Талмуд к Сота 9:5

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? ⁷²Lev. 5:4. The causative refers to the future.Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail⁸³In the version of Sifra(Introduction1), in the list of the thirteen hermeneutical principles of R. Ismael one finds (5) a general statement followed by a detail, (6) a detail followed by a general statement, (7) a general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement you only argue following the pattern of the detail, (8) a general statement dependent on the detail, (9) a detail dependent on the general statement. Rules 8 and 9 mean that if the general statement can only be understood by the detail or vice versa, rules 5 and 6 do not apply. It then is explained in §7 that if a general statement is followed by a detail, only the detail is intended. §8: If a detail is followed by a general statement, the general statement adds to the detail. Examples are Lev. 1:2: From animals, from cattle, or from small cattle. This implies that sacrifices are restricted to cattle, sheep, or goats. Ex. 22:9: A donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal. The rules of caretakers apply to any animal. Then it becomes a problem how to treat a verse which contains general statement, detail, general statement, whether to apply rule 5 (eliminating the final general statement by rule 9), or rule 6 (eliminating the first general statement by rule 8), or rule 7. In the preceding derivation, the arguments have been suppressed that rules 8 and 9 do not apply and, therefore, only rule 7 is relevant. The standard example for an application of rule 7 is Deut. 14:26, about permitted uses of Second Tithe money at the place of the Sanctuary: You may spend the money for anything you desire(general), for cattle, or small cattle, or wine, or liquor(detail), or anything you wish(general). The common denominator of the items in the detail describes animal or vegetable food; Second Tithe money can be used for any food derived from animals (generated from semen) or plants (growing from seeds).
Since the first part of Lev. 5:4 fits Rule 7, it is clear that the rule applies not only to oaths intended to cause good or evil but to a larger set of oaths which, however, have to conform to the idea underlying “causing good or bad things”. Obviously one of the ideas is that events caused are later in time than the cause. This is R. Ismael’s interpretation of the verse. Babli 26a.. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? ⁸⁴Quote from the Mishnah.“He answered him, from the additional text of the verse^73,The continuation of the quote, anything which a person will blurt out in an oath, which seems to be superfluous since the sentence starts: Or a person who would swear blurting out with his lips. The addition indicates that the verse should not be interpreted narrowly. Cf. Note 83.⁸⁵This is not an additional argument. The additional text shows that the rule to be applied is rule 7, not rule 5. R. Aqiba follows a different system. For him the sentence structure is not general, detail, general but expansive, restrictive, expansive, which he reads as including everything except what is completely different from the detail quoted as restriction.. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other⁸⁶The text of R. Aqiba’s answer is the text of the Mishnah in the Babli. It is known that the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi is not from the Yerushalmi text. The Mishnah text in Maimonides’s autograph is that of the separate Yerushalmi Mishnah..” You cannot⁸⁷The Mishnah cannot be quoted as proof that R. Ismael conceded to R. Aqiba., as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael¹¹Who is R. Aqiba’s opponent. All of Mishnah 1 is R. Aqiba’s teaching. R. Ismael opposes adding backward looking oaths as blurted oaths. answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath¹²A future directed oath, where it cannot be verified instantly whether it will be kept or violated, is an actionless crime and cannot be prosecuted (cf. Note 3). The preconditions of a sacrifice for a blurted oath negate the possibility of judicial penalties.? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice¹³If R. Aqiba did accept R. Joḥanan’s argument, it would be possible for a person to be flogged for violating the prohibition of perjury (Lev. 19:12) and still be liable for a sacrifice. This would make R. Ismael’s objection irrelevant.? He said to him⁸⁸R. Aqiba to R. Ismael., do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written⁸⁹Since they are not mentioned in the verse. For לי נן read לֵי[ת אִי]נֻּן.? He told him⁹⁰R. Ismael to R. Aqiba., even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good⁹¹It is obvious from rule 7 that the obligation of a variable sacrifice for a blurted oath must hold for a larger set than “causing bad or good things”. The only problem is to define this larger set and the causative employed definitively excludes oaths regarding the past. The Tanna of the Mishnah cannot accept R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules.? Therefore never for the past⁹²Since the oath is void, he is prevented from sacrificing if it was unintentional. If it was intentional he can be prosecuted for a vain oath, forbidden in the Ten Commandments..

⁴⁷⁶Babli Zevaḥim115b, Tosefta Zevaḥim 13:1.“Everything is brought on an altar⁴⁷⁷A private altar when it is legitimate. The detailed rules of sacrifices spelled out in Lev. are valid only for places of public worship., domestic and wild animals⁴⁷⁸On a public altar only cattle, sheep and goats are permitted., large and small birds⁴⁷⁹On a public altar only pigeons and turtle doves are permitted., male and female⁴⁸⁰By the rules of Lev. 1:3,10, an elevation sacrifice can only be a male animal., whole [but not] (and)⁴⁸¹Clearly the text of the [corrector] is the only acceptable one. defective, pure⁴⁸²Kosher animals and birds, Lev. 11. but not impure. All are brought as elevation sacrifice and do not need stripping and partitioning⁴⁸³In the Babylonian sources (Note 476): they need stripping (remove the hide) and partitioning.. Gentiles today are permitted to do this.” From where male and female? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: and the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal.⁴⁸⁴1S. 6:14, referring to the cows which drew the cart on which the Philistines returned the Ark to Bet Shemesh. Since the place at Shilo was inactive without the Ark in the Tabernacle, it was a time when private altars were permitted. From where whole [but not] (and)⁴⁸¹Clearly the text of the [corrector] is the only acceptable one. defective? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from integer flesh⁴⁸⁵Gen. 6:19. The animal must be complete from the outside. It does not need inspection of its internal organs as required for kosher consumption of the meat or as sacrifice on a public altar. Babli Zevaḥim 116a., that they should be complete in their limbs. Plucked? Rebbi Eleazar made it clear, any bird, any wing⁴⁸⁶Gen. 7:14. If the feathers are removed, the bird has no more wings., to exclude plucked ones. From where pure but not impure? Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: Noah pondered a lesson from the Torah. He said, it already was said to me, like vegetables from the field I gave you everything⁴⁸⁷Gen.9:3. While Adam was created as a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29), Noah was told to be an omnivore.. Why did Scripture increase the pure ones? For sacrifices. And Gentiles today are permitted to do this. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, it is forbidden to a Jew to help him and it is forbidden to become his agent⁴⁸⁸Since private altars were forbidden after the building of the Temple, Jews cannot be involved in any way in building or serving such an altar. Babli Zevaḥim 116b..