Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 17, 2017 | 讻状讟 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shevuot 19

Study Guide Shevuot 19. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva’s opinions are analyzed regarding the fact that the sliding scale sacrifice is only brought for one who forgets one is impure and not one who forgets the mikdash or kodashim.聽 They each bring a different proof text -does that mean they disagree about something or not?聽 A case is brought of one who walked on two paths – one pure and one impure and went into the聽mikdash.聽 Two variations are brought and there is a debate about what the halacha is in each of the cases.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 砖专抓 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 驻专砖讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讜谞砖谞讬转 诇讗 谞砖谞讬转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 砖谞转讞讚砖 讘讛

the Torah needs to write both 鈥渄omesticated animal鈥 and 鈥渦ndomesticated animal鈥 in the verse 鈥渙r the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal鈥 to teach that halakha that the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught (see 7a), 鈥渃reeping animal鈥 is also written, even though there is no novel element taught by the addition of that term. This is in accordance with what was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. It is the style of the Torah to repeat an entire passage to teach even one additional halakha, in this case, that which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 驻专讟 诇诪转注住拽

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that in general it is not necessary that the unwitting transgressor know precisely which prohibition he violated, what does he do with the words 鈥渋n which he sinned,鈥 the words from which Rabbi Yehoshua learned that there is no liability to bring an offering unless he knows precisely which sin he committed? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, these words emphasize the fact that one is liable only when he intends to do the prohibited act, to the exclusion of one who acts unawares and has no intention to perform the action. That is to say, if one was preoccupied with another matter and, acting unawares, he transgressed a prohibition, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘 砖砖转 诪讞诇讬祝 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Until now the Gemara has discussed 岣zkiyya鈥檚 understanding of the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in the mishna. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is no halakhic difference between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, as they both agree that one must know the exact source of his ritual impurity. The difference between them is limited to the interpretation of the meaning of the verses, i.e., they disagree about the source in the Torah for this halakha. And similarly, it can be reasoned that Rav Sheshet says: The difference between them is limited to the interpretation of the meaning of the verses, as Rav Sheshet would switch the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer for that of Rabbi Akiva and that of Rabbi Akiva for that of Rabbi Eliezer. He was not meticulous in his attributions of the respective opinions, as he held that there is no halakhic difference between them.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛注诇诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讬讚讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讞讬讬讘 讗讚专讘讛 讛专讬 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讘讬讚讜 讜驻讟讜专

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: According to both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, if one had a lapse of awareness of both this and that, his having contracted ritual impurity and his having entered the Temple, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an said to him: He has a lapse of awareness about his impurity, and therefore he is liable. The Gemara disputes this: On the contrary, he has a lapse of awareness about the Temple, and he should therefore be exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 诪讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讞讬讬讘 讗讬 诪诪拽讚砖 拽讗 驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讘讬讚讜 讜驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇讜诐 驻专讬砖 诪诪拽讚砖 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讻诇讜诐 驻专讬砖 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪拽讚砖 讗诇讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rav Ashi said: We observe his behavior. If he leaves the Temple because of the impurity, i.e., when he is told that he is impure, it is clear that the lapse of awareness that he had is about the impurity, and he is liable. And if he leaves because of the Temple, i.e., when he is told that he is in the Temple, then the lapse of awareness that he had is about the Temple, and he is exempt. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: There is no indication from here; didn鈥檛 he leave because he became aware of the Temple only because he became aware also of the impurity? Otherwise, why would he leave the Temple? And didn鈥檛 he leave because he became aware of the impurity only because he became aware also of the Temple? Otherwise, why would he leave the Temple? Rather, there is no difference, so there is no indication from here.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 谞讻谞住 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘

搂 The Gemara begins a discussion about another topic related to awareness of impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: If there were two paths in a certain place, one of them impure, as a corpse was buried there, and the other one pure, but it was not clear which of the two paths was impure, and someone walked on the first path and did not then enter the Temple, and then afterward he walked on the second path, forgot that he was ritually impure, and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, since he certainly contracted impurity on one of the paths and entered the Temple in a state of impurity.

讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜谞讻谞住 讛讝讛 讜砖谞讛 讜讟讘诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜诇谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple, and on the third day he was sprinkled with waters of purification to purify him from the uncertain impurity imparted by a corpse, and on the seventh day he was sprinkled upon again, and he immersed himself in a ritual bath, thereby completing his purification, and then afterward he walked on the second path and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, since one of the paths was certainly impure and he entered the Temple after having walked on it. Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt in this latter case, because neither time that he entered the Temple was it certain that he was impure, the first time because he might not yet have become impure, and the second time because he might already have purified himself. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, in the name of Rabbi Shimon, deems him exempt in all of these cases.

