תוספות ד"ה ועל הזקן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses if the prohibition of shaving is also when one of the people involved is not commanded in the Mitzvah.)

נראה דמשחית ונשחת שניהם חייבין כמו בהקפת הראש דאמר בפ' ב' נזירים (נזיר דף נז: ושם) אחד המקיף ואחד הניקף במשמע

(a) Opinion: It appears that both one who destroys (beard etc.) and allows them to be destroyed are liable, just as is true regarding shaving around the head. This is as the Gemara says in Nazir (57b) both the one shaving around and allowing to be shaved around are implied by this prohibition.

ואע"ג דהתם דריש מדכתיב לא תקיפו לשון רבים וגבי זקן כתיב לא תשחית לשון יחיד

(b) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara in Nazir (ibid.) derives from the Pasuk, "They should not shave around" which is plural, and regarding a beard the Pasuk only states "Do not destroy" in a singular form. [Why, then, are we sure that both participants are liable when it comes to shaving a beard?]

הא כתיב נמי בכהנים לא יגלחו לשון רבים וילפינן מהדדי לענין גילוח שיש בו השחתה בפרק ב' נזירים (שם דף נח:) ובג"ש דפאת פאת ילפינן מהדדי בפ"ק דקדושין (דף לה: ושם)

(c) Answer: Regarding the prohibition against Kohanim shaving the Pasuk states, "They should not shave" in a plural form. We derive laws regarding the prohibition of Kohanim shaving from the regular prohibition against shaving and visa versa regarding "shaving that destroys" in Nazir (58b). We similarly see that both topics derive from each other using the Gezeirah Shaveh of "Pe'as" in Kidushin (35b).

ובהדיא תניא בתוספתא [פ"ג] דמכות המשחית פאת זקנו של חבירו שניהם חייבין

1. It clearly states in the Tosefta in Makos that if someone destroys the Pei'os of the beard of his friend, they both are liable.

ואסור לישראל להניח לנכרי להקיף ראשו ולהשחית זקנו דהא אמר רב הונא בפ' ב' נזירים (נזיר דף נז:) המקיף את הקטן חייב וה"ה איפכא דלא מקיש מקיף לניקף

(d) Opinion: It is forbidden for a Jew to allow a Nochri to shave around his head and to destroy his beard, as Rav Huna states in Nazir (57b) that if someone shaves around the head of a minor he is liable. The same is true in the opposite scenario (one may not allow a minor to shave him), as we do not compare the liability of the one shaving around the head to the one allowing it to be done.

ואע"ג דהתם פליג עליה רב אדא בר אהבה משום דכתיב לא תקיפו אחד המקיף ואחד הניקף משמע ואתקש מקיף לניקף כל היכא דניקף מיחייב מקיף נמי מיחייב

(e) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rav Ada bar Ahavah argues on Rav Huna there because the Pasuk says, "They should not shave around his head" implying both the one who shaves and the one who allows the shaving. We therefore compare (according to Rav Ada) the one who shaves to the one who allows it, and we say that whenever the one who allows it is liable the one who shaves is liable. [This would exclude if a minor is involved.]

ומשמע התם דלרב אדא בר אהבה אפי' איסורא דרבנן ליכא מדקאמר ליה לרב הונא בניך הקטנים לדידך מאן מגלח להו א"ל חובה משמע דלדידיה ניחא דשרי אפי' לאיש

1. The Gemara there implies that according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah there is not even a Rabbinic prohibition. This is apparent from Rav Ada's question to Rav Huna, "Your minor sons, according to you, who shaves them?" Rav Huna answered, "One is liable (for shaving them)." This implies that according to Rav Ada it is permitted even for a man to shave minors. [This should mean that it is permitted to shave one's sons. How can we say it is forbidden?]

אין הלכה כרב אדא דסתמא דהש"ס בפרק א' דבבא מציעא (דף י:) כרב הונא

(f) Answer: The law does not follow Rav Ada. This is apparent from the fact that the general opinion of the Gemara in Bava Metzia (10b) is like Rav Huna.

דקאמר איכא בינייהו איש דאמר לאשה תקיף לי קטן דללישנא דתלי בבר חיובא הכא אשה לאו בת חיובא היא מיחייב שולחה משמע דאי מקיף ליה גדול מיחייב

1. This is as the Gemara says there, "The difference between them is a man who says to a woman that she should shave a minor for him." According to the version of the Gemara that makes the liability dependent on a person who is obligated in the Mitzvah, here a woman is not a person who is obligated, and therefore the one who sends her to do it should be liable. This implies that if a man would do the actual shaving he would (certainly) be liable.

