שבועות 3 — parallel

3:1

and for shaving the beard, five times, twice for each cheek, and once for the point of the chin. Since he has been discussing a single prohibition involving two punishments, he continues with OATHS ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR. Why did the Tanna enumerate all the instances of ‘two, subdivided into four’ only in this treatise, and not in the treatise Shabbath, when discussing the laws of carrying, nor in the treatise Nega'im, when discussing the shades of leprous affections? — I will tell you: The laws of oaths and uncleanness are mentioned together in the Bible, and are akin to each other in that their transgressor brings a ‘sliding-scale’ sacrifice; the Tanna therefore mentions them together here, and, having mentioned these two, he includes the rest also. Having begun with the laws of oaths, why does the Tanna proceed to explain the laws of uncleanness first? Because the laws of uncleanness are few he disposes of them first; then he proceeds to explain the laws of oaths which are more numerous. OATHS ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR. TWO: I shall eat; I shall not eat. SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR: I have eaten; I have not eaten. THE LAWS CONCERNING THE DISCOVERY OF HAVING [UNCONSCIOUSLY] SINNED THROUGH UNCLEANNESS ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR. TWO: The discovery of having been unclean and partaken of holy food; and the discovery of having been unclean and entered the Temple [the uncleanness having been forgotten in both cases]. Subdivided INTO FOUR: The discovery that it was holy food he had eaten while being unclean [having forgotten that it was holy during the eating of it]; and the discovery that it was the Temple he had entered while being unclean [having forgotten it was the Temple at the time of entering]. THE LAWS CONCERNING CARRYING ON THE SABBATH ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR. TWO: The carrying out by the poor man; and the carrying out by the householder. SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR: The bringing in by the poor man; and the bringing in by the householder. THE SHADES OF LEPROUS AFFECTIONS ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR. TWO: Se'eth and Bahereth. SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR: The derivative of Se'eth, and the derivative of Bahereth. Who is the Tanna of our Mishnah? — It is neither R. Ishmael nor R. Akiba! It is not R. Ishmael, for he states: He is guilty only when the oath is in the future tense. And it is not R. Akiba, for he states: He is guilty only in the cases where he forgets his uncleanness [while eating holy food or entering the Temple], but not in the cases where he forgets that it is the Temple he is entering [or that the food is holy while he is unclean]. If you wish, I can say the Tanna of our Mishnah is R. Ishmael, or, if you prefer, I can say it is R. Akiba. It may be R. Ishmael. [Of the four kinds of oaths mentioned, not all are equally serious; but] two incur punishment, and the other two do not. Or, it may be R. Akiba. Two [of the cases of transgression through uncleanness] incur punishment, and two do not. In some cases there is no punishment?

—

3:2

But does not the Tanna mention them together with the laws concerning the shades of leprosy: just as in these laws all four shades make him unclean, necessitating a sacrifice, so here [in the case of oaths and uncleanness] all must be equal, necessitating a sacrifice? — Verily, the Tanna is R. Ishmael; and though in the case of oaths R. Ishmael excludes the past tense, it is only to free the transgressor from bringing a sacrifice [if he transgresses unwittingly], but not to free him from lashes [if he transgresses wilfully]. And this will be in accordance with Raba's dictum, for Raba said: Clearly did the Torah state that a false oath is like a vain oath [for lashes]; just as a vain oath which is necessarily in the past [being untrue the moment it is uttered, is attended by the penalty of lashes], so is a false oath in the past [attended by the penalty of lashes]. Granted in the case of the oaths, ‘I have eaten,’ ‘I have not eaten,’ [he is guilty and receives the lashes, if they are false], as Raba says. Also, in the case of ‘I shall not eat,’ and he ate, he is guilty [and receives lashes], for he has transgressed a negative precept involving action; but in the case of ‘I shall eat,’ and he did not eat, why should he receive lashes, since the transgression is of a negative precept involving no action? [Where then are the four kinds of punishable oaths?] — R. Ishmael holds that the violation of a negative precept not involving action is also punishable by lashes. If so, R. Johanan contradicts himself; for R. Johanan said: The rule is in accordance with the anonymous Mishnah; and yet we find it stated: ‘I swear I shall eat this loaf today,’ and the day passed, and he did not eat it; R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both say he does not receive lashes, R. Johanan's reason for his opinion being because it is a negative precept not involving action, and the transgression of a negative precept involving no action is not liable to lashes; and Resh Lakish's reason being because it is an ‘uncertain warning’, and an uncertain warning is not a warning — R. Johanan found another anonymous Mishnah [which agrees with his view] Which one? Is it the following anonymous Mishnah? For we learnt: ‘But he who leaves over a portion of even a ritually clean paschal lamb; or breaks the bone of an unclean paschal lamb, does not receive the forty lashes.’ Granted that he who breaks the bone of an unclean paschal lamb does not receive lashes, because it is written: Ye shall not break a bone thereof — of a ritually clean and not of a disqualified paschal lamb. But he who leaves over a portion of a clean paschal lamb — why should he be exempt, unless it be because he is transgressing a negative precept not involving action, and a negative precept not involving action is not liable to punishment? [This, then, is the anonymous Mishnah with which R. Johanan agrees.] But how do you know that this Mishnah is reflecting the view of R. Jacob, who holds that the violation of a negative precept involving no action is not punishable by lashes? Perhaps it is reflecting the view of R. Judah [b. Ila'i], who holds that this transgression is not punishable by lashes, because Scripture has come to appoint a positive precept to follow the negative precept, but otherwise it would be punishable by lashes. For it is taught: Ye shall let nothing remain until the morning; but that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire: Scripture has come to appoint the positive precept to follow the negative precept to teach us that this negative precept is not punishable by lashes, — this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Jacob says, this is not the reason; but rather because it is a negative precept not involving action, and the disregard of a negative precept not involving action is not punishable by lashes. But he found the following anonymous Mishnah: ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf, I swear I shall not eat it;’ and he ate it,

—