## Shevuot Daf 3a

###### Shevuot 3a:1
[Shevuot 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:1)

וְעַל הַזָּקָן שְׁתַּיִם מִיכָּן וּשְׁתַּיִם מִיכָּן וְאַחַת מִלְּמַטָּה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And for** marring **the** edges of his **beard** there are **two** edges **from here,** on one side of his face, **and two from there,** on the other side, **and one from below.**


###### Shevuot 3a:2
[Shevuot 3a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:2)

חֲדָא דְּמִיחַיַּיב עֲלַהּ תַּרְתֵּי; תָּנֵא שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: As apparent from the mishna in *Makkot*, this is a case where there is **one** prohibition **for which one is liable** to receive **two** punishments. Continuing on this theme, the *tanna* **taught** in the beginning of tractate *Shevuot* examples of other sets of *halakhot* that can be formulated similarly, beginning with: With regard to **oaths** on an utterance, there are **two** types **that are** actually **four** types.


###### Shevuot 3a:3
[Shevuot 3a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:3)

מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּתָנֵי לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי יְצִיאוֹת שַׁבָּת וּמַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים, דְּלָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **What is different here,** in tractate *Shevuot*, **that** the mishna **teaches all** the sets of *halakhot* that can be formulated as: Two that are four, **and what is different with regard to** the chapter beginning: The acts of **carrying out** that are prohibited **on Shabbat,** i.e., the first chapter of tractate *Shabbat*, **and** the chapter beginning: **And** the **shades of** leprous **marks,** i.e., the first chapter of tractate *Nega’im*, **where** the mishna **does not teach all of them,** rather only the specific set of *halakhot* relevant to that tractate?


###### Shevuot 3a:4
[Shevuot 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:4)

אָמְרִי: שְׁבוּעוֹת וִידִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה דְּגַבֵּי הֲדָדֵי כְּתִיבָן, וְדָמְיָין אַהֲדָדֵי בְּקׇרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד – תָּנֵי לְהוּ גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי; וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא תַּרְתֵּי – תְּנָא כּוּלְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in explanation: Since the passages of **oaths and** of liability based on one’s **awareness of the defiling** of the Temple or its sacrificial foods **are written together** in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:2–4), **and they are** also **similar to each other** in that they can both incur liability **to** bring **a sliding-scale offering,** the mishna therefore **taught** both of **them together** here. **And once it** already **taught two** sets, it continued and **taught all of them.**


###### Shevuot 3a:5
[Shevuot 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:5)

פְּתַח בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת, וּמְפָרֵשׁ יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה! אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּטְרָן מִילַּיְיהוּ, פָּסֵיק שָׁרֵי לְהוּ; וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת דִּנְפִישָׁן מִילַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires further: Tractate *Shevuot* **opens with** a reference to **oaths, but** then proceeds to **explain** the cases of one’s **awareness of the defiling** of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, returning to discuss oaths only in the third chapter. Why? The Gemara explains: **Since** the **cases** of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods **are** relatively **few,** the *tanna* **addressed** them **directly** and **dispensed with them, and then** afterward returned to **teach** the *halakhot* of **oaths, which have numerous details.**


###### Shevuot 3a:6
[Shevuot 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:6)

שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע: שְׁתַּיִם – ״שֶׁאוֹכַל״ וְ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״; שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע – ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **oaths** on an utterance, there are **two** types **that are** actually **four** types. The Gemara explains: The **two** types are where one states: On my oath **I will eat, and** where he states: On my oath **I will not eat.** If he violates either oath he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. These two types **are** actually **four** types because they also include the cases where a person falsely states: On my oath **I ate, and** where he falsely states: On my oath **I did not eat.**


