Point By Point Summary Of TosfosDaf Series

1.

1) TOSFOS DH HA'MECHALEL SHABBOS

+

2.

2) TOSFOS DH LERABOS BAS

+

3.

3) TOSFOS DH AD SHE'YEFARET L'CHA HA'KASUV YACHDAV

+

4.

4) TOSFOS DH GAMAR KODESH MI'CHOL

+

5.

5) TOSFOS DH MAI LO SEKALEL SH'MA MINAH TARTI

+

6.

6) TOSFOS DH AD SHE'YIH'YU SHENEIHEM SHAVIN

+

6) TOSFOS DH AD SHE'YIH'YU SHENEIHEM SHAVIN

תוספות ד"ה עד שיהיו שניהם שוין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cite Rashi, who explains 'Shavin' to mean that they are both punishable, then they go on to explain as to why the Gemara's Kashya is confined to R. Meir, and does not pertain to the Rabbanan. Tosfos initially conclude that, according to their interpretation of Rashi's explanation, both with regard to a Nesu'ah Ketanah, both R. Meir and the Rabbanan will agree that he is Patur, ten go on to explain the Beraisa that we learned that we learned earlier, which rules that he is Patur. Tosfos now change their previous conclusion by drawing a distinction between R. Meir and the Rabbanan in the case of a Ketanah Nesu'ah. This enables them to establish the earlier Beraisa according to the Rabbanan, even by a Nesu'ah. After citing Rabeinu Tam, who interprets 'Shavin' to mean that they share the same death-sentence. Tosfos proceed to resolve the problems that we discussed earlier according to his explanation. Finally, they explain why it is, that according to Rabeinu Tam, in the case of the daughter of a Kohen, who receives Sereifah, whereas the Bo'el receives Chenek, the man is not Patur altogether).

פ"ה, בני עונשין.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains inasmuch as they are both punishable.

וקשה, תקשה לרבנן דמחייבין אפי' סקילה?

(b) Question: This poses a Kashya on the Rabbanan, who sentence him even to Sekilah?

וי"ל, דלרבנן ניחא, דדיניה בסקילה כנערה המאורסה, דלא ק"ל מ"ומתו גם שניהם", דבנשואה כתיב.

(c) Answer #1 (Part 1): The Rabbanan who hold that he is Chayav Sekilah like a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, have no problem with that, because 'u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem" refers to a Nesu'ah.

אבל לר"מ דדיניה כנשואה בחנק, ה"ל למפטרה מהאי קרא.

(d) Answer #1 (Part 2): The problem is confined to R. Meir, who sentences him to Chenek, like the Din of a Nesu'ah, that he ought to be Patur altogether from this Pasuk.

והשתא בין לר"מ בין לרבנן בנשואה פטור.

(e) Conclusion (Explanation #1): It now transpires that according to both R. Meir and the Rabbanan, he is Patur in the case of a Nesu'ah (Ketanah).

ומתני' דמייתי לעיל (דף נה:) 'וחייבין עליה משום אשת איש'?

1. Implied Question: Then why does the Beraisa cited above, declare him Chayav?

לא אתיא כוותייהו.

2. Answer #1 (Part 1): Because it does not go according to them.

א"נ, כרבנן ובארוסה.

3. Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking about an Arusah, and it goes according to the Rabbanan.

ומיהו כיון דדייקינן לעיל 'אפי' בהמה', כל שכן נשואה!

4. Query: Seeing however, as the Gemara learned there that it applies even to an animal, how much more so a Nesu'ah?

אלא כר' יונתן אתיא, דלא מוקי "גם שניהם" אלא למעוטי מעשה הורדוס.

5. Answer #1 (Part 2): It must therefore go according to R. Yonasan, who establishes "Gam Sheneihem" to preclude 'Ma'aseh Hurdus'.

ועוד י"ל, דלרבנן כיון דאין דינם משתנה בשביל קטנות, מסתברא שפיר לאוקומי "גם שניהם" לדרשה אחריתי, ומתני' דלעיל כרבנן.

(f) Conclusion (Explanation #2 [Part 1]): Alternatively, according to the Rabbanan, since the Din does change due to Katnus, it makes sense to establish a different D'rashah from "Gam Sheneihem", in which case the Beraisa above goes like the Rabbanan.

אבל לר"מ'דמשתנה דינו מסקילה לחנק בקטנה ארוסה, סברא הוא דבנשואה דרשינן "גם שניהם" לפטור לגמרי.

1. Conclusion (Explanation #2 [Part 2]): According to R. Meir however, since the man's Din changes from Sekilah to Chenek by an Arusah Ketanah, it is logical to say that, by a Nesu'ah, we Darshen "Gam Sheneihem" to exempt him completely.

ור"ת מפרש, דלא קאמר 'שניהן שוין' בני עונשין, אלא שוין במיתה אחת.

(g) Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that 'Sheneihen Shavin' does not refer to their both being punishable, but that they share the same death- sentence.

והשתא לרבנן דבא על הקטנה בסקילה, שפיר, כיון דאם היתה היא בת עונשין היו שוין במיתה אחת.

(h) Clarification #1: Consequently, there is no Kashya on the Rabbanan, who hold that someone who has relations with a Ketanah is Chayav Sekilah, seeing as, if she would be punishable, she would receive the same death-sentence as him.

אבל לר"מ בא על הקטנה בחנק, דאם היתה בת עונשין היתה בסקילה, ואין זה שוין במיתה אחת;

(i) Clarification #2: Whereas according to R. Meir, who holds that he receives only Chenek, whereas if she was punishable she would receive Chenek, in which case they do not receive the same death-sentence.

א"כ נשואה קטנה, לכ"ע במיתה אחת שוין.

1. Conclusion: According to that, both opinions will agree that if she was a Nesu'ah Ketanah, where they would both be subject to the same death-penalty, he would be Chayav.

וא"ת, בת כהן שהיא בשריפה, ובועלה בחנק, ליפטריה לגמרי, כיון דאין שניהם שוין במיתה אחת?

(j) Question: The daughter of a Kohen, who receives Sereifah, whereas the man receives Chenek, why is he not Patur altogether, seeing as they do not share the same death-sentence?

וי"ל, דלמפטר לגמרי אי אפשר, משום דדרשינן לגבי זוממים "לעשות לאחיו", 'ולא לאחותו'.

(k) Answer: It is not possible to exempt him completely, since the Gemara Darshens regarding Eidim Zomemin "La'asos le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso' (from which w learn that they both receive different punishments).

7.

7) TOSFOS DH MA'ASEH CHIDUDIN

+

8.

8) TOSFOS DH VE'HAI LEVADO MAI DARISH BEIH LE'CHEDASNYA

+