ועוד נראה דאפי' רב אדא מחייב היכא דניקף בר חיובא אע"ג דמקיף לאו בר חיובא ולא פטר אלא היכא דניקף לאו בר חיובא הוא מדלא קאמר איש דאמר לקטן או לנכרי אקיף לי גדול והוי נפקותא לרב אדא

(g) Opinion: Additionally, it appears that even Rav Ada says that the one who allows the area around his head to be shaved is liable, even if the one who shaves him is not commanded in this Mitzvah. He only said that the person who shaves is exempt if he is shaving someone who is not liable. This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara does not bring up the case of a man who says to a minor or Nochri to shave an adult for him. This would be a difference according to Rav Ada.

ויש לדחות משום דלרב הונא דלא מקיש מקיף לניקף לא יניח גדול להקיף עצמו

(h) Question#1: It is possible to push this aside because according to Rav Huna that we do not compare the shaver to the one allowing himself to be shaved, the adult will simply not allow himself to be shaved (this is why no such case was brought up in the Gemora).

וגם אין להביא ראיה מדאמר ביבמות (דף ה. ושם) דאתי עשה דמצורע ודחי לאו דהקפה מדכתיב ראשו משמע דכ"ע מודו דאסור ע"י אשה ונכרי דאי שרי לרב אדא אמאי דחי הא אפשר לקיים שניהם

(i) Implied Question#2: One also cannot bring proof from the Gemara's statement in Yevamos (5a) that the positive commandment of Metzora pushes aside the negative prohibition of shaving around one's head, as the Pasuk states, "his head." This implies that everyone agrees that this is forbidden to be done by a woman or Nochri. If it would be permitted according to Rav Ada, why should the negative prohibition be pushed aside? It is possible to uphold both Mitzvos!

דיש לדחות דאצטריך קרא למימר דדחי היכא דאין שם אשה ונכרי

(j) Answer: It is possible to push aside that the Pasuk is required to say that the negative commandment is pushed aside when there is no woman or Nochri available.

ואין לומר ימתין עד שימצא אשה או נכרי או קטן

(k) Implied Question: One should not say that a leper might be obligated to wait until he can find a woman or Nochri.

מדבעי למימר בפ' שילוח הקן (חולין דף קמא.) דאתי עשה דמצורע ודחי עשה דשילוח הקן ולא אמרינן ימתין עד שימצא אחר

(l) Answer: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara needed to say in Chulin (141a) that the positive commandment regarding a leper should come and push aside the positive commandment regarding Shilu'ach ha'Ken. We do not say that he should wait until he can find another bird. [The Gemara there is discussing a person who took a mother bird from her nest when her children were there. He already transgressed the negative prohibition against taking the mother bird in that situation. However, the Gemara says we would think he could take the mother bird to use as a Korban Metzora, fulfilling the positive Mitzvah of "v'Lakach la'Mitaher," and that this would push aside the positive commandment of "Shalei'ach Tishalach." The Gemora does not assume that he should simply get another bird, and not push aside "Shalei'ach Tishalach." Similarly, there is no reason to say that a Metzora should wait until he would find a woman or Nochri.]

אבל יש להביא ראיה מפ' ב' נזירים (נזיר דף נז:) דקאמר ודלמא לאו טמאין אינון וקעביד הקפה ומשני שמואל באשה וקטן ודייק התם דקסבר שמואל דהקפת כל הראש שמה הקפה מדלא אוקי בגדול

(m) Proof: However, it is possible to bring a proof (that Rav Ada says that the one who allows the area around his head to be shaved is liable, even if the one who shaves him is not commanded in this Mitzvah) from the Gemara in Nazir (57b). The Gemara asks, "Perhaps they are not impure and they are having their heads shaved for no reason (which is prohibited)?" Shmuel answers that the case is where a woman or minor are the Nezirim in question. The Gemara there deduces that Shmuel holds that shaving around the entire head is called the prohibition of Hakafah, from the fact that he does not say that it is talking about an adult.

והשתא אי שרי לרב אדא כי מקיף ליה לאו בר חיובא אכתי תקשי ליה ולוקמה בגדול ויקיפנו לאו בר חיובא

1. Now, if Rav Ada only permits someone who is not obligated in the Mitzvah of shaving around one's head to do the shaving (for someone who is obligated), there still is a question on Shmuel. The Gemara should ask that the case should be where the Nazir is an adult, and a person who is not obligated in the prohibition against shaving around one's head will do the shaving for him.

