תוספות ד"ה המחלל שבת

לאו למימר דכל שחייב על שגגתו חטאת חייב על זדונו מיתה.

(a) Clarification (Part 1): This does not mean that whenever one is Chayav a Chatas be'Shogeg, one is Chayav Misah be'Meizid ...

דהא איסי דאמר בפ"ק דשבת (דף ו:) 'אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת, ואינו חייב על אחת מהן' ופי' הקונטרס וכן ר"ת היינו מיתה, אבל חטאת מיחייב אכולהו.

(b) Clarification (Part 2): Since in the first Perek in Shabbos Isi holds that there are thirty-nine Melachos on Shabbos, on one of which one is not Chayav, and both Rashi and Rabeinu Tam explain that this refers to Misah, but as far as Chatas is concerned, they are all Chayav.

אלא אתא למימר - דכל שאין חייבין חטאת אין חייבין מיתה.

(c) Clarification (Part 3): What it does therefore mean is whenever one is not Chayav a Chatas, one is not Chayav Misah either.


תוספות ד"ה לרבות בת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first explain when the Torah incorporates women in its rulings and when it precludes them, then why the Gemara in Bava Kama nevertheless finds it necessary to include the of a woman that killed in the Din of the ox of a man, even though according their explanation, it ought not to be necessary).

הא דאמר (ב"ק דף טו.) 'השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש' - היינו היכא דכתיב בלשון 'זכר', אבל היכא דכתיב בלשון "איש", ממעטינן, אי לאו דכתיב ב' זימני - ד'אין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות'.

(a) Clarification: When the Gemara says in Bava Kama that The Torah compares a woman to a man' it is referring to whatver it presents in the masculine form; But where it uses the word "Ish", it comes to exclude women, except for where it writes it twice, in which cae we apply the principle 'Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela Lerabos' ('Two consecutive exclusions come to include').

ואם תאמר, הא אמרינן בפרק ארבעה וחמשה (שם דף מד:) גבי שור שהמית שור 'שור שבעה', להביא שור האשה. אע"ג דלא כתיב "שור איש"?

(b) Question: Why does the Gemara in Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah (in the case an ox that gores an ox) say 'Shor Shiv'ah: to include the ox of a woman', even though the Torah did not write "Shor Ish"?

וי"ל, משום דדרשינן התם 'נגיחה למיתה נגיחה לנזקין', והוה ילפינן מיתה מנזקין משום דכתיב (שמות כא) "וכי יגוף שור איש".

(c) Answer: Because we Darshen there 'Negichah le'Misah, Negichah le'Nizakin' (that we learn Misah from Nizakin), and by Nizakin the Torah writes "ve'Chi Yigof Shor Ish".


תוספות ד"ה עד שיפרט לך הכתוב יחדיו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos query Rashi, who cites "Yachdav" mentioned by Kil'ayim as the source of the Gemara's statement, from R. Yashiyah, who does not require 'Yachdav' to combine. They therefore ascribe the current statement to a S'vara, and Darshen "Yachdav" by Kil'ayim in the form of a local D'rashah).

פירש הקונטרס, כדרך שפרט בכלאים.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi comments 'like it did by Kil'ayim'.

ותימה, אם כן לרבי יאשיה, אמאי כתיב בהו "יחדיו"?

(b) Question (Part 1): In that case, why, according to R. Yashiyah, does the Torah write "Yachdav" by Kil'ayim?

אלא על כרחך אי לאו "יחדיו", הוה אמינא דלא יחרוש בשור וחמור כאחד, אף על פי שאין קשורין, ולא ילבש בגד של צמר ושל פשתים אף ע"פ שאינן קשורין ותפורים, כדדרשינן (יבמות דף נה:) 'תכיפה אחת אינה חיבור, שתי תכיפות חיבור' מדכתיב "יחדיו".

(c) Question (Part 2): One is therefore forced to say that if not for "Yachdav", we would have thought that plowing with an ox and a donkey together, even if they are not tied together, nor may one wear a garment of wool together with one of linen, even though they are not joined or sewn together, like we Darshen in Yevamos 'One piercing of a needle is not considered joined, two is'.

אלא מסברא קאמר 'עד שיפרט לך הכתוב "יחדיו' ".

(d) Explanation #2: It is therefore a S'vara that it is not forbidden unless the Torah writes 'Yachdav' (see Maharam).


תוספות ד"ה גמר קודש מחול

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain why the Limud Kodesh from Chol can only be based on the Torah's use of the word "Elohim" and not on a 'Kal va'Comer').

מדאפקיה בלשון "אלהים".

