Shevuot

‘amplifications and limitations’.1 True, elsewhere he expounds ‘generalisations and specifications’, but here [in connection with the redemption of the first-born he expounds ‘amplifications and limitations’, and] his reason is that which was taught in the Academy of R. Ishmael, for in the Academy of R. Ishmael it was taught:2 In the waters, in the waters — twice.3 This is not ‘generalisation and specification’, but ‘amplification and limitation’. And the Rabbis [who disagree with Rabbi in connection with the redemption of the first-born — what is their reason]? Rabina said: They agree with the Western [Palestinian] Academies who hold that where there are two general statements followed by a particular, the particular should be regarded as being between the two general statements, and the verse may then be expounded on the principle of ‘generalisations and specifications’. Now that you say that Rabbi [as a general rule] expounds ‘generalisations and specifications’, the difficulty concerning oaths [in our Mishnah] necessarily remains.4 We must perforce say, therefore, that [in the Mishnah] he gives R. Akiba's view on oaths, but he himself does not agree. To revert to the main subject:5 ‘Whence do we deduce that one is not liable 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, — 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.’ The Master said: ‘And it was hidden from him, therefore it must have been known to him’. How do you conclude this? Raba said: Because it is not written: ‘and it is hidden from him’.6 Abaye said to him: If so, in connection with the wife suspected of infidelity, when Scripture says: And it was hidden from the eyes of her husband,7 will you reason from this also that he knew at the beginning? [Surely not, for] if he knew, the waters would not test her, as it is taught: And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity:8 when the man is clear from iniquity, the waters test his wife; but when the man is not clear from iniquity,9 the waters do not test his wife.10 And further, in connection with the Torah it is written: It is hid11 from the eyes of all living, and from the birds of the heavens it is kept secret;12 will you conclude from this that they knew it? [Surely not, for] it is written: Man knows not the value thereof.13 Of necessity then, said Abaye, Rabbi holds that the knowledge gained from a teacher14 is also called knowledge. But if so, said R. Papa to Abaye, the statement in the Mishnah WHERE THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT THERE IS KNOWLEDGE AT THE END [is incomprehensible, for] is there anyone who has not even the knowledge gained from a teacher? He replied: Yes! it is possible in a child taken into captivity among heathen. THE LAWS CONCERNING CARRYING ON THE SABBATH ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR. We learnt there:15 The laws concerning carrying on the Sabbath are two, subdivided into four inside;16 and two, subdivided into four outside.17 Why does our Mishnah here state simply: TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR, and nothing else, whereas the Mishnah there states: Two, subdivided into four inside; and two, subdivided into four outside? — The Mishnah there deals mainly with the Sabbath laws, and therefore mentions the Principals and Derivatives, but our Mishnah here, which is not concerned mainly with the Sabbath laws mentions the Principals only and not the Derivatives. Which are the principals? — Carrying out: the laws of carrying out are only two.18 [and our Mishnah says: TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR]! And perhaps you will say. [our Mishnah means] two hoza'oth [carrying out] which are punishable, and two which are not.19 [That is not possible, for] they are mentioned together with the shades of leprous affections, and just as those are all punishable, so are these? — We must necessarily say, said R. Papa, that the other Mishnah, which deals mainly with the Sabbath laws, mentions those which are punishable, and those which are not; but our Mishnah mentions only those which are punishable, and not those which are not. Which are those that are punishable? Carrying out: these are only two!20 The Mishnah means two hoza'oth and two haknasoth. But the Mishnah says hoza'oth!21 — Said R. Ashi: The Tanna calls haknasah also hoza'ah. How do you know? R. Akiba. and in rivers, them may ye eat. In the waters is a general statement; in the seas and in the rivers is a particular. In this verse the particular is not between the two general statements, but follows them. In such a case, R. Ishmael's Academy assert, the verse is expounded on the principle of ‘amplifications and limitations’. Rabbi agrees, and he therefore expounds similarly the verse about the redemption of the first-born. the past tense. knowledge at the beginning. for the purpose of ‘knowledge at the beginning’, even if he did not realise at the moment of touching the unclean thing that he had become unclean. According to this, there is always ‘knowledge at the beginning’, the only exception being the case of a child taken into captivity among heathen. haknasoth when only half the action is done by each person, one person withdrawing the object, and the other taking it from him, thus completing the action. These two haknasoth are not punishable.