讘讻讜诇谉

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda really exempt him in all of these cases,

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讘砖注讛 砖讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 砖讻讞 砖讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽爪转 讬讚讬注讛

even in the first case, where he walked on both of the paths and did not purify himself in between? This is difficult, as whichever way you look at it, he is impure, since he certainly contracted impurity on one of the two paths. Rava said: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he walked on the first path, and then afterward when he was walking on the second path he forgot that he had already walked on the first path, so that his lapse of awareness when he entered the Temple was only a lapse of partial awareness. That is, when he entered the Temple he forgot only that he had walked on the first path, and for this lapse of knowledge by itself he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as it is not certain that he contracted impurity there.

讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讬讚讬注讛 讻讻诇 讬讚讬注讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讬讚讬注讛 讻讻诇 讬讚讬注讛

Rava continues: And the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this issue: The first tanna, who teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems the person exempt only where there was purification between the two entries, but not in the first case, maintains that we say that partial awareness of definite impurity is counted as complete awareness. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, who teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems the person exempt even in the first case, where there was no purification between the two entries, maintains that we do not say that partial awareness of definite impurity is counted as complete awareness.

讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜谞讻谞住 讛讝讛 讜砖谞讛 讜讟讘诇 讞讝专 讜讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 住驻拽 讬讚讬注讛 讛讜讗

搂 The baraita teaches: If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple, and on the third day he was sprinkled with waters of purification, and on the seventh day he was sprinkled upon again, and he immersed himself in a ritual bath, and then he walked on the second path and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin-offering; and Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt from bringing an offering. The Gemara asks: But why is he liable according to the first tanna? Each time he entered the Temple it was only with a lapse of awareness of uncertain impurity, the first time because he might not yet have become impure, and the second time because he might already have purified himself.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗谉 注砖讜 住驻拽 讬讚讬注讛 讻讬讚讬注讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Here, since he certainly contracted impurity on one of the paths and entered the Temple in a state of impurity, they made awareness of uncertain impurity like awareness of definite impurity. And Reish Lakish says: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: We do not require any awareness of impurity whatsoever at the beginning, before he enters the Temple, and it suffices if it becomes known to him at the end that he had been impure at the time of his entry.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专诪讬 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讜谞讜讚注 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讜谞讜讚注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讻讱 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan; and the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and another statement of Reish Lakish. As it is taught in a baraita: If one ate an item concerning which there was uncertainty as to whether or not it was forbidden fat, and he later became aware of it, and then he ate some other item concerning which there was uncertainty as to whether or not it was forbidden fat, and he later became aware of it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Just as he would bring a sin-offering for each and every one of his instances of consumption were he to learn that what he ate was actually forbidden fat, so too, he brings a provisional guilt-offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a transgression that requires a sin-offering, for each and every one of his instances of consumption if after each instance he became aware that he might have eaten forbidden fat.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞讚 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讗砖专 砖讙讙 讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 砖讙讙讜转 讛专讘讛 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞讚

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He brings only one provisional guilt-offering, as it is stated with regard to a provisional guilt-offering: 鈥淗e shall bring an unblemished ram鈥or a guilt-offering鈥o the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his unwitting transgression wherein he unwittingly transgressed and knew it not鈥 (Leviticus 5:18). This wording teaches that the Torah included many instances of unwitting transgressions in one provisional guilt-offering. One brings one provisional guilt-offering even if he had committed many unwitting transgressions.

讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻讬拽讜转 诪转讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree about how to understand the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to which case did he say that one brings a separate sin-offering for each and every one of his instances of consumption? And Reish Lakish says: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that awareness of the uncertain status separates the acts with regard to sin-offerings. If it later became known with certainty that he had actually eaten forbidden fat both times, he would be liable to bring two sin-offerings for the two instances of consumption, despite the fact that the two actions were separated only by awareness of the uncertain status, because such awareness is sufficient to separate the two acts.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖讬讚讬注讜转 讜讚讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 诪转讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讻讱 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪转讞诇拽讜转 诇讗砖诪讜转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not mean to say that awareness of the uncertain status separates the acts with regard to sin-offerings. He merely established the principle: Just as definite awareness in general separates the acts with regard to sin-offerings, e.g., where one ate forbidden fat and then became aware that it was definitely forbidden fat that he had eaten, and then he forgot and once again ate forbidden fat, so too, awareness of the uncertain status separates the acts with regard to provisional guilt-offerings. But awareness of the uncertain status does not separate the acts with regard to sin-offerings. If the awareness between the acts was only awareness of the uncertain status, he does not bring a sin-offering for each act when he later learns with certainty that it was forbidden fat that he had eaten. Evidently, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that awareness of the uncertain status is not like definite awareness, and Reish Lakish maintains that it is like definite awareness. This contradicts what they said above.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 注砖讜 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讬讚讬注讛 讘讛讚讬讗 诪讜谞注诇诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讗转讬 讜诇讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 注砖讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 讛讜讚注 讗诇讬讜 讬讚讬注讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara comments: Granted, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and the other statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan is not difficult, as one can explain that Rabbi Yo岣nan is precise in his wording, as he says: Here, with regard to impurity in the Temple, they made awareness of the uncertain status like definite awareness; but they did not do so everywhere in the entire Torah. There is a basis for this distinction, as here, with regard to impurity in the Temple, awareness at the beginning is not written explicitly in the Torah, but rather it is derived from: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:2), which indicates that there must be some awareness that became hidden from him, and for this, awareness of the uncertain status suffices. But by contrast, they did not make awareness of the uncertain status like definite awareness everywhere in the entire Torah, as it is written: 鈥淥r if his sin, which he has sinned, becomes known to him鈥 (Leviticus 4:28), which indicates that in general we require full-fledged awareness at the beginning.

讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讜拽诪讛 讻专讘讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛

But as for Reish Lakish, rather than interpreting this baraita concerning the two paths in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who does not require any awareness whatsoever at the beginning, let him interpret it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that awareness of the uncertain status is like definite awareness. The Gemara explains: Reish Lakish teaches us this: That with regard to impurity in the Temple, Rabbi Yishmael does not require any awareness at the beginning.

驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 诪讚诇讗 诪讬讬转专讬 诇讬讛 拽专讗讬 讜谞注诇诐 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪拽专讗讬 讗讘诇 诪讙诪专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that Rabbi Yishmael does not require awareness at the beginning, since he has no superfluous verses from which to derive such a requirement. Rabbi Akiva learns from the superfluous phrase: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:4), that awareness at the beginning is necessary, but Rabbi Yishmael says the verse serves to teach another halakha, that one is liable to bring an offering for a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple. The Gemara rejects this challenge: Lest you say: When Rabbi Yishmael does not accept this halakha requiring awareness at the beginning, it means that he does not derive it from a verse, but he accepts it as a tradition; to counter this, Reish Lakish teaches us that according to Rabbi Yishmael there is no requirement whatsoever for awareness at the beginning.

讛讚专谉 注诇讬讱 讬讚讬注讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘讜注讜转 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 讜砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讻诇转讬 讜砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬

MISHNA: With regard to oaths attesting to the truth about an utterance, which, when violated, render one liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, there are two types that are actually four types. The initial two oaths, which relate to utterances about the future and are explicitly prohibited in the Torah, are: On my oath I will eat, or: On my oath I will not eat. These are expanded to four, to include oaths concerning utterances about the past: On my oath I ate, or: On my oath I did not eat.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗讜讻诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讝讛 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讬 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘诪讚讘专 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 砖讝讛 诪讚讘专 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉

If one says: On my oath I will not eat, and he then ate any amount, even less than an olive-bulk, he is liable; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: Where do we find that one who eats any amount is liable, leading you to say that this person is liable? Rabbi Akiva said to them: And where do we find one who speaks and is liable to bring an offering for it, as this oath taker merely speaks, i.e., takes an oath, and brings an offering for it?