דהא שמואל כרב אדא ס"ל מדשרי להקיף באשה וקטן ומשמע דמקיף בר חיובא הוא דלא פירש באשה וקטן ומגלח להו אשה וקטן

2. This is because Shmuel holds like Rav Ada, as is apparent from the fact that he permits shaving around the head of a woman or minor. The implication is that the one doing the shaving is indeed a regular adult, as the Gemara did not say the case is where a woman or minor are shaving a woman or minor.


תוס' ד"ה חדא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case of one that is two.)

בהתראה אחת איירי ובגילוח בבת אחת או בזה אחר זה תוך כדי דיבור דלא מ"ל אישתליין

(a) Explanation: The case is where there is one warning (from the witnesses), and where he shaves both at one time, or one after the other within a few seconds. This is in order that he cannot say he forgot (the warning).

דאי בכמה התראות לא הוה פליג ר' אליעזר בפ' בתרא דמכות (דף כ.) דאמר אם נטלן כולן כאחת אינו חייב אלא אחת

1. If this was referring to many warnings, Rebbi Eliezer would not argue at the end of Makos (20a). He says that if he took them all off at once, he is only liable for one transgression. [He would not say this if there were separate warnings for each hair.]

ואע"ג דהתם מצרכי קרא למחייב על כל קרחה וקרחה ועל כל שריטה ושריטה הכא לא צריך קרא

(b) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that there a Pasuk is required to teach us that one is liable for every bald spot and every scratch (over a dead person). Here, a Pasuk is not necessary. [Why not?]

דפאות מחלקות ור' אליעזר לית ליה מחלקות

(c) Answer: This is because the different parts of the Pei'os make them into separate prohibitions. However, Rebbi Eliezer does not agree that this makes them into separate prohibitions.


תוס' ד"ה גבי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this grouping of categories is only found here, and not in the other Mesechtos, such as Nega'im.)

בטעמא דכתיבי גבי הדדי סגי כדאמר במס' נדרים (דף ב:)

(a) Explanation: The reason that they are written next to each other is enough, as is stated in Nedarim (2b).

וא"ת גבי מראות נגעים ליתני כולהו דדמיין אהדדי בקרבן עולה ויורד

(b) Question: When the Mishnah discusses the types of leprosy (in Meseches Nega'im), why doesn't it also state all of these things that are similar to each other in that they all mandate one to bring a Korban Olah v'Yored?

וי"ל דליתיה בדלי דלות

(c) Answer: They do not all have the poorest option (a Metzora cannot bring the poorest type of Korban, while the others can).

וא"ת מ"מ ליתני במתניתין קודם יציאות שבת כיון דאיתא בדלות ודמי טפי לשבועות

(d) Question: Even so, why aren't types of leprosy stated in our Mishnah before types of carrying on Shabbos? Leprosy at least has a poor option and is more like Shevuos!

וי"ל דהני לכפר והני להכשיר

(e) Answer: The Korbanos of brought due to Shevuos and Shabbos are in order to atone for sins, while the Korbanos of a Metzora are to enable him to eat Kodshim.


תוס' ד"ה פתח

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not answer it explains what was last discussed.)

וליכא למימר דמינה דסליק מפרש ברישא

(a) Implied Question: The Gemara cannot answer that it explains first what it last discussed (instead of what is listed first). (Why not?)

דהא ממראות נגעים קא סליק

(b) Answer: This is because the last thing discussed was Maros Nega'im (not Yedios ha'Tumah).


תוס' ד"ה איידי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara can say that the discussion regarding impurity is short.)

אע"ג דנפישי מילייהו משבועת בטוי דבידיעות איכא תרי פרקי קמאי ומשבועת בטוי ליכא אלא פרק ג'

(a) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that their details are more lengthy than Shevuas Bituy, as the discussion about impurity is in the first two chapters of our Meseches, and the discussion regarding Shevuas Bituy is only in the third chapter. [How, then, can our Gemara say it is more lengthy?]

מ"מ מילי דכל שבועות נפישין טפי שבועת בטוי שבועת העדות ושבועת הפקדון ושבועת הדיינין

(b) Answer: Even so, the discussions regarding all of the types of Shevuos combined are more lengthy, as they involve Shevuos of Bituy, Eidus, Pikadon, and of Dayanim.


