תוספות ד"ה קסברי רבנן נשואה יצאה ...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos support Rashi's explanation that Sekilah must be the most stringent of all the punishments because it is meted out to those who serve idols and curse Hash-m with a Gemara in 'ha'Nisrafin'. They then reconcile this with the fact that Sayaf (the sword) is given to the inhabitants of Ir ha'Nidachas, even though they too are guilty of stretching out their hands against Hash-m, yet it is clear that Sereifah is more stringent than Sayaf).

פ"ה, דעיקר טעמא, דאפ"ה 'פושט ידו בעיקר עדיף'.

(a) Clarification: Rashi explains that the main reason (that Sekilah is the worst punishment) is because (it is given to someone who blasphemes Hash-m and to one who serves Avodah-Zarah, and) stretching out one's hand against Hash-m is the worst sin.

וכן משמע בפ' הנשרפין (לקמן דף עט:) דתנן 'אמרו לו אילו לא היתה סקילה חמורה לא ניתנה למגדף ולעובד עבודת כוכבים!'

(b) Proof: And this is also implied in Perek ha'Nisrafin, where the Gemara comments 'If Sekilah was not the most stringent, then why is it given to someone who curses Hash-m or who serves idols?'

וא"ת, סייף יוכיח, שניתן לאנשי עיר הנדחת שפושטין ידיהם בעיקר, ואפ"ה שריפה חמורה ממנו, כדמוכח בשמעתתא?

(c) Question: 'Let Sayaf prove otherwise, since it has been given to tthe inhabitants of an Ir ha'Nidachas, who stretched out their hand against Hash-m, yet Sereifah is more stringent than it, as is evident from our Sugya?

וי"ל, דסייף יש לו חומרא אחריתי עמו, שממונו אבד, ושקולין שניהם כסקילה.

(d) Answer: Sayaf (by Ir ha'Nidachas) has an additional stringency, in that their property is destroyed too. The two combined punishments are equivalent to Sekilah.

ואע"ג דאמרינן בסמוך 'אדרבה סייף חמור מסקילה שכן ניתן לאנשי עיר הנדחת; ומאי חומרא שכן ממונו אבד', דמשמע שזה גורם לו שהוא חמור כיון שיש בו חומרא זו?

(e) Implied Question: But will the Gemara not suggest shortly that Sayaf must be more stringent than Sekilah, seeing as it is given to the members of Ir ha'Nidachas; and, it concludes, the Chumra is the fact that their property is destroyed. This implies that the destruction of their property is the initial Chumra that results in a more stringent punishment (and not that the two combine to render this the strictest punishment?

התם היינו טעמא דאכתי לא ידעינן דסייף קל, ואית לן למימר מסברא דכיון דיש בו חומרא זו דממונו אבד, מיתתו נמי חמורה.

(f) Answer (Part 1): That speaks before we know that Sayaf on its own is a lighter punishment, where it is logical to say that since it already has the Chumra that their property is destroyed, it follows that their punishment is more stringent too.

אבל כיון דידעינן דסייף קל, איכא למימר שזה גורם לו שניתן לפושט יד בעיקר משום חומרא דאיכא בהדיה דממונו אבד.

(g) Answer (Part 2): But once we conclude that the Sayaf is a more lenient punishment, it makes more sense to say they receive the more stringent punishment for stretching out their hand against Hash-m, due to the additional Chumra of their property being destroyed which combines with it.


תוספות ד"ה סקילה חמורה מחנק

ה"ה דהמ"ל מק"ו משריפה או מסייף דחמורין מחנק, וסקילה חמורה מהן.

(a) Observation: It could equally have learned this from a 'Kal va'Chomer from Sereifah or from Sayaf, which are more stringent than Chenek (strangulation), and Sekilah is more stringent than them.

דכה"ג קאמר לקמן לר"ש.

(b) Precedent: In similar fashion to what the Gemara will say alter according to R. Shimon.


תוספות ד"ה אדרבה חנק חמור שכן ניתן למכה אביו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos query the suggestion that Chenek should be more stringent than Sekilah from two different angles. They therefore conclude that what the Gemara means is that Chenek should be as stringent as Sekilah, seeing as it is given to someone who strikes his father, whose Kavod is compared to that of Kavod ha'Makom).

ותימה, סקילה נמי ניתנה למקלל אביו ואמו, דהוקש כבודן לכבוד המקום?

(a) Question #1: But Sekilah is also given to someone who curses his father and mother, whose honor (by the same token) is compared to that of Hash-m?

ועוד, וכי מפני שהוקש, יהא חמור מכבוד המקום עצמו?

