In the gemarah's restatement of R' Meir's opinion, what is the need that mishna would have stated that "ein tzarich lomar..."? To rephrase, we know and the gemarah itself already stated clearly, that this can be inferred from R' Meir's statement, why then would the mishna have ever felt the need to state it and therefore why would the gemarah feel a need to reinsert this unnecessary, missing text?
Thank You
Darren Edelstein, NY, USA
You are right! The Mishnah might just as well have omitted 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar u'Meishiv'. Only it didn't! The Tana said 'u'Meishiv', and that is what we are trying to explain. We conclude that the only way of explaining it is by adding 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar'.
You now ask that it is entirely superfluous. The answer is that it is not. It may well be that R. Meir said it in order to balance his statement with that of Rebbi Yehudah, who differentiates between Sho'el u'Meishiv. But it is also possible that R. Meir is merely applying the principle 'Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' (where the Tana states the less obvious first and then the more obvious). Admittedly, the Gemara always tries to avoid it, but when it has no option, it will use it.
R. Eliezer Chrysler