תוספות ד"ה דכתיב ותשחת.

ולא נענש אלא אם כן הזהיר.


Clarification: And there is no punishment without a warning.




תוספות ד"ה לנערה המאורסה דלדידהו לית להו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos present two explanations to reconcile the ruling here with the Sugya in Bava Basra, which includes being intimate with a betrothed girl among the five sins that Eisav committed in one day).

והא דאמר בסוף פ"ק דב"ב (דף טז: ושם) 'אותו היום עבר אותו הרשע חמש עבירות - בא על נערה המאורסה ... '; אע"ג דלא נצטוו?


Implied Question: Then why does the Gemara at the end of the first Perek of Bava Basra that 'on that day' that Rasha (Eisav) committed five sins - 'he was intimate with a betrothed girl ... '?

דבר מכוער הוא.


Answer #1: The Gemara does not mean that they were all necessarily sins, but something disgusting.

דקחשיב נמי 'ושט את הבכורה', אע"פ שלא הוזהרו על כך.


Proof: For we see that it also lists that 'he despised the birthright, even though there is no La'av prohibiting it.

ואשכחן נמי שסיפר הכתוב בגנותן בדבר שעתידה תורה לאסור.


Answer #2 (Part 1): We also find later that the Torah speaks derogatorily about somebody who contravenes something that the Torah would later prohibit.

דאמרי' לקמן (נח:) 'כותי מותר בבתו', ובפ' כהן משוח (הוריות י:) אמרי' 'לוט ושתי בנותיו: הם, נתכוונו לדבר מצוה "צדיקים ילכו בם"; הוא, שנתכוין לדבר עבירה "ופושעים יכשלו בם".


Answer #2 (Part 2): Such as later on this Amud, where the Gemara permits a Nochri to have relations with his daughter, yet the Gemara in Horayos (in connection with the episode of Lot and his daughters) comments that they, whose intentions were to perform a Mitzvah, were subject to the Pasuk "Tzadikim will go them (tha paths of Hash-m)", whereas he, who had in mind to sin, was subject to the Pasuk "and the sinners will stumble on them").



תוספות ד"ה ואי בדינא דידהו סייף הוא

המ"ל דתנא דבי מנשה הוא דאמר 'כל מיתה האמורה לבני נח חנק'.


Observation: The Gemara could have answered that the author of the Beraisa is Tana de'bei Menasheh, who holds that every Misah that is mentioned in connection with B'nei No'ach is Chenek.



תוספות ד"ה וחכמים אומרים הרבה עריות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles Rashi, who explains that R. Meir does not Darshen "Ish Ish" with regard to Arayos, with the Gemara earlier where, in connection with Birchas Hash-m, R. Meir did Darshen "Ish Ish").

פ"ה, כגון כל חייבי כריתות, דלרבנן איתרבו להו בני נח מ"איש איש" לכל האמור בפרשה; ור"מ לא דריש "איש איש" לרבויא.


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Rabbanan include all Chayvei K'risus regarding the B'nei No'ach from "Ish Ish" with regard to whatever is written in the Parshah; whereas R. Meir does not Darshen "Ish Ish" to include.

אע"ג דלעיל (דף נו:) גבי ברכת השם, דריש ר"מ "איש איש" - ומשמע דמאן דדריש חדא, דריש כולהו,


Implied Question (Part 1): Even though earlier in the Sugya with regard to Birchas Hash-m, R. Meir did Darshen "Ish Ish", and the implication is that whoever Darshens one, Darshens them all ...

דמתוך כך מסיק לעיל על ארבע מצות בני נח נהרג?


Implied Question (Part 2): On the basis of which we concluded above that a Nochri is sentenced to death on four of the Mitzvos B'nei No'ach.

התם משמיה דנפשיה, והכא ר"מ אליבא דר' עקיבא, כדמוקי לה בסמוך.


Answer: There he (R. Meir) is expressing his own personal opinion, whereas here he is speaking according to R. Akiva, as the Gemara will shortly establish.



