Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi changed his mind TB Shavuot 4

Since the Mishnah doesn’t attribute Tannaitic authorship, the Gemara analyzes who it could be. There are three possibilities, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbe).

In order for the Mishnah to be according to Rabbi Yishmael, we have to understand that the perpetrator had to purposely violate the halakha in the cases to receive lashes instead of how we originally understood it that the perpetrator accidentally transgressed. In our Mishna we come to the conclusion that a person receives lashes for an oath even when there’s no action is taken (שבועה שאין בן מעשה). For example, the person swears that he will eat this loaf of bread sometime today, but he never does.

A problem arises with another unattributed Mishna found on daf TB Shavuot 27b. “If one says: On my oath I will not eat this loaf, and he then says again: On my oath I will not eat it, and again: On my oath I will not eat it, and he then ate it, he is liable only once. Once the first oath had taken effect, the subsequent oaths could not, as a prohibition cannot take effect where another prohibition is already in place. This is an oath on an utterance, for which one is liable to receive lashes for intentionally breaking it, and for unwittingly breaking it one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering.” (Sefaria.org translation) From this Mishna we come to the conclusion that one does not receive lashes for an oath when no action is taken.

We know as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the final editor of the Mishna, how can we explain the contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna on daf 27b? Shouldn’t Rebbe be consistent when teaching us the halakha! How do we explain this mixed message? The Gemara on daf TB Shavuot 4 first asks the question and then answers it:

“…according to your reasoning that both mishnayot carry equal weight, then with regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself, when he redacted the Mishna, how could he teach us as unattributed both this opinion in the mishna here and that opinion in the mishna there? This would result in a contradiction.

“Rather, it is apparent that initially Rabbi 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 mishna, and later he retracted his opinion and held that one is not flogged for a violation of such a prohibition, and so he taught that opinion as an unattributed mishna. And he left the first mishna (2a) as it was because a mishna does not move from its place.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi ד"ה מִשְׁנָה לֹא זָזָה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ explains that even though Rebbe changed his position from the first Mishna concerning an oath where there’s no action taken, his students had already learned this Mishna and later generations could not forget it and remove it from the Beit Midrash, the study house. Both mishnayot were left in their original place. Nevertheless the wise will understand that the latter is the essence of the law and that Rebbe changed his mind.

We see the evolution of Rebbe’s thoughts on the matter.

The Gemara proves that Rabbi Akiva could not be the author and explains how it’s possible that Rebbe was the author of our Mishna. To see how study the rest of today’s daf.