(a) Clarification (Part 1): This is because the Torah uses the expression "Elohim" (and not from a 'Kal va'Chomer') ...

דאי מק"ו, למ"ד קודש נמי, לא איצטריך לגופיה, דנילף מנשיא וחרש.

(b) Clarification (Part 2): Because if one could learn a 'Kol va'Chomer, then according to the opinion that learns Chol from Kodesh, why would we need the Pasuk for Kodesh? Why can we not learn it from Nasi and Cheresh?

אלא איכא למיפרך 'מה לבשר ודם שכן דואגים ומתביישין בכך'?

(c) Clarification (Part 3): We are therefore forced to say that on any 'Kal va'Chomer' Kodesh from Chol there is a Pircha that human beings are different, in that they are worried and embarrassed by a curse (whereas Hash-m is not).



תוספות ד"ה מאי לא תקלל ש"מ תרתי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cite the double source for the prohibition of cursing Chaveiro, and answer their own query on it, though they admit that the Gemara in Shevu'os appears to clash with that. Finally, they explain why we cannot learn 'Aviv' from Mekalel Atzmo [which the Gemara in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus' includes in the prohibition]and Cheresh).

ו'מקלל חבירו' גמרינן או מאב ונשיא או מאב וחרש ...

(a) Clarification: Whereas the prohibition of cursing Chaveiro (one's fellow-Jew) we learn either from Av and Nasi or from Av and Cheresh.

דליכא למפרך שכן משונים ...

(b) Implied Question: We cannot ask that the source is different ...

דאביו אינו משונה.

(c) Answer: Since a father is not different.

אע"ג דבפ' שבועת העדות (שבועות דף לו. ושם ד"ה מקלל) משמע דמחרש לחודיה גמר לה.

(d) Implied Question: And this, in spite of the fact that the Gemara in Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus implies that we learn Chaveiro from Cheresh alone.

וא"ת, וניגמר אביו ממקלל עצמו וחרש, דבפרק שבועת העדות (שם) גמרינן ממקלל עצמו, מדכתיב "השמר לך ושמור נפשך"?

(e) Question: Why can we not learn 'Aviv' from Mekalel Atzmo and Cheresh, since in Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus we learn Mekalel Atzmo from the Pasuk "Hishamer l'cha u'Shemor Nafsh'cha"?

ויש לומר, דאי לאו דאשכחן אביו דגמרינן מיניה חבירו, לא הוה גמרינן בעצמו, מה שלא מצינו שאסור בחבירו.

(f) Answer: Because if there was no Pasuk for Aviv, from which we learn Chaveiro, we would not learn Atzmo before we know that Chaveiro is Chayav.


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).


תוספות ד"ה מעשה חידודין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos have a problem with this D'rashah, based on the Gemara in Yevamos, and even according to the text 'Ma'aseh Hurdus', since we already know this from a different Pasuk).

קשה, דבפרק הבא על יבמתו (יבמות דף נה:) משמע דלא בעי קרא, דפריך 'פשיטא, פריצותא קאסר רחמנא'?

(a) Question #1: The Gemara in Yevamos asks that it is obvious that 'Ma'aseh Chidudin' does not need a Pasuk to preclude it from Sekilah, when it asks 'Is this not obvious? Since when does the Torah forbid (on pain of death) an indecent act?

ולגירסת הספרים 'מעשה הורדוס' נמי קשה, דהוא ממעט מדכתיב (ויקרא יט) "שכבת זרע" פרט למשמש מתה?

(b) Question #2: And the Kashya applies even according to the Sefarim that have the text 'Ma'aseh Hurdus' (i.e. having relations with her after she has died), because we already know that from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Shichvas Zera", 'to preclude one who has relations with a dead woman.


תוספות ד"ה והאי לבדו מאי דריש ביה לכדתניא

וא"ת, הא ר"מ אית ליה הך ברייתא, דקתני מתני' 'הראשון בסקילה והשני בחנק' ...

(a) Question (Part 1): But R. Meir holds like that Beraisa, since he rules in our Mishnah that the first one receives Sekilah, the second one, Chenek ...

וא"כ, היכי קאמר שמואל 'מ"ט שתיק רב', לימא ליה "ומת האיש", הא לר"מ מיבעי ליה לאידך דרשה?

(b) Question (Part 2): If so, how can Shmuel ask why Rav remained silent, why he did not quote the Pasuk "u'Meis ha'Ish ... Levado"?, seeing as R. Meir needs that Pasuk for the other D'rashah (to preclude the second one from Sekilah)? See Maharam.

ויש לומר, דתרתי שמעת מינה.

(c) Answer: (Shmuel holds that) we learn both D'rashos from there.