## Shevuot Daf 6b

###### Shevuot 6b:1
[Shevuot 6b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:1)

וְאִם אִיתָא, ״שֶׁל צֶמֶר דֵּיהָה הֵימֶנָּה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is so** that Rabbi Akiva lists the different shades in decreasing order of their degree of brightness, then after mentioning the reddish variation of *baheret* **he should have** next said: The reddish variation **of a wool-**white mark **is darker than it,** not that the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.


###### Shevuot 6b:2
[Shevuot 6b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:2)

אָמְרִי: אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, לֹא שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא ״שֶׁל סִיד דֵּיהָה הֵימֶנָּה״, אֶלָּא ״שֶׁל צֶמֶר דֵּיהָה הֵימֶנָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said** in response to this: **Yes, it is indeed so** that Rabbi Akiva continues by referring to the reddish variations of a wool-white mark, **and it is taught** likewise in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says,** referring to that mishna: It is **not** correct **that Rabbi Akiva said:** The reddish variation **of lime is darker than it; rather,** he said that the reddish variation **of a** wool-white mark **is darker than it.**


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

וּמְנָלַן דְּבַהֶרֶת עַזָּה הִיא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִם בַּהֶרֶת לְבָנָה הִיא״ – הִיא לְבָנָה, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת לְבָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara considers the source from which the different shades of marks are derived: **And from where do we** derive **that *baheret* is an intense** white color? **Abaye said: The verse states:** “And **if it is a white *baheret*”** (Leviticus 13:4), which indicates that **it** alone **is** a bright **white and there is no other** as **white** as it.


###### Shevuot 6b:4
[Shevuot 6b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בַּהֶרֶת״ – עֲמוּקָּה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּמַרְאֶהָ עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר״; כְּמַרְאֵה חַמָּה הָעֲמוּקָּה מִן הַצֵּל. ״שְׂאֵת״ – אֵין שְׂאֵת אֶלָּא גָּבוֹהַּ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עַל כׇּל הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל כׇּל הַגְּבָעוֹת הַנִּשָּׂאוֹת״. ״סַפַּחַת״ – אֵין סַפַּחַת אֶלָּא טְפֵילָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאָמַר סְפָחֵנִי נָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The bright shade of **a *baheret*** makes it appear **deeper** than the surrounding skin, **and so** the verse **states: “And its appearance is deeper than the skin”** (Leviticus 13:25). This is **like the appearance of** an area illuminated by the **sun, which** appears **deeper than** the area in **the shade.** The darker shade of **a *se’et*** makes it appear as though it is raised above the surrounding skin; this is indicated by the fact that the word ***se’et*** means **nothing other than raised, and so** the verse **states: “Upon all the high mountains and upon all the raised up [*hanissaot*] hills”** (Isaiah 2:14). The words *hanissaot* and *se’et* share the same Hebrew root and both refer to something raised up. In the verse: “For a *se’et* and for a *sappaḥat*” (Leviticus 14:56), the word ***sappaḥat*** means **nothing other than secondary, and so** the verse **states: “And he will say: Append me [*sefaḥeni*] please** to one of the priestly classes to eat a piece of bread” (I Samuel 2:36). This teaches that there is a leprous mark that is secondary and appended to a *se’et*. This is a mark that is the color of an egg membrane.


###### Shevuot 6b:5
[Shevuot 6b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:5)

אַשְׁכְּחַן טְפֵילָה לַשְּׂאֵת; טְפֵילָה לַבַּהֶרֶת מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נֶאֶמְרָה ״לְבָנָה״ בַּשְּׂאֵת, וְנֶאֶמְרָה ״לְבָנָה״ בַּבַּהֶרֶת; מָה לְבָנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּשְּׂאֵת – יֵשׁ לָהּ טְפֵילָה, אַף לְבָנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּבַּהֶרֶת – יֵשׁ לָהּ טְפֵילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We found** a source for a mark that is **secondary to a *se’et*; from where do we** derive that there is also a mark that is **secondary to a *baheret*? Rabbi Zeira said: “White”** (Leviticus 13:10) **is stated with regard to a *se’et* and “white”** (Leviticus 13:4) **is stated with regard to a *baheret*.** This teaches that **just as** the shade of **white stated with regard to a *se’et* has a secondary** mark, i.e., the mark that is the color of an egg membrane, **so too,** the shade of **white stated with regard to a *baheret* has a secondary** mark, i.e., the lime-colored mark.


