- Malkus for cutting off tzaraas
Having explained that our Mishnah follows Rebbe Yishmael, and the liability for the four types of shevuos is malkus, the Gemara asks about the Mishnah’s fourth case: מראות נגעים מאי מלקות איכא – regarding appearances of tzaraas, what malkus is there? It answers: בקוצץ בהרתו – with one who cuts off his baheres, because Rebbe Ila’a said: כל מקום שנאמר השמר פן ואל אינו אלא לא תעשה – wherever it says in the Torah, “be careful,” “lest,” or “do not,” it is nothing but a negative prohibition, and incurs malkus. Since the Torah writes "השמר בנגע הצרעת" – be careful about the tzaraas affliction, one who cuts off his tzaraas receives malkus. The Gemara then asks about the third case: יציאות שבת מאי מלקות איכא – for transfers on Shabbos, what malkus is there? Since Shabbos prohibitions are a לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין – prohibition given to warn against the death penalty, there is no malkus for it!? The Gemara replies that this why we said the Mishnah follows Rebbe Yishmael, because he holds לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין לוקין עליו.
- Rav Yosef: Mishnah is Rebbe (about korbanos), incorporating various Tannaim’s opinions
The Gemara ultimately proves that our Mishnah is discussing korbanos, not malkus: there could not be four variations of טומאת מקדש וקדשיו for a מזיד (only two), and the case of "העלמה" – forgetting cannot incur malkus; moreover, the Mishnah explicitly states he is liable to a korban עולה ויורד!? Therefore, Rav Yosef says: רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי – [the Mishnah] is Rebbe, who arranged it according to different Tannaim’s opinions. Thus, regarding ידיעות הטומאה, he incorporates Rebbe Yishmael’s opinion (that one is liable also for העלם מקדש – forgetting about the Mikdash, allowing for four cases), and regarding shevuos, incorporates Rebbe Akiva’s opinion (that one is also liable for violated shevuos about the future, allowing for four cases). Rav Kahana explained that Rav Yosef meant that Rebbe himself holds these views, not that he was merely presenting various Tannaim’s opinions; thus, the Mishnah reflects his own opinion. He quotes a Baraisa proving that Rebbe darshens the repeated "ונעלם ונעלם" to obligate one both for העלם טומאה and העלם מקדש.
- Machlokes what may be used for פדיון הבן (darshening ריבויי ומיעוטי or כללי ופרטי)
The Gemara attempts to prove that Rebbe agrees with Rebbe Akiva and obligates a korban for violated shevuos about the future. Rebbe Akiva’s opinion is based on darshening the Torah with the more inclusive ריבויי ומיעוטי – amplifications and limitations, where the מיעוט merely excludes from the ריבוי. In a Baraisa, Rebbe says: בכל פודין בכור אדם חוץ מן השטרות – one may redeem a human firstborn son with anything except for debt documents. The Rabbonon say he cannot be redeemed with עבדים ושטרות וקרקעות – slaves, documents, or land. Apparently, Rebbe darshens the Torah as ריבויי ומיעוטי (like Rebbe Akiva), and accordingly darshens the sequence of ריבה ומיעט וריבה about בכור redemption to include everything, and exclude only one thing – שטרות (which have no intrinsic value). The Rabbonon darshen such sequences as כללי ופרטי – generalizations and specifications, where the פרט defines the extent of the כלל. Therefore, they exclude anything not similar to the כלל (i.e., silver coins), namely קרקע, which is not movable, and עבדים, which are compared to קרקע, and שטרות. However, the Gemara proves that Rebbe does not generally darshen ריבויי ומיעוטי (and does so by בכור for a specific reason) and thus cannot hold like Rebbe Akiva.