תוס' ד"ה והדר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that although Yedios and Shevuos are similar, they do have a difference in the way they are stated in the Mishnayos.)

אע"ג דלא דמי דידיעות מפרש מילי דידיעות ברישא והדר תני שתים שהן ארבע ובשבועות מפרש שתים שהן ארבע ברישא

(a) Explanation: This is despite the fact that they are not similar. Regarding Yedios, the Mishnah explains the types of cases and only later (14b) states that they are two that are four. [This does not count the first listing of our Mishnah (2a) which listed all types of things that are "two that are four."] Regarding Shevuos, the Mishnah first states that they are "two that are four" (19b) and it then explains the cases.


תוס' ד"ה שהן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara explains the Mishnah as it does, and why the Mishnah only states the cases that it states.)

וא"ת ומה דוחקיה לפרושי הכי דהשתא קשיא ליה בסמוך אי ר' ישמעאל האמר אינו חייב כו' לימא שהן ארבע אזרוק ולא אזרוק ונתוקמא מתניתין שפיר כר' ישמעאל

(a) Question: What is pressing the Gemara to explain Shevuos in this manner? The Gemara has a question later that if this is according to Rebbi Yishmael, didn't he say that he is not liable etc. Why not say "they are four" refers to cases of "I will throw" and "I will not throw?" This enables us to establish the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yishmael!

וי"ל דבפ"ג (לקמן דף יט: בהדיא תנן שהן ארבע אכלתי ולא אכלתי וההיא מתניתין קיימא לפרושי מתניתין דהכא

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that later (19b) the Mishnah explicitly says that "they are four" refers to "I ate" and "I didn't eat." Being that the Mishnah there is clearly coming to explain our Mishnah (2a), this must be the true explanation of our Mishnah.

ואין להקשות דליתני שתים שהן שמונה אזרוק ולא אזרוק זרקתי ולא זרקתי

(c) Implied Question: One should not ask that the Mishnah should say "two that are eight," including "I will throw," "I will not throw," "I threw," and "I didn't throw." [Why not include all of these cases regarding a neutral action?]

דלא תני אלא דבר וחילופו כדפירש בקונטרס במתניתין

(d) Answer: This is because the Mishnah only writes something along with its contrast, as Rashi explains in our Mishnah. [Being that the Mishnah's "two" are based on "To do bad" or "to do good" (Vayikra 5:4), the Mishnah only discusses a direct contrast of those two cases.]


תוס' ד"ה אי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Rebbi Yishmael's opinion regarding the requirement of prior knowledge in order to bring a Korban.)

וא"ת תקשי ליה נמי ידיעות דמתניתין בעיא ידיעה בתחלה כדתנן כל שיש בה ידיעה בתחלה כו'

(a) Question: You should also ask regarding Yedios. The Mishnah requires him to first know in order to have to bring a Korban, as the Mishnah says, "Whatever has knowledge in the beginning etc."

ור' ישמעאל לא בעי ידיעה תחלה כדמוכח בפירקין (דף ט.) דקאמר לר' ישמעאל אין בה ידיעה בתחלה ויש בה ידיעה בסוף בר קרבן הוא ואמר נמי בספ"ב (לקמן דף יט:) הא מני ר' ישמעאל היא דלא בעי ידיעה בתחלה

1. Rebbi Yishmael does not require prior knowledge, as is apparent in our chapter (9a). The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Yishmael when there is no prior knowledge and there is knowledge in the end, he must bring a Korban. The Gemara also says later (19b) that this is according to Rebbi Yishmael who does not require prior knowledge.

וי"ל דמידיעות לא בעי למיפרך דהמ"ל דידיעה דמתני' היינו ידיעת בית רבו ור' ישמעאל סבר לה כרבי דאמר ידיעת בית רבו שמה ידיעה

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that from Yedios it is not possible to ask a question. It is possible to say that the knowledge referred to by the Mishnah is the knowledge from his teacher. Rebbi Yishmael holds like Rebbi who says that knowledge from one's teacher is called knowledge.

