1)THE TWO THAT ARE FOUR
(a)(Gemara) Question: The previous tractate was Makos. Why is Shevu'os a proper continuation?
(b)Answer: A Mishnah in the last Perek of Makos teaches 'one who cuts the hair of (both) sidelocks receives two sets of lashes, one for each. One who shaves the (five) corners of the beard receives five sets of lashes, for the two corners on each side and the chin';
1.Multiple lashes for one transgression is similar to two primary oaths of Bituy, and there are four in all.
(c)Question: In our Mishnah, after teaching that there are two primary oaths of Bituy and four in all, we taught everything that has two primary cases and four in all;
1.In the Mishnayos of Shabbos and Tzara'as (that teach the two primary cases that are four in all), why didn't the Tana teach all such matters?
(d)Answer: Shevu'os and Tum'os are similar. They are written in the same verse, and the Korban for each is an Oleh v'Yored, so Tum'os were taught with Shevu'os;
1.Once the Tana taught these two, he taught all such matters.
(e)Question: The Tana mentioned Shevu'os first. Why does he explain Tum'os first? (He does not explain the oaths until the third Perek!)
(f)Answer: Since there are less laws of Tum'os to teach, he teaches them first, and then teaches Shevu'os.
(g)The two primary oaths (of Bituy) are 'I will eat' and 'I will not eat';
1.The two secondary oaths are 'I ate' and 'I did not eat.'
(h)The two primary Yedi'os of Tum'ah (that obligate one to bring a Korban) are when he knew (that he was Tamei) and forgot this when he ate Kodesh or entered the Mikdash;
1.The two secondary Yedi'os are (when he knew that he was Tamei, but) he forgot that meat was Kodesh and ate it, or forgot that this was the Mikdash and entered.
(i)There are two primary Yetzi'os of Shabbos. An Oni (poor person, in the Reshus ha'Rabim) sticks his hand in a house, takes a basket from the owner and takes it outside; or, the owner sticks out his hand (holding a basket) from his house, and puts in the Oni's hand.
1.There are two secondary Yetzi'os of Shabbos. The Oni sticks his hand (holding a basket) into the house, and puts in the owner's hand; or, the owner sticks his hand out of the house, takes a basket from the Oni, and takes it inside.
(j)The two primary appearances of Tzara'as (on the skin) are Baheres (brightness, white as snow) and Se'es (like white wool);
1.The two secondary appearances are the offshoot of Baheres (like the plaster of the Heichal) and the offshoot of Se'es (like the inner membrane of an egg).
2)WHO IS THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH?
(a)Question: Our Mishnah is not like R. Yishmael nor like R. Akiva!
1.It is not like R. Yishmael. He obligates only for (false) oaths about the future, but not for the past!
2.It is not like R. Akiva. He obligates only one who forgot that he was Tamei, but not one who forgot the place of the Mikdash!
(b)Answer #1: The Mishnah can be R. Yishmael. One is liable for some of the four oaths, and exempt for others;
(c)Answer #2: The Mishnah can be R. Akiva. One is liable for some of the four Yedi'os, exempt for others.
(d)Rejection (of both answers): Presumably, all the cases are similar to appearances of Tzara'as, i.e. one is liable for all four!
(e)Answer #3: Really, the Mishnah is R. Yishmael;
1.R. Yishmael exempts from a Korban for a false oath about the past, but he obligates lashes, like Rava.
2.(Rava): The Torah explicitly teaches that one is lashed for a false oath like for a vain oath:
i.Just like a vain oath is about the past (i.e. it is not contingent on future events), one is liable for a false oath about the past.
(f)Question: Why does R. Yishmael obligate lashes for all four oaths?
1.We understand false oaths about the past, i.e. 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', like Rava taught;
2.We also understand (one kind of) false oath about the future, i.e. 'I will not eat.' He transgresses by eating, an action;
3.However, if he swears 'I will eat' and he does not, why is he lashed? He did not sin through an action!
(g)Answer: R. Yishmael holds that one is lashed even for a Lav without an action.
3)LASHES FOR A LAV WITHOUT AN ACTION
(a)Question: If so, R. Yochanan contradicts himself!
1.(R. Yochanan): The Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah (the beginning of our Mishnah is Stam);
2.(R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): If Reuven swore 'I will eat this loaf today' and he did not eat it, he is not lashed;
i.(R. Yochanan): He is not lashed because this Lav does not involve an action;
ii.(Reish Lakish): He is not lashed because he cannot receive definite warning (perhaps he will eat the loaf later), and doubtful warning is invalid.
(b)Answer: R. Yochanan rules unlike our Stam Mishnah because another Stam Mishnah argues with it.
(c)Question: What is the other Mishnah?
1.Suggestion (Mishnah): If one leaves over from a Tahor Pesach Korban or breaks a bone of a Tamei Pesach Korban, he is not lashed.
2.We understand why he is exempt for breaking a bone of a Tamei Pesach. "V'Etzem Lo Sishberu Vo" applies only to a Kosher Korban, and not a Pasul Korban;
i.Question: Why is he exempt for leaving over?
ii.Suggestion: He is not lashed because this Lav does not involve an action. One is not lashed for such a Lav.
3.Rejection: This is like R. Yakov, but one need not explain that Mishnah this way. It could be like R. Yehudah! (He is not lashed because there is an Aseh after the Lav.)
i.(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "You may not leave over (from the Pesach Korban) until morning. You will burn what is left over" - the Torah gives a Mitzvas Aseh after the Lav, to exempt from lashes.
ii.(R. Yakov): No. One is not lashed because this Lav is not transgressed through an action, rather through inaction.