(b) Question #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, is it because their honor is compared to that of Hash-m, that they should be more stringent than Kavod ha'Makom itself ...

דבכיצד הרגל (ב"ק דף כה.) אמר ק"ו לשכינה, י"ד יום?

(c) Question #2 (Part 2): Since, in 'Keitzad ha'Regel' the Gemara says 'Kal va'Chomer the Shechinah (that she ought to be sent out of the camp for) fourteen days (from which we see that Kavod ha'Shechinah is more Chamur)?

וי"ל, דלא קאמר שיהא חמור מסקילה, אלא כלומר חמור כסקילה שכן הוקש.

(d) Answer: The Gemara does not mean to say that it should be more stringent than Sekilah, but that, since their Kavod is compared to that of Hash-m, it should be as stringent as Sekilah.


תוספות ד"ה נאמר אביה בסקילה ...

תימה, אע"ג דמסברא סייף חמור, אתיא ג"ש ומפיק ליה.

(a) Question (Part 1): Even though logically speaking, Sayaf is more stringent, the Gezeirah-Shavah overrides the logic.

ואם כן, לעיל נמי דמסברא סקילה חמורה משריפה כדפ"ה ד'פושט ידו בעיקר עדיף', אמאי לא אתי גזירה שוה ומפקא מסברא, ונימא אחת ארוסה ואחת נשואה יצאה לשריפה, דמה "אביה" האמור בסקילה בארוסה, אף "אביה" האמור בשריפה בארוסה?

(b) Question (Part 2): In that case, above too, where we learned that Sekilah is more stringent than Sereifah because it is given to those who stretch out their hand against Hash-m, why does the Gezeirah-Shavah not come there too, and override the logic? Why do we not say there too, that, based on the Gezeirah-Shavah, the Torah takes both an Arusah and a Nesu'ah out of the K'lal of Sekilah into that of Sereifah; because just as "Avihah" that is written by Sekilah speaks about an Arusah, so too, does "Avihah" that is written by Sereifah speaks about an Arusah? (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).



תוספות ד"ה מה כשהוציא נשואה

הא דפשיטא ליה דנשואה להחמיר היינו בג"ש דלעיל, ד'מה "אביה" האמור בסקילה, סקילה חמורה מחנק, אף "אביה" האמור בשריפה, שריפה חמורה מחנק'.

(a) Clarification: The reason that it is obvious to the Gemara that a Nesu'ah comes to be stringent is the Gezeirah-Shavah that we cited earlier - 'Just as "Avihah" that is mentioned by Sekilah, Sekilah is more stringent than Chenek, so too, "Avihah" that is mentioned by Sereifah, Sereifah is more stringent tham Chenek'.


תוספות ד"ה נאמר כאן אביה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain why we need "Liz'nos" to exclude Chilul Shabbos - why we would not have known this already from the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Avihah" "Avihah").

תימה, א"כ "לזנות" למה לי, דלא מיתוקם בחילול שבת מג"ש דאביה?

(a) Question: In that case, why does the Torah need to write "Liz'nos", seeing as it cannot be speaking about Chilul Shabbos, due to the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Avihah" "Avihah"?

וי"ל מ"מ לא הוה ממעטינן חילול שבת, דהוי אמינא דג"ש איצטריך למעוטי פנויה; ומדכתיב "כי תחל", ה"א דאיירי נמי בחילול שבת.

(b) Answer: We would nevertheless not have excluded Chilul Shabbos, since we would have established the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' to preclude a Penuyah (who is unmarried), and since the Torah inserts the words "ki seichel" (who defiles herself), we would have thought that it is also speaking about Chilul Shabbos (see Maharam).


תוספות ד"ה כשהוא אומר היא מחללת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cite Rashi's two explanations concerning whether this Tana holds of the D'rashah on Daf 52a) 'If they previously treated him with sanctity, they now treated him with profanity' or not. Initially, they support his first explanation, but ultimately they prove the second, and explain why the Gemara later then says 'like this Tana', implying the second).

פ"ה, דהאי תנא לית ליה דרשה דלקמן - ש'אם היו נוהגין בו קדש'.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this Tana doesn't hold of the D'rashah 'If they previously treated him with sanctity, they now treated him with profanity'.

א"נ אית ליה, וליכתוב "היא מחללת" ולא ליכתוב "את אביה"?

(b) Explanation #2: Alternatively, he does. And the Torah ought to have simply written "she is defiled, without mentioning her father.

ולקמן (דף נב.) משמע דלית לי.