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

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: הֵטִיל הַכָּתוּב לַסַּפַּחַת בֵּין שְׂאֵת לַבַּהֶרֶת, לוֹמַר לָךְ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁטְּפֵילָה לַשְּׂאֵת, כָּךְ טְפֵילָה לַבַּהֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A different source for this **was taught in a *baraita*: The verse** (see Leviticus 13:2) **placed** the word ***sappaḥat* between *se’et* and *baheret*, to say to you: Just as** there is a shade that is **secondary to a *se’et*, so too,** there is a shade that is **secondary to a *baheret*.**


###### Shevuot 6b:7
[Shevuot 6b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:7)

שְׂאֵת כְּצֶמֶר לָבָן. מַאי ״צֶמֶר לָבָן״? אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: צֶמֶר נָקִי בֶּן יוֹמוֹ, שֶׁמְכַבְּנִין בּוֹ לְמֵילָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna in *Nega’im* cited above states: **A *se’et*** is **like white wool.** The Gemara asks: **What** is meant by **white wool? Rav Beivai says** that **Rav Asi says:** It is the color of **clean wool** from a lamb **that** is **wrapped up [*mekhabnin*]** in a cover when it is **one day old** in order to protect it from being sullied, so that the wool will be suitable **for** producing **a fine wool** garment.


###### Shevuot 6b:8
[Shevuot 6b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מָשָׁל דְּרַבָּנַן – לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לִתְרֵי מַלְכֵי וְלִתְרֵי אִיפַּרְכֵי; מַלְכּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְמַעְלָה מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְאִיפַּרְכוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְמַעְלָה מֵאִיפַּרְכוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In continuation of his statement cited above **Rabbi Ḥanina says:** The following is **an analogy** to illustrate the opinion **of the Rabbis,** i.e., the opinion expressed in the mishna in *Nega’im* (1:1) that both a *baheret* and a *se’et* have marks that are secondary to them. **To what is this matter comparable? To two kings and to two governors [*iparkhei*]** where, with regard to their supremacy, **the king of this** governor **is above the king of that** governor, **and the governor of this** king **is above the governor of that** king. The two kings are analogous to a *baheret* and a *se’et* and their two governors are, respectively, a lime-colored mark and an egg membrane–colored mark. Accordingly, the order of supremacy is: *Baheret*, *se’et*, lime-colored mark, egg membrane–colored mark.


###### Shevuot 6b:9
[Shevuot 6b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:9)

הַאי זֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה וְזֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions whether this is a suitable analogy for the opinion of the Rabbis: But **this** analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, **this** one **above this** one **and that** one **above that** one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness. That is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, not the opinion of the Rabbis.


###### Shevuot 6b:10
[Shevuot 6b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:10)

אֶלָּא מַלְכּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְמַעְלָה מֵאִיפַּרְכֵיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, וּמַלְכּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְמַעְלָה מֵאִיפַּרְכֵיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** a suitable analogy is where **the king of this** governor is **above his own governor, and the king of that** governor is **above his own governor.** So too, each secondary mark is subordinate only to its primary mark.


###### Shevuot 6b:11
[Shevuot 6b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:11)

רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן מַלְכָּא וְאַלְקַפְטָא, רוּפִילָא וְרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. הַאי זֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה הוּא! אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן מַלְכָּא וְרוּפִילָא, וְאַלְקַפְטָא וְרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a different analogy. **Rav Adda bar Abba said: For example: A king, and a chief officer [*alkafta*], the vizier [*rofila*], and the Exilarch;** each person in the list is more powerful than the subsequent one. The Gemara asks: But **this** analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, **this** one **above that** one, which is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion. **Rather,** a suitable analogy is, **for example: A king and the vizier; and a chief officer and the Exilarch.** This list splits the four into two groups, each group containing one person who is subordinate to the other.


###### Shevuot 6b:12
[Shevuot 6b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:12)

רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא וְקֵיסָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a different analogy. **Rava said:** The previous suggestion is not precise because all these positions, apart from the king, are subordinate to the king. A more precise analogy would be, **for example: King Shapur,** the king of Persia, with his subordinate; **and** the Roman **emperor** with his subordinate.