כדאמר בירושלמי ר' ישמעאל כרבי ורבי כר' ישמעאל

1. This is as the Yerushalmi states that Rebbi Yishmael holds like Rebbi, and Rebbi holds like Rebbi Yishmael.

אע"ג דגמ' דידן פליג אירושלמי וסבר דר' ישמעאל לא בעי ידיעה בתחלה אפי' ידיעת בית רבו מדלא מוקי לקמן דחיצון מכפר אאין בה ידיעה תחלה אפי' ידיעת בית רבו משמע דלעולם בר קרבן הוא אפי' אין בו ידיעה בתחלה כלל

(c) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that our Gemara argues on the Yerushalmi, and holds that Rebbi Yishmael does not require prior knowledge, not even knowledge from his teacher. This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara does not establish later that the goat brought in the "outside" (regular part of the Beis Hamikdash) atones for not having prior knowledge, even knowledge from one's teacher. This implies that one must even bring a Korban when he had absolutely no prior knowledge.

וכן משמע בפ"ב (לקמן דף יד: ושם) דבעי ר' ירמיה בן בבל שעלה לא"י ונעלם ממנו מקום מקדש מהו וקאמר אי אליבא דר' ישמעאל הא לא בעי ידיעה בתחלה ומסיק דבעי אליבא דרבי דבעי ידיעת בית רבו משמע דר' ישמעאל לא בעי ידיעה כלל בתחלה

1. This is also implied later (14b). Rebbi Yirmiyah asks, if a person from Bavel comes to Eretz Yisrael and he does not know where the place of the Mikdash is, what is the law? The Gemara says that if this question is according to Rebbi Yishmael, no prior knowledge is required! The Gemara concludes that its question is according to Rebbi who requires that he at least have knowledge from his teacher. This implies that Rebbi Yishmael does not require having any prior knowledge. [How, then, can we answer above that Rebbi Yishmael does require the knowledge of one's teacher?]

מ"מ השתא אי הוי מצי אתיא מתניתין כר' ישמעאל נימא דודאי בעי ר' ישמעאל ידיעת בית רבו אבל לפי האמת דמתניתין אתיא כרבי אמרי' דר' ישמעאל לא בעי ידיעה בתחלה כלל דלא מצינו תנא דסבר דהוי ידיעת בית רבו ידיעה אלא רבי

(d) Answer: Even so, if the Mishnah could be according to Rebbi Yishmael, we should say that Rebbi Yishmael certainly requires the knowledge of his teacher. However, being that the truth is that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi, we say that Rebbi Yishmael does not require prior knowledge at all. The only Tana that we find indeed holds that one requires prior knowledge from his teacher is Rebbi.

ומיהו מתניתין דפ"ב (שם.) דקאי לפרושי פירקין משמע קצת דבעי ידיעה גמורה דקתני נטמא וידע משמע שהידיעה היא אחר שנטמא דהיא ידיעת הטומאה לאפוקי ידיעת בית רבו דהיא קודם הטומאה

(e) Implied Question: However, the Mishnah (14b) that is coming to explain our chapter slightly implies that we require a complete knowledge. This is as it says that if one became impure and he "knew," implying that he knew for sure after he became impure. This is as opposed to "knowing" from one's teacher, which is before he becomes impure (and does not seem to fit the definition of "knowing" in this Mishnah, which is knowing for certain). [How, then, can Rebbi Yishmael require prior knowledge from one's teacher?]

ונראה דמידיעות לא מצי למיפרך שהיה יכול לדחוק ולתרץ כדקאמר התם מקראי לית ליה מגמרא אית ליה

(f) Answer: It appears that from Yedios one cannot ask, as one could push himself to answer like we answer there (19b), that despite the fact that he does not know this from the Pesukim, he knows it as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (that one must know from his teacher).


תוס' ד"ה מהן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is possibly fitting for the Mishnah to be according to Rebbi Akiva.)

אהאי שינויא ואשינויא דמלקות ה"מ למיפרך מסיפא דמוכח דמתני' לענין חיוב קרבן

(a) Observation: The Gemara can ask on this answer and on the answer regarding lashes from the second part of the Mishnah that it is apparent that our Mishnah is referring to all of the cases making one liable to bring a Korban.

וא"ת בשלמא כי מוקי לה כר' ישמעאל דאע"ג דאינו חייב אלא על העתיד מ"מ שפיר תני בהו שהן ארבע הואיל וקעביד איסורא במזיד

(b) Question: It is understandable to establish the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi Yishmael. Even though Rebbi Yishmael holds one is only liable on the future, even so it is understandable why the Mishnah says, "that they are four" being that he is purposely committing a sin. [In other words, he is liable for two cases of Korban, "I will eat" and "I will not eat," and he sins if he purposely swears, "I ate" or "I did not eat."]

