Answer (Mishnah (in the third Perek)): If Reuven swore 'I will not eat this loaf', and again swore 'I will not eat this loaf'' (and he ate it), he is lashed only once (i.e. one set of 39 lashes);

This is the oath of Bituy for which one is lashed (for Mezid, i.e. he intentionally transgressed) or brings an Oleh v'Yored (for Shogeg, i.e. he forgot).

Inference: For this oath of Bituy he is lashed (if he was Mezid), but not for 'I will eat' (and he did not eat).

Question: The two Stam Mishnayos contradict each other. Why does R. Yochanan rule like this one?

Counter-question: How do you understand why Rebbi codified Stam Mishnayos that contradict each other?!

Answer: You must say that originally Rebbi held that one is lashed even for a Lav that does not involve an action, and he taught our Mishnah (that obligates for all four kinds of oaths);

Later, he retracted, and taught the Mishnah of the third Perek.

Since the first Mishnah was already ingrained in the Talmidim, it was left in the Mishnayos.

Question: How can we establish the Mishnah according to R. Yishmael, and it counts the number regarding lashes? Lashes do not apply to appearances of Tzara'as!

Answer: Lashes apply to one who cuts off the plagued skin (or a Siman of absolute Tzara'as), according to R. Avin.

(R. Avin): Whenever the Torah says "Hishamer", "Pen" or "Al", this is a Lav.

Question: Lashes do not apply to Shabbos, for desecration of Shabbos is punishable by death (administered by Beis Din);

One is not lashed for a Lav that is punishable by death.

Answer: We established the Mishnah to be R. Yishmael, for he holds that one is lashed for a Lav that is punishable by death.

Inference: If not for this, we would have established it to be R. Akiva.

Question: We could not establish it to be R. Akiva, for he holds that there are only two Yedi'os of Tum'ah for which one must bring a Korban!

Answer: Just like we established it like R. Yishmael, regarding lashes, we can establish it like R. Akiva, regarding lashes!

Question: Lashes only apply to an intentional sinner. If so, it should not say 'Yedi'os' of Tum'ah, rather 'warnings'!

Answer: The Mishnah means Yedi'os of warnings.

Objection #1: Why does it say 'two primary kinds, there are four in all'? Since he sins b'Mezid, there are only two kinds (a Tamei who enters the Mikdash or eats Kodshim)!

Objection #2: Why does it say 'if one knew that he became Tamei, and later forgot, and later remembered'? Forgetting is not a factor to obligate someone to be lashed!

Objection #3: The Mishnah continues 'he brings an Oleh v'Yored'!

Answer #4 (to Question 4:a, (Daf 4b) - Rav Yosef): The Mishnah is Rebbi. Regarding Tum'ah, he teaches according to R. Yishmael. Regarding oaths, he teaches according to R. Akiva.

(Rav Kahana): Rebbi did not teach just according to other Tana'im. He himself holds this way!

(Regarding Tum'ah) - (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "V'Ne'elam... v'Ne'elam" teaches that one brings a Korban only if he knew at the beginning and at the end, and forgot in between (when he transgressed);

Rebbi says, one "v'Ne'elam" and "v'Hu Yada" connotes two times that he knew (at the beginning and at the end);

The extra "v'Ne'elam" obligates him, whether he forgot the Tum'ah or the Mikdash (or Kodshim). This is like R. Yishmael.

Regarding oaths, R. Akiva obligates for an oath of the past because he expounds using the method of Ribuy u'Mi'ut (inclusions and exclusions);

Also Rebbi expounds using the method of Ribuy and Mi'ut. Surely he holds like R. Akiva!

(Beraisa - Rebbi): One may use anything (worth five Shekalim) to redeem a firstborn son, except for documents;

Chachamim say, one may use anything except for slaves, documents and land.

Rebbi expounds Ribuy and Mi'ut. "U'Fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh" is a Ribuy. "Kesef Chameshes Shekalim" is a Mi'ut. "Tifdeh" is another Ribuy;

From a Ribuy, Mi'ut, Ribuy we include everything except for one thing (that is very different than the Mi'ut), in this case documents.

Chachamim expound Klal u'Frat (general and specific terms). "U'Fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh" is a Klal. "Kesef Chameshes Shekalim" is a Prat. "Tifdeh" is another Klal;

From a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we include things that are similar to the Prat, i.e. Metaltelim that have intrinsic value;

This excludes land, slaves (since they are equated to land) and documents (since documents have no intrinsic value).

Question (Ravina): Elsewhere Rebbi expounds Klal u'Frat!

(Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah) Question: The Torah says to bore through the ear of a slave (who does not want to go free) with a "Martze'a (an awl)." What is the source to allow using a sharp wooden tool, a thorn, a needle, a drill, or a writing tool?

Answer: "V'Lakachta" includes anything that may be taken in the hand.

Rebbi says, just like an awl is made of metal, also any metal tool may be used.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: Rebbi expounds Klal u'Frat, and R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah expounds Ribuy and Mi'ut.