Point By Point Summary Of TosfosDaf Series

1.

1) TOSFOS DH V'HU

+

2.

2) TOSFOS DH YAKECHA

+

3.

3) TOSFOS DH V'AL

+

4.

4) TOSFOS DH B'NAKVO

+

5.

5) TOSFOS DH U'SHMOR

+

6.

6) TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN

+

6) TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN

תוספות ד"ה ה"ג

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the text of our Gemara, and when Rebbi Meir holds "from a negative one sees a positive.")

ה"ג בקונטרס ור"ח אלא לעולם איפוך ובאיסורא אית ליה ובממונא לית ליה ושאני סוטה דאיסורא דאית ביה ממונא הוא

(a) Text#1: This is the text of Rashi and the Rach. Rather, you should switch the opinions around. He (Rebbi Meir) holds this regarding prohibitions, but not regarding money matters. Although the topic of Sotah involves prohibition, being that it involves money (whether or not she receives a Kesuvah) it is treated as a money matter.

ובספרים היה כתוב לא תיפוך

(b) Text#2: The standard text had read that you should not switch the opinions around.

והקשה בקונטרס דלרבנן דפטרי מי לית להו דשתויי יין במיתה

(c) Question: Rashi asks, according to the Rabbanan who say he is exempt, do they not hold that someone who enters the Mikdash drunk receives the death penalty? (The entire prohibition is based on the principle that, "from a negative one sees the positive," as the Torah says "do not drink...and you will not die.")

ונראה לתרץ דהא דפטרי משום דבעינן שם המיוחד ואינהו אאלהים קאי

(d) Answer: It appears that the reason the Rabbanan say he is exempt is because they require the special name of Hash-m to be used, and they are referring to Elokim being used. because the Mishnah stated that Rebbi Meir says one is liable, it says again that the Chachamim say he is exempt.

אע"ג דכבר איפליגו

(e) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that they have already argued about this in the Mishnah. (Why does the Mishnah state this argument again?)

איידי דתנא ר' מאיר מחייב תנא נמי וחכמים פוטרין

(f) Answer: Being that the Mishnah says that Rebbi Meir holds he is liable (in order to discuss the nature of the case), it also says that the Chachamim say he is exempt.

ואם תאמר התינח סוטה דלית ליה לר"מ מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן משום דאית ביה ממונא אבל אכתי תיקשה מכל הנהו קראי דמייתי פ"ג דקדושין (דף סא:) בשלמא לר"מ היינו דכתיב ואם בחקותי וגו' וכן אם תטיב ואם תאבו ואם לא יתחטא משמע דמצריך ר"מ כפילא אף על גב דליכא אלא איסורא גרידא

(g) Question: It is understandable regarding Sotah that Rebbi Meir does not say, "from a negative one sees the positive" because it involves money. However, one can still ask all the questions based on the Pesukim that are quoted in Kidushin (61b). The Gemara asks, "It is understandable according to Rebbi Meir why the Pasuk says, "And if in My laws..." Similarly, "If you will do good," "If you will want," and "And if he will not be cleansed." These all imply that Rebbi Meir requires that both the positive and negative are clearly stated, even though the issue is only one of prohibition and does not involve money.

וי"ל דאם בחקותי ואם תטיב ואם תאבו איכא כמה מצות דאית בהו ממונא והוא יתחטא נמי שייך לענין ממון כגון מטמא תרומה

(h) Answer: It is possible to answer that "And if in My laws," "If you will do good," and "If you will want," cover many Mitzvos, including those involving money. "And if he will be cleansed" includes monetary ramifications as well, for example making Terumah impure.

אבל קשיא לר"ת דבספ"ק דנדרים (דף יג:) גבי נדר לית ליה לרבי מאיר מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן אע"ג דליכא אלא איסורא

(i) Question: This is difficult according to Rabeinu Tam. In Nedarim (13b), the Gemara says regarding vows that Rebbi Meir does not hold of the concept "from a negative one sees the positive." This is despite the fact that this only pertains to a prohibition.

ואומר הר"ר י"ט דוקא באיסור חמור הוא דאית ליה לר"מ מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן כגון שתויי יין ופרועי ראש דבמיתה

(j) Answer: Rabeinu Yom Tov says that Rebbi Meir only holds regarding serious prohibitions that "from a negative one sees the positive." For example, he holds this is true regarding drinking and not having a haircut (for thirty days) and going into the Mikdash, as this is punishable by death.

וכן נמי גבי שבועה שלא אוכל לך בפ"ב דנדרים (דף טז.) משמע דאית ליה משום דאיסור חמור הוא דחשיב בפרק בתרא דיומא (דף פו.) חייבי כריתות ולא תשא עמהן

1. Answer(cont.): This is also true regarding an oath that, "Shevuah if I will eat with you" in Nedarim (16a). The implication is that even Rebbi Meir holds that this concept applies there because he considers it a serious prohibition. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara in Yoma (86a) lists various things one is liable to receive Kares for, and it lists "Lo Sisa" ("Do not say Hash-m, your G-d's name, in vain") among them.

ולקמן בריש שבועת הדיינים (דף לט.) נמי אמרינן נזדעזע כל העולם כשאמר הקב"ה לא תשא

2. Answer(cont.): Similarly, the Gemara later (39a) mentions that the entire world shook when Hash-m said, "Lo Sisa."

וא"ת והלא בקדושין (שם) בעי רבי מאיר תנאי כפול בשבועה גבי אז תנקה מאלתי

(k) Question: In Kidushin (ibid.), Rebbi Meir requires that a double condition (both positive and negative) be mentioned in the Shevuah, regarding "Then I will be clean of my curse etc." (This was Avraham making Eliezer swear to find a wife for Yitzchak according to his wishes. What monetary issue was at stake?)

וי"ל דהתם איכא ממונא דכתיב וכל טוב אדוניו בידו

(l) Answer: There is a monetary issue there, as the verse says, "And all of the good of his master was in his hand."

PEREK SHEVUAS HA'PIKADON

7.

7) TOSFOS DH SHEVUAS

+