אבל כי מוקי כר' עקיבא אמאי תני ליה כלל כיון דשוגג הוא ולא מייתי קרבן

1. However, if the Mishnah will be established as according to Rebbi Akiva, why does it say "two that are four" at all, being that the last two cases are where he transgressed accidentally and does not even require a Korban? [The Maharsha explains that according to Rebbi Akiva, there are only two cases where someone brings a Korban. In both he forgot he was impure, and then he either ate Kodesh or went into the Mikdash. The other two cases are when he ate Kodesh or went into the Mikdash never knowing that he was impure. However, in these latter cases his liability is even less than accidental, as he never even knew he was impure. He does not even bring a Korban. Why, then, does the Mishnah say they are "two that are four?"]

וי"ל דמ"מ חשיב להו שפיר שהן ארבע הואיל וקעביד איסורא בשוגג

(c) Answer: It still understandably considers this "two that are four" being that he transgressed accidentally.



תוס' ד"ה הא דומיא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the primary source for the fact that all of the cases in the Mishnah are liable is leprosy.)

הא דלא פריך מיציאות השבת

(a) Implied Question: The Gemara did not ask from the fact that all of the cases of carrying on Shabbos make one liable. [Why did it ask instead from types of leprosy?]

משום דיציאות גופייהו לא ידעינן דהוו בכולהו לחיובא אלא מדומיא דמראות נגעים לקמן בפירקין (דף ה.)

(b) Answer: This is because we only know that the types of carrying all make one liable because we compare it to types of leprosy later (see 5a).


תוס' ד"ה לעולם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes the Gemara will explain why we do not establish the Mishnah as according to Rebbi Akiva.)

לקמן (דף ד.) מפרש אמאי לא מוקמינן לה נמי כר' עקיבא

(a) Explanation: Later (4a), the Gemara explains why we do not establish the Mishnah as according to Rebbi Akiva.


תוס' ד"ה אבל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our Gemara is according to Rabin, and why certain cases were explained as more central than others.)

סוגיא דהכא כרבין דאמר התם (דף כא.) אכלתי ולא אכלתי שקר ואזהרתיה מלא תשבעו בשמי לשקר אוכל ולא אוכל עובר בלא יחל ואיזהו שוא נשבע לשנות את הידוע

(a) Explanation: The Gemara here is according to Rabin who says (21a) that if someone swears he ate or did not eat (and lied), it is called a "Shevuas Sheker." The Torah's warning not to do so is the Pasuk, "Do not swear in my name falsely." If someone swears he will eat or will not eat (and does not fulfill his words), he transgresses the Pasuk, "He should not make his word void." What is a Shevuas Shav? It is when someone swears to change something that is established as known.

ואליביה מסקינן בפירוש ריבתה תורה אבל רב דימי אמר התם אכלתי ולא אכלתי שוא ולא צריכנא להאי ריבתה תורה

1. We indeed conclude in our Gemara according to Rabin, as we say that the Torah explicitly included that a Shevuas Sheker is regarding something that happened in the past. However, Rav Dimi says there that someone who swore he ate or did not eat (and lied) has made a Shevuas Shav. We would not then require this teaching (as he holds that it is incorrect) that the Torah included etc.

ולדידיה לא מיתוקמא ב' שהן ד' דלא מפרשי טפי הני מהני למלקות

2. According to Rav Dimi, "two that are four" cannot be established, as neither group of cases is more relative than the other to lashes (as opposed to Rabin who says that the cases of past tense are only included because we compare them to Shevuas Shav).

ולפי זה למאי דמסיק קסבר לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו תימה לר"י דמאי מיפרשי הני טפי מהני

(b) Question: According to the conclusion of the Gemara that Rebbi Yishmael holds that one receives lashes for transgressing a negative prohibition even though he does not do an action, the Ri has difficulty. Why does the Mishnah explain one set of Shevuos as being more established than the other?

ונראה דאף על גב דלענין מלקות כולהו שוין מ"מ שייך שפיר למיתני בהו ב' שהן ד' משום דבשתים קרבן נמי אית בהו אע"ג דמתניתין לא איירי אלא במלקות

(c) Answer#1: It appears that even though regarding lashes they are all equal, it is still appropriate to write "two that are four." This is because two of these types of Shevuos also make one liable to bring a Korban, (and is pertinent) even though the Mishnah is only referring to cases of lashes. [The two that deal with the future mandate lashes and a Korban, while "that are four" are of a somewhat lesser category, as they only make one liable to receive lashes and not a Korban. It therefore is understandable that we categorize them as "two that are four."]