###### Shevuot 3a:7
[Shevuot 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:7)

יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע: שְׁתַּיִם – יְדִיעַת טוּמְאַת קֹדֶשׁ וִידִיעַת טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ; שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע – קֹדֶשׁ וּמִקְדָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: With regard to cases of one’s **awareness of the defiling** of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, for which one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, there are **two** cases **that are** actually **four.** The Gemara explains: The **two** cases are where one’s lack of **awareness of** the fact that he was **ritually impure** led him to eat **sacrificial** food, **and** where one’s lack of **awareness** of the fact that he was **ritually impure** led him to enter the **Temple.** These two types **are** actually **four** types, because one is also liable where he was aware that he was impure, but had a lapse of awareness about the status of the **sacrificial** food **or** the identity of the **Temple.**


###### Shevuot 3a:8
[Shevuot 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:8)

יְצִיאוֹת שַׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע: שְׁתַּיִם – הוֹצָאָה דְעָנִי וְהוֹצָאָה דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת; שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע – הַכְנָסָה דְעָנִי וְהַכְנָסָה דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: With regard to acts of **carrying out** that are prohibited **on Shabbat,** there are **two** types **that are four.** The Gemara explains the cases by using the analogy of a poor person who remains in the public domain and a homeowner who remains in the private domain and one passes an item to the other: The **two** types are the **carrying out by a poor person** of an item from the private domain to the public domain **and** the **carrying out by a homeowner** of an item from the private domain to the public domain. These two types **are** actually **four** types because they also include the **bringing in by a poor person** of an item from the public domain to the private domain **and** the **bringing in by a homeowner** of an item from the public domain to the private domain.


###### Shevuot 3a:9
[Shevuot 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:9)

מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה: שְׁנַיִם – שְׂאֵת וּבַהֶרֶת; שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה – שְׂאֵת וְתוֹלַדְתָּהּ, בַּהֶרֶת וְתוֹלַדְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna’s final example: With regard to **shades of** leprous **marks,** there are **two** shades **that are** actually **four.** The Gemara explains: The **two** shades are of **a wool-white** leprous **mark [*se’et*] and** of **a snow-white** leprous **mark [*baheret*].** These two **are** actually **four** because they also include **a *se’et* and its secondary** mark, i.e., one similar to it, and **a *baheret* and its secondary** mark, i.e., one similar to it.


###### Shevuot 3a:10
[Shevuot 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:10)

מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לֹא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא! אִי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הָאָמַר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. אִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָאָמַר: עַל הֶעְלֵם טוּמְאָה הוּא חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna?** It is **neither** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael nor** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.** The Gemara elaborates: **If** one suggests that it is the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** that suggestion can be refuted, as **doesn’t he say** with regard to oaths: **One is liable only for** oaths pertaining to **the future,** but not for those pertaining to the past? The mishna states that one is liable also for oaths pertaining to the past. And **if** one suggests it is the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** that suggestion can be refuted, as **doesn’t he say: For** having defiled the Temple or its sacrificial foods during **a lapse of awareness of** the fact that one is **ritually impure** one **is liable** to bring a sliding-scale offering, **but** one **is not liable for** having done so during **a lapse of awareness of** the fact that the place he entered was actually the **Temple?** The mishna states that one is liable also in such a case.


###### Shevuot 3a:11
[Shevuot 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:11)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – מֵהֶן לְחִיּוּב וּמֵהֶן לִפְטוּר. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – מֵהֶן לְחִיּוּב וּמֵהֶן לִפְטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that the mishna expresses the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** and **if you wish, say** that the mishna expresses the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.** The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** that the mishna expresses the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** and the intent of the mishna is that while there are four types of oaths, **among them** are types **for** which there is **liability** to bring an offering for one who violates them **and among them** are types **for** which there is **exemption** from liability for one who violates them. **And if you wish, say** that the mishna expresses the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** and the intent of the mishna is that while there are four cases defined by one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, **among them** are cases **for** which there is **liability** to bring an offering **and among them** are cases **for** which there is **exemption** from liability.


###### Shevuot 3a:12
[Shevuot 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3a:12)

לִפְטוּר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can one say that the mishna teaches types **for** which there is **exemption** from liability?