(c) Proof for Explanation #1 (Part 1): The Sugya later however (on the following Amud), implies that he doesn't ...

דקאמר רב אשי 'כמאן קרינא 'רשיעא בר רשיעא' אפי' לרשיעא בר צדיקיא? כמאן, כי האי תנא', משמע דר"ע ור"ש, דפליגי עליה דר' ישמעאל, לית להו הך סברא.

(d) Proof for Explanation #1 (Part 2): When Rav Ashi says there 'Like whom do we call even a Rasha the son of a Tzadik 'Rasha bar Rasha'; Like that Tana ... ', implying that R. Akiva and R.Shimon, who argue with R. Yishmael, don't hold of that S'vara!

וקשה, דאמר לעיל אליבא דר"ש - 'מאי חומריה? שכן מחללת את אביה'

(e) Question: But the Gemara said earlier according to R. Shimon 'What is his Chumra" In that she desecrates her father.

וצ"ל, דכ"ע אית להו הך דרשה, 'דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו' ...

(f) Answer (Part 1): We therefore need to say that in fact, everyone agrees with this D'rashah, since a Pasuk never leaves its simple explanation.

והא דקאמר 'כי האי תנא', לפי שהוא הזכירה.

(g) Answer (Part 2): And the Gemara says 'like this Tana' only because he mentioned it explicitly.


תוספות ד"ה ת"ל ובת כהן

(SUMMARY: After citing Rashi, who establishes the Beraisa like R. Akiva, Tosfos reconcile the Seifa [which implies that Kidushin are effective on a list of Chayvei La'avin with R. Akiva in Yevamos, who holds that Kidushin are not Tofeis on Chayvei La'avin. Finally, they reconcile this Sugya, which holds like R. Elazar, who maintains 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah, As'ah Zonah', even though, according to the Gemara in Yevamos, R. Akiva disagrees with R. Elazar).

פ"ה, מריבויא ד'וי"ו' קדריש, וכר"ע ס"ל, דדריש לקמן כה"ג.

(a) Clarification: Rashi explains that he Darshens from the extra 'Vav', and that he holds like R. Akiva, who Darshens like this later on.

והא דקתני סיפא 'לכותי לחלל לנתין ולממזר מניין?' דמשמע יש לו קידושין בה, ושמעינן ליה לר"ע דאמר ביבמות (דף סט.) 'אין קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין'?

(b) Implied Question: And the reason that the Seifa then asks from where we know that the same applies if she is married to a Kuti, a Chalal, a Nasin, or a Mamzer - implying that Kidushin is effective on Chayvei La'avin, even though R. Akiva (in Yevamos) holds 'Ein Kidushin Tofsin be'Chayvei La'avin'?

הני מילי, בחייבי לאוין דשאר, אבל מחייבי לאוין גרידא לא.

(c) Answer: That is only with regards to Chayvei La'avin that are blood-relatives, but not to other Chayvei La'avin.

והא דקאמר בסמוך 'כרבי אלעזר - דאמר "פנוי הבא על הפנויה, עשאה זונה", ושמעינן ליה לר"ע דפליג עליה'?

(d) Question: And when the Gemara shortly establishes the Beraisa like R. Elazar, who holds 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah, As'ah Zonah', even though we have learned (there) that R. Akiva disagrees with R. Elazar?

מכל מקום נעשית זונה בכמה ביאות.

(e) Answer #1: He nevertheless concedes that she becomes a Zonah after many Bi'os.

ועי"ל, דכולה הך ברייתא רבי שמעון היא, כדמוקי לה בסמוך; וסבר לה כר"א בפנוי הבא על הפנויה, וכר"ע דדריש 'וי"ו'.

(f) Answer #2: Alternatively, this Beraisa goes entirely like Rebbi Shimon, as we will establish it shortly; and he holds on the one hand like Rebbi Elazar regarding a Panuy (who is not married) who is intimate with a Penuyah, whilst on the other, he holds like Rebbi Akiva, who Darshens an extra 'Vav'.

ומיהו קשה לר"ע גופיה דאמר לקמן 'יכול אפי' פנויה ... ' תקשה, והא כתיב "לזנות"?

(g) Question: Nevertheless, we are forced to query R. Akiva himself, who says shortly that 'We may have thought that we should include even a Penuyah ... , but does the Torah not write "Liz'nos"? And the Gemara answers 'Like R. Elazar ... !'

וצריך לומר דסבירא ליה כרבי אלעזר.

(h) Answer: We therefore have to say that this Tana holds like R. Akiva on the one hand, and like R. Elazar on the other