וריצב"א פי' דסוגיא זו כרבין כדפי' ולדידיה מיפרשי טפי אוכל ולא אוכל מאכלתי ולא אכלתי דפשטי' דלא תשבעו משמע להבא כדפירש בקונט' גבי רב דימי דהכי קאמר רחמנא לא תשבעו בשמי כדי לשקר בשבועה לאחר זמן ואפי' רבין מודה

(d) Answer#2: The Ritzba explains that this Gemara is according to Rabin, as we explained above (a). According to him, the Mishnah explains "I will eat" and "I will not eat" more than "I ate" and "I did not eat" because the simple explanation of "You should not swear etc." implies regarding things that will happen in the future. This is as Rashi explains regarding Rav Dimi that the Torah means, "One should not swear in my name in order to lie regarding this oath after awhile." Even Rabin admits to this.

והא דמפיק ליה מפשטיה ומוקי לה באכלתי ולא אכלתי

(e) Implied Question: Rabin (and Rava) takes the Pasuk, "You should not swear etc." out of its context, and establishes it as meaning, "I ate" and "I did not eat." [Why does he do this if the Pasuk itself implies Shevuos regarding future events?]

היינו משום דלהבא נפקא מלא יחל

(f) Answer: This is because Shevuos regarding the future are derived from the Pasuk, "You should not make your word mundane."

ולהכי חשיב הכא אכלתי ולא אכלתי שהן ד' דלא מיפרשי משום דקרא לא משמע אלא להבא

1. This is why the Mishnah here considers "I ate" and "I didn't eat" to be considered "that are four." They are not considered to be explicitly stated, as the Pasuk only implies Shevuos regarding the future.

ולא מוקי ליה באכלתי ולא אכלתי אלא משום דלא ניחא ליה לאוקמי בלאו יתירא

2. It does not establish the Pasuk as being regarding a case of "I ate" and "I didn't eat" because it does not want to establish the Pasuk as merely adding an extra negative commandment (to those cases). [Instead, it understands that it is talking about cases of "I will eat" or "I will not eat."]


תוס' ד"ה וכדרבא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rebbi Yishmael does not hold of Rava's teaching.)

תימה דאמאי מייתי מילתיה דרבא אדרבה ה"ל לאתויי מילתיה דר' יוחנן דאמר לשוא לשוא שתי פעמים אם אינו ענין לשבועת שוא תנהו ענין לשבועת שקר

(a) Question: This is difficult. Why does the Gemara quote Rava? On the contrary, it should have brought the teaching of Rebbi Yochanan who says that from the fact that the word "l'Shav" is quoted twice we say that if the second time is not required to teach about a Shevuas Shav, it should be used regarding a Shevuas Sheker!

דממילתיה דר' יוחנן הוה לקי אפילו באוכל ולא אכל אי לאו מילתיה דרבא

1. From this statement of Rebbi Yochanan he would receive lashes even in a case where he made a Shevuah that "I will eat" or "I will not eat," if it were not for Rava's teaching.

וי"ל דהיינו דפריך בשלמא אכלתי ולא אכלתי כדרבא אלא אוכל ולא אכל לאו שאין בו מעשה הוא

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara's question is as follows. It is understandable that one receives lashes for the Shevuos "I ate" and "I didn't eat" as this is Rava's teaching. However, "I will eat" and "I will not eat" are negative prohibitions that do not entail an action. [Why should he receive lashes?]

ומשני דקסבר ר' ישמעאל לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו פירוש ולית ליה דרבא אלא דריש לשוא לשוא ב' פעמים אם אינו ענין לשבועת שוא תנהו ענין לשבועת שקר בין אוכל ולא אכל בין אכלתי ולא אכלתי

1. The Gemara answers that Rebbi Yishmael holds that doing a negative prohibition (even) without performing an action still makes one receive lashes. This means that we no longer use Rava's teaching. Rather, he derives from the word "l'Shav" being stated twice that if this is not needed (twice) regarding a Shevuas Shav, it should be used to teach about Shevuas Sheker. This is both about a case where he said, "I will eat," and he did not eat, and about a case where he said, "I did eat" and he didn't.


תוס' ד"ה בפירוש

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel argue regarding Rava's exact teaching.)

פירש בקונט' מלשוא לשוא ב' פעמים

(a) Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this (teaching regarding which Rava said the Torah "explicitly" includes etc.) is derived from the fact that it is says, "l'Shav" twice.