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖讗讜讻诇 讚讗讻讬诇谞讗 诪砖诪注 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is this to say that phrasing an oath as: On my oath I will eat, always means that I take an oath that I will eat? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Nedarim 16a): If one says: On my oath I will not eat of yours, or: On my oath I will eat of yours, or: Not on my oath I will not eat of yours, the food of the other person is forbidden.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讻讬诇谞讗 诪砖诪注 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪住专讘讬谉 讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谉

Abaye said: Actually, saying: On my oath I will eat, means that I take an oath that I will eat. It is not difficult, because there is a difference between the contexts of the mishnayot: Here, it is referring to an oath taken in a context where others are importuning him to eat, so when he says: On my oath I will eat of yours, his intention is to indicate his refusal to eat. There, it is a context where others are not

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 19

讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 砖专抓 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 驻专砖讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讜谞砖谞讬转 诇讗 谞砖谞讬转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 砖谞转讞讚砖 讘讛

the Torah needs to write both 鈥渄omesticated animal鈥 and 鈥渦ndomesticated animal鈥 in the verse 鈥渙r the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal鈥 to teach that halakha that the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught (see 7a), 鈥渃reeping animal鈥 is also written, even though there is no novel element taught by the addition of that term. This is in accordance with what was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. It is the style of the Torah to repeat an entire passage to teach even one additional halakha, in this case, that which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 驻专讟 诇诪转注住拽

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that in general it is not necessary that the unwitting transgressor know precisely which prohibition he violated, what does he do with the words 鈥渋n which he sinned,鈥 the words from which Rabbi Yehoshua learned that there is no liability to bring an offering unless he knows precisely which sin he committed? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, these words emphasize the fact that one is liable only when he intends to do the prohibited act, to the exclusion of one who acts unawares and has no intention to perform the action. That is to say, if one was preoccupied with another matter and, acting unawares, he transgressed a prohibition, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘 砖砖转 诪讞诇讬祝 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Until now the Gemara has discussed 岣zkiyya鈥檚 understanding of the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in the mishna. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is no halakhic difference between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, as they both agree that one must know the exact source of his ritual impurity. The difference between them is limited to the interpretation of the meaning of the verses, i.e., they disagree about the source in the Torah for this halakha. And similarly, it can be reasoned that Rav Sheshet says: The difference between them is limited to the interpretation of the meaning of the verses, as Rav Sheshet would switch the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer for that of Rabbi Akiva and that of Rabbi Akiva for that of Rabbi Eliezer. He was not meticulous in his attributions of the respective opinions, as he held that there is no halakhic difference between them.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛注诇诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讬讚讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讞讬讬讘 讗讚专讘讛 讛专讬 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讘讬讚讜 讜驻讟讜专

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: According to both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, if one had a lapse of awareness of both this and that, his having contracted ritual impurity and his having entered the Temple, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an said to him: He has a lapse of awareness about his impurity, and therefore he is liable. The Gemara disputes this: On the contrary, he has a lapse of awareness about the Temple, and he should therefore be exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 诪讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讞讬讬讘 讗讬 诪诪拽讚砖 拽讗 驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 讘讬讚讜 讜驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇讜诐 驻专讬砖 诪诪拽讚砖 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讻诇讜诐 驻专讬砖 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪拽讚砖 讗诇讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rav Ashi said: We observe his behavior. If he leaves the Temple because of the impurity, i.e., when he is told that he is impure, it is clear that the lapse of awareness that he had is about the impurity, and he is liable. And if he leaves because of the Temple, i.e., when he is told that he is in the Temple, then the lapse of awareness that he had is about the Temple, and he is exempt. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: There is no indication from here; didn鈥檛 he leave because he became aware of the Temple only because he became aware also of the impurity? Otherwise, why would he leave the Temple? And didn鈥檛 he leave because he became aware of the impurity only because he became aware also of the Temple? Otherwise, why would he leave the Temple? Rather, there is no difference, so there is no indication from here.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 谞讻谞住 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘

搂 The Gemara begins a discussion about another topic related to awareness of impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: If there were two paths in a certain place, one of them impure, as a corpse was buried there, and the other one pure, but it was not clear which of the two paths was impure, and someone walked on the first path and did not then enter the Temple, and then afterward he walked on the second path, forgot that he was ritually impure, and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, since he certainly contracted impurity on one of the paths and entered the Temple in a state of impurity.

讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜谞讻谞住 讛讝讛 讜砖谞讛 讜讟讘诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜诇谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple, and on the third day he was sprinkled with waters of purification to purify him from the uncertain impurity imparted by a corpse, and on the seventh day he was sprinkled upon again, and he immersed himself in a ritual bath, thereby completing his purification, and then afterward he walked on the second path and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, since one of the paths was certainly impure and he entered the Temple after having walked on it. Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt in this latter case, because neither time that he entered the Temple was it certain that he was impure, the first time because he might not yet have become impure, and the second time because he might already have purified himself. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, in the name of Rabbi Shimon, deems him exempt in all of these cases.

