Study Shevuot folio 4A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
he is liable for only one violation. Since the second oath did not prohibit any act in addition to the first oath, he is not liable for violating it. The Mishnah concludes: This is an oath on an utterance for which one is liable to receive lashes for its intentional violation, and to bring a sliding
The Talmud infers from the formulation of the Mishnah: It is specifically this case of an oath on an utterance for which one is liable to receive lashes for its intentional violation. But if a person stated: On my oath I will eat, and then he did not eat, he is not flogged. Presumably this is becau
The Talmud asks: Now, this Mishnah (27b) is unattributed and that Mishnah (2a) is unattributed. What did R' Yoḥanan see that he practiced in accordance with this unattributed Mishnah? Let him instead practice in accordance with that unattributed Mishnah.
The Talmud adds another question: And according to your reasoning that both mishnayot carry equal weight, then with regard to R' Yehuda HaNasi himself, when he redacted the Mishnah, how could he teach us as unattributed both this opinion in the Mishnah here and that opinion in the Mishnah there? T
Rather, it is apparent that initially R' Yehuda HaNasi held that for a violation of a prohibition that does not involve an action one is flogged, and so he taught it as an unattributed Mishnah, and later he retracted his opinion and held that one is not flogged for a violation of such a prohibition