ואין נראה דאין זה בפירוש דאההיא דרשא גופה פריך לקמן (דף כא.) ומאי שנא פירוש דאפי' אוכל ולא אכל נמי

(b) Implied Question: This does not seem correct, as this is not explicit. On this very teaching the Gemara asks later (21a), "And what is the difference?" This means that (the Gemara is asking) even in a case where he says that he will eat and he doesn't, this case should be included.

אלא נראה כפירוש ר"ח דפירש בפירוש ריבתה תורה דבדברות הראשונות כתיב (שמות כ) לא תענה ברעך עד שקר ובדברות אחרונות כתיב (דברים ה) עד שוא לומר דשוא ושקר אחד הן

(c) Explanation#2: Rather, it appears that the correct explanation is that of Rabeinu Chananel. He explains that when Rava says, "The Torah explicitly included etc." he means that in the first Dibros the Pasuk says, "Do not answer about your friend and be a "Sheker" witness" (Shemos 20:12) and in the second Dibros the Pasuk says, "a "Shav" witness" (Devarim 5:16). This teaches us that Shav and Sheker are the same thing.


תוס' ד"ה אי הכי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the text that there is a difficulty from the Gemara in Makos is incorrect.)

פירש בקונטרס דל"ג ליה

(a) Implied Question: Rashi explains that we do not have this text. [The text referred to is a question asked by the Gemara that in Makos (13b) Rebbi Yishmael holds that one does not receive lashes for transgressing a negative prohibition without doing an action. How do we know this isn't the correct text?]

משום דלמסקנא דהכא מצי סבר דאין לוקין עליו ופריך התם אי הכי לאו שאין בו מעשה נמי לפי המסקנא דהכא

(b) Answer#1: This is because according to the conclusion of the Gemara here he (Rebbi Yishmael) can indeed hold that one does not receive lashes on this type of prohibition. The Gemara asks there (Makos 13b), if so, a negative prohibition that does not an involve an action should also be punished with lashes! This is according to the conclusion of our Gemara (that Rebbi Yishmael holds that such a negative prohibition is not punished with lashes).

ועי"ל דהתם רוצה ליישב דרבי ישמעאל דקאמר התם חייבי מיתות ב"ד ישנן בכלל מלקות אפי' למ"ד אין לוקין עליו

(c) Answer#2: Alternatively, one can answer that the Gemara in Makos (13b) wants to answer that when Rebbi Yishmael says that people who are liable to be punished with death by Beis Din are included in the punishment of lashes, it is even according to the opinion that one does not receive lashes for a negative prohibition that does not involve an action. [This is despite the fact that he himself may hold that one does receive lashes for this type of prohibition.]

ולמאי דפרישי' דדוקא הכא סבר רבי ישמעאל דלוקין עליו מלשוא שוא אתי שפיר

1. According to what was explained above that Rebbi Yishmael holds that one would receive lashes here from the teaching of saying "l'Shav" twice, this is understandable (see end of Tosfos above, DH "k'di'Rava").


תוס' ד"ה התראת ספק

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the position of Reish Lakish.)

אבל משום דהוי לאו שאין בו מעשה לא מיפטר דקסבר ריש לקיש דלוקין עליו

(a) Explanation: However, Reish Lakish does not hold that the fact that it is a negative prohibition that does not involve an action is reason to be exempt from lashes, as he holds one does receive lashes in such a case.

ותימה דבפ' ד' מיתות (סנהדרין דף סה: ושם) פטר ר"ל חסמה והנהיגה בקול דעקימת שפתיו לא הוי מעשה

(b) Question: This is difficult, as in Sanhedrin (65b) Reish Lakish exempts muzzling (regular animals) and leading animals that are Kilayim with one's voice, as he holds that moving one's lips is not an action. [This indicates that he holds that one does not receive lashes for a negative prohibition that does not entail an action.]

וי"ל דהתם אליבא דרבנן קאמר דבהשוכר את הפועלים (ב"מ דף צ: ושם) פריך ליה רבי יוחנן ממתני' דאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים ומשני ר"ל הא מני ר' יהודה היא כלומר ואנא אמרי אליבא דרבנן

(c) Answer: Reish Lakish in Sanhedrin (ibid.) is discussing the opinion of the Rabbanan. In Bava Metzia (90b), Rebbi Yochanan asked a question on Reish Lakish from a Mishnah that if one declares an animal to be in exchange for a Korban, it is effective and he receives lashes. [This is unlike (b).] Reish Lakish answers that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, while he himself agrees with the Rabbanan.