Parallel
שבועות 4
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
he is guilty of transgressing only one oath: this is the ‘useless oath’ for which the punishment of lashes is inflicted for wilful transgression, and the sliding-scale sacrifice for unwitting transgression. This is the oath for which the punishment of lashes is inflicted for wilful transgression, but in the case: ‘I swear I shall eat,’ and he did not eat, [we may deduce] he would not receive lashes. [Presumably because the transgression involves no action, and this anonymous Mishnah would be the one with which R. Johanan agrees.] Now, well! This Mishnah is anonymous, and our Mishnah is anonymous; why does R. Johanan prefer the ruling of this Mishnah rather than of ours? But [might it not be asked as a counter-question] even according to your argument, how can Rabbi himself agree with both? — At first, Rabbi held that a negative precept not involving action is punishable by lashes, and, therefore, stated the ruling of our Mishnah anonymously; afterwards, he held it is not so punishable, and stated the ruling of the second Mishnah anonymously, and [though he had changed his view] he allowed the first Mishnah to stand also. You have explained our Mishnah as being in accordance with R. Ishmael's view, and as referring to lashes for wilful transgression: if so, what lashes can there be in connection with the shades of leprosy? — There are lashes in the case where one cuts off his leprous spot; and as R. Abin said in the name of R. Ila'a; for R. Abin said in the name of R. Ila'a: Whenever there occur in Holy Writ the expressions ‘take heed’, ‘lest’, or ‘do not’, they are negative precepts. In connection with carrying on the Sabbath what lashes can there be? Is it not a negative precept which requires the warning that its violation is punishable by death: and every such negative precept is not punishable by lashes? — For this very reason we have explained the Mishnah as being in accordance with R. Ishmael's view, who holds that a negative precept requiring the death warning is [if the lashes warning be given] punishable by lashes. But, were it not for this, would it have been possible to explain the Mishnah as being in accordance with R. Akiba's view? [Surely not! For] has it not been shown that the laws of uncleanness in our Mishnah are not in accordance with his views? — But did you not say that even according to R. Ishmael, the Mishnah would have to be interpreted as referring to wilful transgressions involving the punishment of lashes; and, if so [were it not for the fact that R. Akiba holds that a negative precept requiring the death warning is not punishable by lashes, even if the lashes warning be given], we could just as easily have explained the Mishnah as being in accordance with R. Akiba's view, and as referring to lashes. If so, the phrase THE DISCOVERY OF HAVING SINNED THROUGH UNCLEANNESS [implying unconscious sinning] is inappropriate; the appropriate expression would be ‘warnings against sinning through uncleanness’? — This question need cause no difficulty: the Tanna means ‘the laws concerning the knowledge of the warnings against sinning’ . . . If so, how can there be TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR? There are only two! Further, WHERE THERE IS KNOWLEDGE AT THE BEGINNING AND AT THE END, BUT FORGETFULNESS BETWEEN . . . How can there be forgetfulness, if the Mishnah is referring to wilful transgression and lashes? Further, A ‘SLIDING SCALE’ SACRIFICE IS BROUGHT [obviously refers to wilful transgression]? — Hence, said R. Joseph, we must conclude that the Tanna of the Mishnah is Rabbi himself, who [as editor] incorporates the views of both Tannaim; for the laws of uncleanness he gives the view of R. Ishmael, and for the laws of oaths he gives the view of R. Akiba [the Mishnah referring accordingly to unwitting transgression]. Said R. Ashi: I repeated this statement [of R. Joseph's] to R. Kahana; and he said to me: Do not think that [R. Joseph meant that] Rabbi simply incorporated in the Mishnah the views of both Tannaim, he himself not agreeing; but the fact is that Rabbi himself, for a sufficiently good reason, agrees [with R. Ishmael in the laws of uncleanness and with R. Akiba in the laws of oaths]. For it is taught: Whence do we deduce that one is not liable [to bring a sacrifice] except when there is knowledge at the beginning and at the end and forgetfulness between? Scripture records: It was hidden from him — twice. This is the opinion of R. Akiba. Rabbi said: This deduction is not necessary. Scripture says:
—
it was hidden from him [i.e., forgotten], therefore, it must have been known to him at the beginning; then Scripture says: and he knows of it [i.e., at the end], hence, knowledge is essential both at the beginning and at the end. If so, why does Scripture say: it was hidden from him — twice? — In order to make him liable both in the case of forgetfulness of the uncleanness, and in the case of forgetfulness of the Temple or holy food. Concerning the laws of uncleanness, then, Rabbi has his own reason; but concerning oaths, where we do not find that he gives a reason of his own, how do we know [that he holds OATHS ARE TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR]? — It is a reasonable assumption; for, what is R. Akiba's reason for including oaths in the past tense for liability? — Because he expounds ‘amplifications and limitations’! We find that Rabbi also expounds ‘amplifications and limitations’. For it is taught: Rabbi said: The first-born of man may be redeemed by all things except bonds; but the Rabbis said: The first-born of man may be redeemed by all things except slaves, bonds, and lands. What is Rabbi's reason? — He expounds [the verse in accordance with the principle of] ‘amplifications and limitations’: And those that are to be redeemed from a month old — the verse amplifies; according to thy valuation, five shekels of silver — the verse limits; shalt thou redeem — the verse again amplifies; since it amplifies, limits, and amplifies, it includes everything, and excludes only bonds. But the Rabbis expound [the verse in accordance with the principle of] ‘generalisations and specifications’: And those that are to be redeemed from a month old — the verse generalises; according to thy valuation, five shekels of silver — the verse specifies; shalt thou redeem — the verse again generalises; since it generalises, specifies, and generalises, you must include in the ‘generalisation’ only those things which are similar to the ‘specification’: just as the specification is clearly movable and of intrinsic value, so all things which are movable and of intrinsic value [may be used for redeeming the first-born]; but you must exclude lands, which are not movable, and slaves, which have been likened to lands, and bonds, which, though they are movable, are not of intrinsic value. [Hence, since Rabbi expounds ‘amplifications and limitations’, he agrees with R. Akiba.] Rabina said to Amemar: Does Rabbi really expound ‘amplifications and limitations’? Surely, Rabbi expounds ‘generalisations and specifications’! For it is taught: [Then thou shalt take] an awl . . . Hence I deduce that an awl may be used; whence do I deduce also a sharp wooden prick, thorn, needle, borer, or stylus? — It is said: Thou shalt take — anything that may be taken by hand. This is the opinion of R. Jose, son of R. Judah. Rabbi said: and awl — just as an awl is of metal, so only those things which are of metal [may be used]. And we explained the reason for their argument thus: Rabbi expounds ‘generalisations and specifications’, and R. Jose son of R. Judah expounds
—