###### Shevuot 6b:13
[Shevuot 6b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּחוּרְשַׁיָּא קָא אָכֵיל לֵיהּ. פּוֹק חֲזִי טִיבְעָא דְּמַאן סַגִּי בְּעָלְמָא – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְתֵאכֻל כׇּל אַרְעָא וּתְדוּשִׁנַּהּ וְתַדְּקִנַּהּ״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ רוֹמִי חַיֶּיבֶת, שֶׁטִּיבְעָהּ יָצָא בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Rava: Which of them is greater,** King Shapur or the Roman emperor? Rava **said to him: Does he eat in the forest,** i.e., do you live disconnected and unaware of events in the world at large? **Go out** and **see whose coin circulates throughout the world,** which is an indicator of a government’s influence, **as it is written** with regard to the fourth empire described in Daniel’s dream of the future powers of the world: **“It shall devour the whole earth and tread upon it and break it into pieces”** (Daniel 7:23), and **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the guilty** empire of **Rome whose coin circulates throughout the entire world.**


###### Shevuot 6b:14
[Shevuot 6b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:14)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן גְּלִימָא דַּעֲמַר וְשַׁחְקֵיהּ, סְדִינָא דְּכִיתָּנָא וְשַׁחְקֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a different analogy. **Ravina said: For example,** a new white **woolen garment and a frayed** one; a new **linen sheet and a frayed one.**


###### Shevuot 6b:15
[Shevuot 6b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:15)

אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna (2a) states: In cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods **in which** one **had awareness at the beginning** and awareness at the end, but had a lapse of awareness in between while he actually transgressed, this person is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that the verse** that describes the liability for a sliding-scale offering (see Leviticus 5:2–4) **speaks of nothing other than** the **defiling of** the **Temple or its sacrificial** foods? While the verse mentions that a violation was committed due to a lapse of awareness of one’s state of impurity, it does not mention which transgression was violated.


###### Shevuot 6b:16
[Shevuot 6b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:16)

וְדִין הוּא – הוֹאִיל וְהִזְהִיר וְעָנַשׁ עַל הַטּוּמְאָה, וְחַיָּיב קׇרְבָּן עַל הַטּוּמְאָה; מָה כְּשֶׁהִזְהִיר וְעָנַשׁ עַל הַטּוּמְאָה – לֹא הִזְהִיר וְעָנַשׁ אֶלָּא עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, אַף כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב קׇרְבָּן עַל הַטּוּמְאָה – לֹא חִיֵּיב אֶלָּא עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And it is a logical inference: Since** the Torah has explicitly **prohibited and** also **prescribed punishment for the** intentional **defiling** of something sacred **and has rendered one liable** to bring **an offering for the** unwitting **defiling** of something sacred, it follows that **just as when it prohibited and** also **prescribed punishment for the defiling** of something sacred **it prohibited and** also **prescribed punishment only for the** intentional **defiling of** the **Temple or its sacrificial** foods; **so too, when it rendered one liable** to bring **an offering for the defiling** of something sacred **it rendered one liable** to do so **only for the** unwitting **defiling of** the **Temple or its sacrificial** foods.


###### Shevuot 6b:17
[Shevuot 6b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:17)

וְאֵימָא תְּרוּמָה – שֶׁהִזְהִיר וְעָנַשׁ! לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן עֲוֹן מִיתָה דְּחַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But say** instead that the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering is referring to a ritually impure person who partook of **the sacred portion of produce grown in Eretz Yisrael that is designated to be given to a priest [*teruma*], as** the Torah also **has** explicitly **prohibited and prescribed punishment** for this. One who partakes of *teruma* while ritually impure is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven (see Leviticus 22:9). The Gemara answers: It cannot be referring to *teruma*, because **we do not find a sin** whose punishment for an intentional violation is **death,** with regard to **which** one **is liable** to bring **an offering** for its unwitting violation. Sin-offerings, of which the sliding-scale offering is one type, are brought only for transgressions whose intentional violation is punishable by *karet*.


###### Shevuot 6b:18
[Shevuot 6b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/6b:18)

אֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי קׇרְבָּן קָבוּעַ, אֲבָל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **say** that **this statement** applies only to **a fixed** sin-**offering, but**