Shevuot 9

ריבויי ומיעוטי

amplifications and limitations'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that Rabbi does not expound 'amplifications and limitations', and that therefore he does not agree with R. Akiba.');">¹</span> True, elsewhere he expounds 'generalisations and specifications', but here [in connection with the redemption of the first-born he expounds 'amplifications and limitations', and] his reason is that which was taught in the Academy of R'Ishmael, for in the Academy of R'Ishmael it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 67a.');">²</span>

אין בעלמא כללי ופרטי דריש והכא היינו טעמא כדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל

In the waters, in the waters - twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 9: These may ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in rivers, them may ye eat. In the waters is a general statement; in the seas and in the rivers is a particular. In this verse the particular is not between the two general statements, but follows them. In such a case, R. Ishmael's Academy assert, the verse is expounded on the principle of 'amplifications and limitations'. Rabbi agrees, and he therefore expounds similarly the verse about the redemption of the first-born.');">³</span> This is not 'generalisation and specification', but 'amplification and limitation'.

דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, לב) במים במים שני פעמים אין זה כלל ופרט אלא ריבה ומיעט

And the Rabbis [who disagree with Rabbi in connection with the redemption of the first-born - what is their reason]? Rabina said: They agree with the Western [Palestinian] Academies who hold that where there are two general statements followed by a particular, the particular should be regarded as being between the two general statements, and the verse may then be expounded on the principle of 'generalisations and specifications'.

ורבנן אמר רבינא כדאמרי במערבא כל מקום שאתה מוצא שתי כללות הסמוכות זה לזה הטל פרט ביניהן ודונם בכלל ופרט

Now that you say that Rabbi [as a general rule] expounds 'generalisations and specifications', the difficulty concerning oaths [in our Mishnah] necessarily remains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if Rabbi does not expound 'amplifications and limitations' he cannot agree with R. Akiba, who includes oaths in the past tense.');">⁴</span> We must perforce say, therefore, that [in the Mishnah] he gives R'Akiba's view on oaths, but he himself does not agree.

השתא דאמרת רבי כללי ופרטי דריש בעל כורחיך קשיא שבועות אלא בשבועות נסיב אליבא דר' עקיבא וליה לא סבירא ליה:

To revert to the main subject:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 11. okgbu');">⁵</span> 'Whence do we deduce that one is not liable except when there is knowledge at the beginning and at the end and forgetfulness between?

גופא מנין שאינו חייב אלא על שיש בה ידיעה בתחלה וידיעה בסוף והעלם בינתים ת"ל (ויקרא ה, ב) ונעלם ונעלם שני פעמים דברי ר"ע

Scripture records: It was hidden from him - twice. This is the opinion of R'Akiba.

רבי אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר ונעלם מכלל שידע והוא ידע הרי כאן שתי ידיעות א"כ מה ת"ל ונעלם לחייב על העלם טומאה ועל העלם מקדש:

Rabbi said: This deduction is not necessary. Scripture says: It was hidden from him, - therefore it must have been known to him at the beginning; then Scripture says: And he knows of it [i.e., at the end], hence, knowledge is essential both at the beginning and at the end.

אמר מר ונעלם מכלל שידע מאי משמע אמר רבא מדלא כתיב והיא עלומה ממנו

If so why does Scripture say: it was hidden from him - twice: - In order to make him liable both in the case of forgetfulness of the uncleanness, and in the case of forgetfulness of the Temple or holy food.' The Master said: 'And it was hidden from him, therefore it must have been known to him'.

א"ל אביי אלא מעתה גבי סוטה דכתיב (במדבר ה, יג) ונעלם מעיני אישה מכלל דהוי ידע מעיקרא אי הוה ידע מי בדקו לה מיא

How do you conclude this? Raba said: Because it is not written: 'and it is hidden from him'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The form of the verb (niphal) used by Scripture has the force of: it became hidden from him, implying knowledge at the beginning.');">⁶</span>

והא תניא (במדבר ה, לא) ונקה האיש מעון והאשה ההיא תשא את עונה בזמן שהאיש מנוקה מעון המים בודקין את אשתו אין האיש מנוקה מעון אין המים בודקין את אשתו

Abaye said to him: If so, in connection with the wife suspected of infidelity, when Scripture says: And it was hidden from the eyes of her husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num, V, 13: the niphal is used.');">⁷</span> will you reason from this also that he knew at the beginning?

