More Discussions for this daf
1. Hasra'as Safek 2. Shevu'ah and "Lav she'Ein Bah Ma'aseh" 3. Atonement
4. Hilchesa Kavasei... 5. Tosafos DH I Hachi 6. Tosfos DH Hasra'ah
7. Stam Mishnah Rule
DAF DISCUSSIONS - SHEVUOS 3

Yair Trebitsch asked:

1. How can the gemorah bring a proof from Rava who was an amora

2. Is the Halacha lav shein bo maasa apply to a korban like malkus.

3. What is the gemorah adding when it says Bipharush Ribsa hatorah it seems like the word bipharush is extra

4. Rashi DH Kesover Reb Yishmael (bottom middle of the Amud) says Bchal Hatorah Kula this too seems to be unnecessary what is Rashi adding

Thank You and sorry for all the questions.

Yair Brookln NY

The Kollel replies:

There is no need to apologize for all the questions. It is a pleasure to receive such thoughtful questions.

1. The Gemara often brings proofs from the words of the Amora'im. An Amora cannot disagree with a Tana, but often something that an Amora said can help us understand the opinion of a Tana, as in this case, where Rava helps us understand Rabbi Yishmael, that one receives lashes for a false oath even it was made about something in the past.

2. Your question is asked by the Pnei Yehoshua. Baruch she'Kivanta. He writes that it seems obvious everywhere in Shas that one is not liable for a Korban for transgressing a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. The Pnei Yehoshua does not answer this question, so it clearly requires further study.

3. The word "b'Ferush" is stressing that since the Torah said this explicitly, there can be no question about the fact that "Shevu'as Sheker" is similar to "Shevu'as Shav," so nobody can dispute this. In fact, the Gemara uses a similar type of expression elsewhere (see Kesuvos, end of 32b and 35a, and Makos 13b); the idea is to show that this is a very clear and simple Din.

4. Rashi is stressing that it is not only in the case of false oaths that Rebbi Yishmael maintains that one receives Malkus even though there was no Ma'aseh in the transgression, but rather Rebbi Yishmael maintains that in every area of the Torah, Malkus is given even though there was no Ma'aseh. This contrasts with what Rashi explained shortly before this, in DH uch'd'Rava, that that there is a special way of deriving the law that for a Shevu'as Shav one receives lashes. Now Rashi is explaining that according to Rebbi Yishmael, one does not need to have resort to this Limud, but rather Rebbi Yishamel holds that there is a general rule that a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh is always liable for Malkus.

Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,

Dovid Bloom