תוספות ד"ה וחכמים אומרים הרבה עריות

(SUMMARY: Based on the Beraisa cited earlier in the Sugya however, Tosfos conclude that R. Meir concedes that "Ish Ish" comes to include Nochrim regarding Arayos that pertain to us exclusively, and that he argues with them over the D'rashah from "Leimor", from which the Rabbanan learn all Arayos that pertain to Nochrim as well).

מיהו הא דמרבינן לעיל נכרי מ"איש איש", היינו בעריות דידן, אבל דידהו נפקא לן מדכתיב "לאמר".


Explanation #2 (Part 1): However, when we included a Nochri in the Din of Arayos from "Ish Ish", that was with regard to Arayos that pertain specifically to a Yisrael; whereas the Arayos that pertain to them we learned from "Leimor".

א"כ בין לר' מאיר בין לרבנן הא דדריש "איש איש", היינו בעריות דידן, אבל דידהו מדכתיב "לאמר", ודרשי להו רבנן לכל עריות דידהו. אבל לר"מ ס"ל כיון שפירש בבני נח "על כן יעזב איש", דהיינו חייבי מיתות, הן הן העריות שמוזהרין עליהן, ואין להרבות יותר.


Explanation #2 (Part 2): In that case, both R. Meir and the Rabbanan will Darshen "Ish Ish" with respect of Arayos that pertain specifically to a Yisrael, and it is the additional Arayos (pertaining to Nochrim as well) that the Rabbanan learn from "Leimor", with which R. Meir does not concur, because the Torah writes "al-Kein Ya'azov Ish", restricting them to Chayvei Misos only and no more (i.e. Chayvei Kerisos).



תוספות ד"ה הורתו שלא בקדושה ולידתו בקדושה

(SUMMARY: Commenting on Rashi, who learns that the Gemara is coming to preclude 'Horaso ve'Leidaso bi'Kedushah', since he is comparable to a full-fledged Yisrael, Tosfos prove that it is also possible to learn a. the opposite [that 'Horaso ve'Leidaso bi'Kedushah' is permitted] and b. that it even has the same Din as 'Horaso she'Lo bi'Kedushah ve'Leidaso bi'Kedushah').

פ"ה, דנקט הכי (משום) למעוטי הורתו ולידתו בקדושה, כיון דדמי לישראל, גזר בו ר"מ אפי' בשאר האב, ואפי' שנולדו אותן הקרובים בהיותו נכרי.


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Tana mentions this to preclude 'Horaso ve'Leidaso bi'Kedushah', because, since he is comparable to a full-fledged Yisrael, R. Meir decreed on him even with regard to his paternal relatives, even though those relatives were born whilst he was still a Nochri.

וי"ל איפכא, דאדרב' כיון דהורתו ולידתו בקדושה הרי הוא כישראל ומותר אפי' באחותו מן האם שנולדו מקודם.


Explanation #2 (Part 1): One can also however, say the opposite: that since both the conception and the birth took place bi'Kedushah, he is like a Yisrael and is permitted even to his maternal sister who was already born before the conversion.

דליכא למיגזר 'שלא יאמרו באנו מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה', כיון דלית בהו צד פסלות, דהנהו ודאי כשתי אמהות דמו


Explanation #2 (Part 2): Nor is it possible to decree 'that people may say we came from a more stringent religion to a more lenient one', since there is no basis to declare her Pasul, and they are certainly like a case of two different mothers.

ועי"ל, דהורתו ולידתו בקדושה נמי כך דינו.


Explanation #3: Yet a third possibility is that 'Horaso ve'Leidaso bi'Kedushah' has the same Din as Horaso she'Lo bi'Kedushah, ve'Leidaso bi'Kedushah'.

והא דלא נקטי לרבותא?


Question: Then why did the Tana not rather insert 'Horaso ve'Leidaso bi'Kedushah', to teach us a bigger Chidush?

משום דלא פסיקא ליה למתני שאין לה שאר האב, דמה שנולד לאביו בקדושה אסור מדאורייתא.


Answer: Because it would be not be possible to categorically state that she has no paternal relative, seeing as, whoever is born to her father afterwards is Asur min ha'Torah.