Shevuot 5

and for shaving the beard, five times, twice for each cheek,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has two corners, the end of the lower jawbone where it joins the bottom of the ear, and the end near the chin.');">¹</span>

and once for the point of the chin.

Since he has been discussing a single prohibition involving two punishments, he continues with OATHS ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR'Why did the Tanna enumerate all the instances of 'two, subdivided into four' only in this treatise, and not in the treatise Shabbath, when discussing the laws of carrying, nor in the treatise Nega'im, when discussing the shades of leprous affections? - I will tell you: The laws of oaths and uncleanness are mentioned together in the Bible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2ff.');">²</span>

and are akin to each other in that their transgressor brings a 'sliding-scale' sacrifice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 1, n. 7.');">³</span>

the Tanna therefore mentions them together here, and, having mentioned these two, he includes the rest also.

Having begun with the laws of oaths, why does the Tanna proceed to explain the laws of uncleanness first?

Because the laws of uncleanness are few he disposes of them first; then he proceeds to explain the laws of oaths which are more numerous.

OATHS ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR'TWO: I shall eat; I shall not eat.

SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR: I have eaten; I have not eaten.

THE LAWS CONCERNING THE DISCOVERY OF HAVING [UNCONSCIOUSLY] SINNED THROUGH UNCLEANNESS ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR'TWO: The discovery of having been unclean and partaken of holy food; and the discovery of having been unclean and entered the Temple [the uncleanness having been forgotten in both cases].

Subdivided INTO FOUR: The discovery that it was holy food he had eaten while being unclean [having forgotten that it was holy during the eating of it]; and the discovery that it was the Temple he had entered while being unclean [having forgotten it was the Temple at the time of entering].

THE LAWS CONCERNING CARRYING ON THE SABBATH ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR'TWO: The carrying out by the poor man; and the carrying out by the householder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of brevity the terms 'poor man' and 'householder' are employed, it being assumed that the poor man stands outside, and the householder inside; v. supra p. 1, n. 3 on MISHNAH:');">⁴</span> SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR: The bringing in by the poor man; and the bringing in by the householder. THE SHADES OF LEPROUS AFFECTIONS ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR'TWO: Se'eth and Bahereth. SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR: The derivative of Se'eth, and the derivative of Bahereth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 1, n. 4 on MISHNAH:');">⁵</span> Who is the Tanna of our Mishnah? - It is neither R'Ishmael nor R'Akiba! It is not R'Ishmael, for he states: He is guilty only when the oath is in the future tense.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25a. Our Mishnah includes also oaths in the past tense.');">⁶</span> And it is not R'Akiba, for he states: He is guilty only in the cases where he forgets his uncleanness [while eating holy food or entering the Temple], but not in the cases where he forgets that it is the Temple he is entering [or that the food is holy while he is unclean].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 14b. Our Mishnah includes the four categories.');">⁷</span> If you wish, I can say the Tanna of our Mishnah is R'Ishmael, or, if you prefer, I can say it is R'Akiba. may be R'Ishmael. [Of the four kinds of oaths mentioned, not all are equally serious; but] two incur punishment, and the other two do not. Or, it may be R'Akiba. Two [of the cases of transgression through uncleanness] incur punishment, and two do not. In some cases there is no punishment?