Talking Talmud

More on the tannaitic dispute of the previous daf. Delineating the logic of amplification - ribui u-miyut vs. kelal u-prat u-kelal. They're two different schools of thought, and the rationale holds across the Talmud, for each of them. But they're also very similar. Plus, taking an oath in an unavoidable way. Also, one who took an oath, but he forgot about the item he had foresworn... Likewise, forgetting an oath itself -- these aspects of forgetting will affect whether an offering is required. Including some mockery from the colleagues in the land of Israel. Plus, the case of someone who unwittingly breaks his oath -- what if he had remembered? Would he have broken the oath anyway, or not?

A new mishnah! Taking a false oath about the past, or an oath about the future, which is not upheld, which turns it into a false oath, about tangible or intangible matters, means a sliding scale offering. Likewise, if it pertains to other people. Plus, the stringencies of oaths (shevuot) vs. vows (nedarim), with regard to each other. Also, if a person swears about another party - falsely - either that person needs to bring the sacrifice or not - a large debate. Oaths also seem to pertain to matters that are either good or bad - and a textual inference is necessary to present them as not necessarily being harmful or beneficial. Rabbi Akiva vs. Rabbi Yishmael, and Rav vs. Shmuel -- which is not the same dispute, though we might have thought they were. Plus, the formulation with regard to oaths to make them oaths.

What if one takes an oath not to eat, and then ingests non-food items, does that break the oath? What about eating non-kosher food? The key is the "isur kolel," an inclusive prohibition. For example, not eating on Yom Kippur is more inclusive than not eating non-kosher food. Also, more extensive prohibitions -- prohibited in the kind of food and the circumstances of eating (for example, consecrated, or Yom Kippur). In one scenario, multiple things can be forbidden at the same time, each nested within the other, as it were.

When we talk about eating and drinking - is drinking included in an oath about eating, or not? With practical implications for whether offerings would be required after violating the oath (or perhaps not). Also, the case of one who takes an oath not to drink - without specification - and then drinks many things - he still is liable only for one offering. What if he gives a list of things he won't drink? Is that to exclude everything else, that he might be willing to drink, or is it just about the moment and the beverages before him? How complete of a statement does he need?

A discussion about speech and eating. Which includes defining when one's speech incurs a requirement to bring an offering -- like the blasphemer? A nazir? Plus, "konamot." And oaths about eating that do not specify the details or amounts of prohibition... the Gemara specifies the inferred amounts, when nothing is stated. What about non-food? Does dirt count as eating? What about grapeseed, which isn't eaten outside of a mixture? How do you define that amount for eating? (Or how much dirt counts as eating). Also, a new mishnah! About one who swears about not eating - and then eats and drinks - is that a liability for 2 offerings, or only one? With other comparable cases.

Rabin brought the Torah of Rabbi Yochanan in Israel to Babylonia to establish the difference between a false oath, not keeping one's word, and swearing in vain (with 3 different verses in the Torah that establish the prohibition). Plus, every negative commandment that has an action - gets lashes. But if there's no action, no lashes -- except for the exceptions, where lashes would be incurred. Also, establishing the views of the sages with regard to the unspecified statements - and what they mean in terms of amounts, and so on. For example: if a minute amount of food is prohibited, does it incur a sacrifice? In part, it's contingent on establishing the definitions - what is the minimum amount for eating to count as eating?

Starting chapter 3 with a Mishnah - and the new topic of uttering oaths. Plus, the question of taking oaths, and getting tripped up by them. Something that is obvious that it's impossible... maybe could have ben done better. Note: Oaths of utterance, oaths that are explicit in the verses, and the "before/after" factor.... If someone takes an oath not to eat - a certain amount, or any amount, a small amount would or would not make him liable, depending on whose view. Plus, anything one might uttered, if uttered in that way, can be held in abeyance. Plus, determining the "right" language to use can truly matter. Also, the difference between a false oath and one taken in vein - and how the two versions of the Ten Commandments in the Torah each contains one version. Were they uttered at the same like the versions about Shabbat?

Finishing chapter 2! If there are 2 paths, one with a known source of impurity and the other ostensibly pure, and you don't know which is which, and he walked both paths, he was definitely impure, but it's not known when he became impure. But what if he forgot where he walked? How does he track when he became impure? Also, what about a person who did the same transgression where it entails a sin-offering, for example, and he did it again, and isn't sure about what h remembered and what he forgot. With a clear dispute among Amoraim.

The case of a couple who are engaged in sexual intercourse when she realizes she has begun menstruating -- which makes their intimacy a violation of niddah. The question, of course, is what are they to do? With extenuating factors in whether the man is a Torah scholar, for example. Also, some aggadata on the daf: the consequences - on a metaphysical level - if the couple don't separate. And if a couple takes caution with regard to to the time when she expects to start menstruating, they'll be rewarded as a positive consequence.

One who discovers that he is impure after entering the Beit HaMikdash needs to depart as quickly and/or directly as possible. But what if he used the shortest route, but took a long time to walk it (or a long route quickly)? Also, one who enters a home that is impure because of tzara'at, that same person stays pure - if he walks in differently from normal. Plus, the kohen's check of the house for tzara'at. Also, the positive mitzvah that is included in the sum total for which one is not liable.