ותו גבי תורה דכתיב (איוב כח, כא) ונעלמה מעיני כל חי ומעוף השמים נסתרה מכלל דאיכא דהוה ידע ביה והכתיב (איוב כח, יג) לא ידע אנוש ערכה

[Surely not, for] if he knew, the waters would not test her, as it is taught: And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num, V, 31.');">⁸</span> when the man is clear from iniquity, the waters test his wife; but when the man is not clear from iniquity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having known of her intrigue and yet cohabited with her.');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר אביי קסבר רבי ידיעת בית רבו שמה ידיעה

the waters do not test his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sotah 28a. vokgbu');">¹⁰</span> And further, in connection with the Torah it is written: It is hid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The niphal is used,');">¹¹</span>

א"ל רב פפא לאביי אלא דקתני אין בה ידיעה בתחלה ויש בה ידיעה בסוף מי איכא דלית ליה ידיעת בית רבו א"ל אין משכחת לה בתינוק שנשבה לבין הנכרים:

from the eyes of all living, and from the birds of the heavens it is kept secret;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXVIII, 21.');">¹²</span> will you conclude from this that they knew it?

יציאות שבת שתים שהן ארבע: תנן התם יציאות שבת שתים שהן ארבע בפנים ושתים שהן ארבע בחוץ מאי שנא הכא דתנא שתים שהן ד' ותו לא ומאי שנא התם דתני שתים שהן ארבע בפנים ושתים שהן ארבע בחוץ

[Surely not, for] it is written: Man knows not the value thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXVIII, 13');">¹³</span> Of necessity then, said Abaye, Rabbi holds that the knowledge gained from a teacher<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The theoretical knowledge that one who touches an unclean thing becomes unclean is also considered knowledge for the purpose of 'knowledge at the beginning', even if he did not realise at the moment of touching the unclean thing that he had become unclean. According to this, there is always 'knowledge at the beginning', the only exception being the case of a child taken into captivity among heathen.');">¹⁴</span>

התם דעיקר שבת הוא תני אבות ותולדות הכא דלאו עיקר שבת הוא אבות תני ותולדות לא תני

is also called knowledge. But if so, said R'Papa to Abaye, the statement in the Mishnah WHERE THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT THERE IS KNOWLEDGE AT THE END [is incomprehensible, for] is there anyone who has not even the knowledge gained from a teacher?

אבות מאי נינהו יציאות יציאות תרתי הויין

He replied: Yes! it is possible in a child taken into captivity among heathen. THE LAWS CONCERNING CARRYING ON THE SABBATH ARE OF TWO KINDS, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR'We learnt there:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Shab. 2a');">¹⁵</span>

וכ"ת מהן לחיוב ומהן לפטור והא דומיא דמראות נגעים קתני מה התם כולהו לחיובא אף הכא כולהו לחיובא

The laws concerning carrying on the Sabbath are two, subdivided into four inside;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The haknasah of the poor man and the haknasah of the householder (which are punishable) ; and the same two haknasoth when only half the action is done by each person, one person withdrawing the object, and the other taking it from him, thus completing the action. These two haknasoth are not punishable.');">¹⁶</span> and two, subdivided into four outside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two hoza'oth which are punishable, and two which are not.');">¹⁷</span>

אלא אמר רב פפא התם דעיקר שבת תני חיובי ופטורי הכא חיובי תני ופטורי לא תני

Why does our Mishnah here state simply: TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR, and nothing else, whereas the Mishnah there states: Two, subdivided into four inside; and two, subdivided into four outside? - The Mishnah there deals mainly with the Sabbath laws, and therefore mentions the Principals and Derivatives, but our Mishnah here, which is not concerned mainly with the Sabbath laws mentions the Principals only and not the Derivatives. Which are the principals? - Carrying out: the laws of carrying out are only two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the householder and the poor man.');">¹⁸</span>

חיובי מאי נינהו יציאות יציאות תרתי הוא דהויין שתים דהוצאה ושתים דהכנסה

[and our Mishnah says: TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR]! And perhaps you will say. [our Mishnah means] two hoza'oth [carrying out] which are punishable, and two which are not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 15, n. 10.');">¹⁹</span>

והא יציאות קתני אמר רב אשי תנא הכנסה נמי הוצאה קרי לה ממאי

[That is not possible, for] they are mentioned together with the shades of leprous affections, and just as those are all punishable, so are these? - We must necessarily say, said R'Papa, that the other Mishnah, which deals mainly with the Sabbath laws, mentions those which are punishable, and those which are not; but our Mishnah mentions only those which are punishable, and not those which are not. Which are those that are punishable? Carrying out: these are only two!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note.');">²⁰</span> The Mishnah means two hoza'oth and two haknasoth. But the Mishnah says hoza'oth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word used is yezi'oth (going out) , but it is presumably equivalent to hoza'oth (carrying out) .');">²¹</span> - Said R'Ashi: The Tanna calls haknasah also hoza'ah. How do you know?