clear of iniquity, because after she secluded herself or committed adultery she is forbidden to him.

And further, concerning the Torah, of which it is written [

in the Book of Job 28 ]

“It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing, and concealed from the birds of the sky,”

according to your words, one should say:

indicating that there is someone who had known it. But it is written—

“Man does not know its value”!?

Rather, Abaye said: Rabbi holds that knowledge from one’s teacher’s house is considered knowledge.

That is, there is no person who did not read this verse in his teacher’s house, in school, and know that one who touches impurity becomes impure; it is only that now the knowledge that he is impure has become hidden from him, because he did not pay attention that this touch renders him impure. And according to Rabbi, knowledge from one’s teacher’s house is considered knowledge at the beginning, followed by unawareness.

Rav Pappa said

to Abaye:

But that which is taught

in the Mishna:

“There is no knowledge of it at the beginning, but there is knowledge of it at the end

—the goat that is performed outside and Yom Kippur atones,”

is there anyone who does not have knowledge from his teacher’s house,

and if so, for whom does this offering come to atone?

He said to him

Abaye:

No! You can find it in the case of a child who was captured among the gentiles,

who does not even have knowledge from his teacher’s house. And for him the external goat, together with Yom Kippur, atones.

We learned in the Mishna:

The acts of taking out on Shabbat are two that are four.

We learned there,

at the beginning of tractate Shabbat:

The acts of taking out on Shabbat are two that are four inside, and two that are four outside!

And we discussed it:

What is different here, that it taught two that are four, and no more? And what is different there, that it taught two that are four inside, and two that are four outside?

And we answer:

There, since it is the principal subject of Shabbat, it taught primary categories

[which are the acts of taking out, of the poor person and of the homeowner, since taking out is explicit in the Torah]

and derivatives

[which are the acts of bringing in, which are not explicit in the Torah]. But

here, since it is not the principal subject of Shabbat, it taught primary categories, but it did not teach derivatives.

But the Gemara rejects this answer, for it is impossible to say that here only primary categories were taught, since

the primary categories—what are they?—

the acts of taking out.

But

the acts of taking out are two!

One for one standing inside, and one for one standing outside; and how, then, did we learn that there are four for which one is liable?

And if you would say

that all four are not acts for which one is liable, but rather

some of them are for liability and some of them are for exemption

[such as when he merely uprooted and did not place down, or placed down and did not uproot],

but it was taught analogous to the appearances of afflictions: Just as there, all of them are for liability, so too here, all of them are for liability!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said: There, since it is the principal subject of Shabbat, it taught acts of liability and acts of exemption. Here, it taught acts of liability, but it did not teach acts of exemption.

But his answer is still not clear:

The acts of liability—what are they?—

The acts of taking out. And the acts of taking out—are they only two!?

And the Gemara answers: Rav Pappa intended to say that the four acts for which one is liable in the Mishna from the Torah are—

two of taking out and two of bringing in.

But there is still a difficulty with Rav Pappa’s answer:

But it teaches “acts of taking out,”

whereas Rav Pappa also counts two acts of bringing in!?

Rav Ashi said,

to explain Rav Pappa’s answer:

It taught—

it also calls bringing in “taking out”!