Commentary for Shevuot 7:4

ולטעמיך רבי גופיה היכי סתם לן הכא הכי והכא הכי

himself agree with both? - At first, Rabbi held that a negative precept not involving action is punishable by lashes, and, therefore, stated the ruling of our Mishnah anonymously; afterwards, he held it is not so punishable, and stated the ruling of the second Mishnah anonymously, and [though he had changed his view] he allowed the first Mishnah to stand also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Mishnah was not removed from its place', Rabbi relying on the intelligence of the student to realise that the second Mishnah is the authoritative one. R. Johanan, therefore, agrees with the second MISHNAH:');">⁵</span> You have explained our Mishnah as being in accordance with R'Ishmael's view, and as referring to lashes for wilful transgression: if so, what lashes can there be in connection with the shades of leprosy? - There are lashes in the case where one cuts off his leprous spot; and as R'Abin said in the name of R'Ila'a; for R'Abin said in the name of R'Ila'a: Whenever there occur in Holy Writ the expressions 'take heed', 'lest', or 'do not' they are negative precepts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 8: Take heed in the plague of leprosy. Cutting off a leprous spot is therefore a violation of a negative precept, punishable by lashes.');">⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 7:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.