讘讻讜诇谉

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda really exempt him in all of these cases,

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讘砖注讛 砖讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 砖讻讞 砖讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽爪转 讬讚讬注讛

even in the first case, where he walked on both of the paths and did not purify himself in between? This is difficult, as whichever way you look at it, he is impure, since he certainly contracted impurity on one of the two paths. Rava said: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he walked on the first path, and then afterward when he was walking on the second path he forgot that he had already walked on the first path, so that his lapse of awareness when he entered the Temple was only a lapse of partial awareness. That is, when he entered the Temple he forgot only that he had walked on the first path, and for this lapse of knowledge by itself he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as it is not certain that he contracted impurity there.

讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讬讚讬注讛 讻讻诇 讬讚讬注讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讬讚讬注讛 讻讻诇 讬讚讬注讛

Rava continues: And the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this issue: The first tanna, who teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems the person exempt only where there was purification between the two entries, but not in the first case, maintains that we say that partial awareness of definite impurity is counted as complete awareness. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, who teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems the person exempt even in the first case, where there was no purification between the two entries, maintains that we do not say that partial awareness of definite impurity is counted as complete awareness.

讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜谞讻谞住 讛讝讛 讜砖谞讛 讜讟讘诇 讞讝专 讜讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 住驻拽 讬讚讬注讛 讛讜讗

搂 The baraita teaches: If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple, and on the third day he was sprinkled with waters of purification, and on the seventh day he was sprinkled upon again, and he immersed himself in a ritual bath, and then he walked on the second path and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin-offering; and Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt from bringing an offering. The Gemara asks: But why is he liable according to the first tanna? Each time he entered the Temple it was only with a lapse of awareness of uncertain impurity, the first time because he might not yet have become impure, and the second time because he might already have purified himself.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗谉 注砖讜 住驻拽 讬讚讬注讛 讻讬讚讬注讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Here, since he certainly contracted impurity on one of the paths and entered the Temple in a state of impurity, they made awareness of uncertain impurity like awareness of definite impurity. And Reish Lakish says: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: We do not require any awareness of impurity whatsoever at the beginning, before he enters the Temple, and it suffices if it becomes known to him at the end that he had been impure at the time of his entry.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专诪讬 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讜谞讜讚注 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讜谞讜讚注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讻讱 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan; and the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and another statement of Reish Lakish. As it is taught in a baraita: If one ate an item concerning which there was uncertainty as to whether or not it was forbidden fat, and he later became aware of it, and then he ate some other item concerning which there was uncertainty as to whether or not it was forbidden fat, and he later became aware of it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Just as he would bring a sin-offering for each and every one of his instances of consumption were he to learn that what he ate was actually forbidden fat, so too, he brings a provisional guilt-offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a transgression that requires a sin-offering, for each and every one of his instances of consumption if after each instance he became aware that he might have eaten forbidden fat.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞讚 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讗砖专 砖讙讙 讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 砖讙讙讜转 讛专讘讛 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞讚

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He brings only one provisional guilt-offering, as it is stated with regard to a provisional guilt-offering: 鈥淗e shall bring an unblemished ram鈥or a guilt-offering鈥o the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his unwitting transgression wherein he unwittingly transgressed and knew it not鈥 (Leviticus 5:18). This wording teaches that the Torah included many instances of unwitting transgressions in one provisional guilt-offering. One brings one provisional guilt-offering even if he had committed many unwitting transgressions.

讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻讬拽讜转 诪转讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree about how to understand the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to which case did he say that one brings a separate sin-offering for each and every one of his instances of consumption? And Reish Lakish says: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that awareness of the uncertain status separates the acts with regard to sin-offerings. If it later became known with certainty that he had actually eaten forbidden fat both times, he would be liable to bring two sin-offerings for the two instances of consumption, despite the fact that the two actions were separated only by awareness of the uncertain status, because such awareness is sufficient to separate the two acts.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖讬讚讬注讜转 讜讚讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 诪转讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讻讱 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪转讞诇拽讜转 诇讗砖诪讜转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not mean to say that awareness of the uncertain status separates the acts with regard to sin-offerings. He merely established the principle: Just as definite awareness in general separates the acts with regard to sin-offerings, e.g., where one ate forbidden fat and then became aware that it was definitely forbidden fat that he had eaten, and then he forgot and once again ate forbidden fat, so too, awareness of the uncertain status separates the acts with regard to provisional guilt-offerings. But awareness of the uncertain status does not separate the acts with regard to sin-offerings. If the awareness between the acts was only awareness of the uncertain status, he does not bring a sin-offering for each act when he later learns with certainty that it was forbidden fat that he had eaten. Evidently, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that awareness of the uncertain status is not like definite awareness, and Reish Lakish maintains that it is like definite awareness. This contradicts what they said above.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 注砖讜 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讬讚讬注讛 讘讛讚讬讗 诪讜谞注诇诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讗转讬 讜诇讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 注砖讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 讛讜讚注 讗诇讬讜 讬讚讬注讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara comments: Granted, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and the other statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan is not difficult, as one can explain that Rabbi Yo岣nan is precise in his wording, as he says: Here, with regard to impurity in the Temple, they made awareness of the uncertain status like definite awareness; but they did not do so everywhere in the entire Torah. There is a basis for this distinction, as here, with regard to impurity in the Temple, awareness at the beginning is not written explicitly in the Torah, but rather it is derived from: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:2), which indicates that there must be some awareness that became hidden from him, and for this, awareness of the uncertain status suffices. But by contrast, they did not make awareness of the uncertain status like definite awareness everywhere in the entire Torah, as it is written: 鈥淥r if his sin, which he has sinned, becomes known to him鈥 (Leviticus 4:28), which indicates that in general we require full-fledged awareness at the beginning.

讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讜拽诪讛 讻专讘讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛

But as for Reish Lakish, rather than interpreting this baraita concerning the two paths in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who does not require any awareness whatsoever at the beginning, let him interpret it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that awareness of the uncertain status is like definite awareness. The Gemara explains: Reish Lakish teaches us this: That with regard to impurity in the Temple, Rabbi Yishmael does not require any awareness at the beginning.

驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 诪讚诇讗 诪讬讬转专讬 诇讬讛 拽专讗讬 讜谞注诇诐 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪拽专讗讬 讗讘诇 诪讙诪专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that Rabbi Yishmael does not require awareness at the beginning, since he has no superfluous verses from which to derive such a requirement. Rabbi Akiva learns from the superfluous phrase: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him鈥 (Leviticus 5:4), that awareness at the beginning is necessary, but Rabbi Yishmael says the verse serves to teach another halakha, that one is liable to bring an offering for a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple. The Gemara rejects this challenge: Lest you say: When Rabbi Yishmael does not accept this halakha requiring awareness at the beginning, it means that he does not derive it from a verse, but he accepts it as a tradition; to counter this, Reish Lakish teaches us that according to Rabbi Yishmael there is no requirement whatsoever for awareness at the beginning.

讛讚专谉 注诇讬讱 讬讚讬注讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘讜注讜转 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 讜砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讻诇转讬 讜砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬

MISHNA: With regard to oaths attesting to the truth about an utterance, which, when violated, render one liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, there are two types that are actually four types. The initial two oaths, which relate to utterances about the future and are explicitly prohibited in the Torah, are: On my oath I will eat, or: On my oath I will not eat. These are expanded to four, to include oaths concerning utterances about the past: On my oath I ate, or: On my oath I did not eat.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗讜讻诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讝讛 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讬 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘诪讚讘专 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 砖讝讛 诪讚讘专 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉

If one says: On my oath I will not eat, and he then ate any amount, even less than an olive-bulk, he is liable; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: Where do we find that one who eats any amount is liable, leading you to say that this person is liable? Rabbi Akiva said to them: And where do we find one who speaks and is liable to bring an offering for it, as this oath taker merely speaks, i.e., takes an oath, and brings an offering for it?

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖讗讜讻诇 讚讗讻讬诇谞讗 诪砖诪注 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is this to say that phrasing an oath as: On my oath I will eat, always means that I take an oath that I will eat? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Nedarim 16a): If one says: On my oath I will not eat of yours, or: On my oath I will eat of yours, or: Not on my oath I will not eat of yours, the food of the other person is forbidden.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讻讬诇谞讗 诪砖诪注 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪住专讘讬谉 讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谉

Abaye said: Actually, saying: On my oath I will eat, means that I take an oath that I will eat. It is not difficult, because there is a difference between the contexts of the mishnayot: Here, it is referring to an oath taken in a context where others are importuning him to eat, so when he says: On my oath I will eat of yours, his intention is to indicate his refusal to eat. There, it is a context where others are not

Scroll To Top