תוספות ד"ה והרי מגדף

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara asked its question Megadef, and not Shevuas ha'Eidus.)

ה"נ הוה מצי למפרך משבועת העדות


Implied Question: Here, too, the Gemara could have asked a question from Shevuas ha'Eidus. [Why did it ask instead from Megadef?]

והא דפריך ממגדף משום דאפי' חטאת קבועה מייתי


Answer: It asked instead from Megadef because one even has to bring a Chatas if he is accidentally Megadef.



תוספות ד"ה והרי הקדש

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Gemara chose to ask a question from Hekdesh.)

תימה מאי פריך דנימא דמתני' הכי קאמר היכן מצינו מדבר ומביא קרבן על דבורו בלא שום מעשה שזה מדבר ומביא קרבן בלא שום מעשה כגון שבועה שאוכל ולא אכל אבל הקדש מביא קרבן על מה שאכל שעשה מעשה


Question: This is difficult. What is the Gemara's question? We can say that our Mishnah means as follows. Where do we find someone who speaks, and because of this speech he must bring a Korban without having done any action? This is the case here, as someone who swears that he will eat something and does not must bring a Korban. However, regarding Hekdesh we can say that the person brings a Korban because of his actions, namely eating Hekdesh. [Why, then, does the Gemara ask a question from Hekdesh?]



תוספות ד"ה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how Konam can be stronger than Hekdesh.)

תימה דחמיר קונם מהקדש ואיהו גופיה לא אסיר אלא משום דהוי כהקדש והקדש בעי שוה פרוטה


Question: This is difficult. How can the term Konam be more stringent than Hekdesh, as the Gemara states that Konam is even on the slightest amount while Hekdesh is on a minimum of a Perutah, when the source of the prohibition effected by Konam is Hekdesh itself?



תוספות ד"ה מתוך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues that Rashi's proof is incorrect and unnecessary.)

פי' בקונטרס אבל קונמות אם נהנה וחוזר ונהנה בהעלם אחד חדא הוא דמיחייב דכולה חדא מעילה היא כדתנן צירף את המעילה לזמן מרובה


Explanation: Rashi explains that if someone benefits multiple times from something he is forbidden from due to a Konam, and during this entire time he did not realize he was forbidden to that item, he is only liable to bring one Korban. It is considered one act of Meilah, as the Mishnah in Meilah (20a) states that one can combine amounts for Meilah for a long time.

ואין נראה להביא ראיה משם דהתם לחומרא תנן ליה שאם נהנה מחצי פרוטה וחזר ונהנה לזמן מרובה חצי פרוטה מצטרף כאילו נהנה כל הפרוטה בבת אחת


Implied Question: It does not seem that there is any proof from that Mishnah. The Mishnah (ibid.) is merely citing a stringency that if a person benefitted from one half Perutah and then, after a long time, benefitted from another half Perutah, these half Perutos combine as if he had benefit from them at the same time.

ולא היה צריך לפרש אלא דלענין חטאת חלוקה משום דכתיב (ויקרא ה) לאחת מאלה אבל גבי מעילה לא כתיב הכי


He only had to explain that regarding a Korban Chatas the items are different (and two Korbanos can be brought for two different acts of transgressing a Shevuah, even though he did not realize he was sinning the entire time), because regarding Shevuos the Pasuk says, "For one of these." However, regarding Meilah there is no such Pasuk (and we therefore revert to the rule that one Korban is brought for each time that the person forgot.)



תוספות ד"ה רבינא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Ravina understands that the Beraisa should be kept as is.)

לרבינא נמי טעמא דרבנן כדרב פנחס כדמסיק בסמוך


Explanation: According to Ravina as well, the reasoning of the Rabbanan is that of Rav Pinchas, as the Gemara concludes later.

ובא רבינא לחדש דאין צריך לומר איפוך דכיון דר"מ לאו טעמא דנפשיה קאמר אלא לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו כדקאמר בסמוך


Ravina comes to teach that there is no need to say that the opinions should be reversed, being that Rebbi Meir is not saying his own reason, but rather is addressing the reasoning of the Rabbanan.

וטפי ניחא ליה לאפוכי דרבי מאיר לרבנן בההיא בתרייתא דמייתי מלהגיה ולהפך דר"מ משום דבין שבועות לקונמות ובין קונמות לשבועות לא טעי תנא


It is easier to reverse the opinions of Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan in the second Beraisa that is quoted here, than to edit and reverse their opinions in this first Beraisa. This is because the Tanna who wrote this Beraisa would probably not mix up the order of the words Shevuos and Konamos, or Konamos and Shevuos.




תוספות ד"ה וחכמים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan.)

משמע דכ"ע מודו בקונמות דאין להן פדיון דאפי' רבי מאיר דאמר יש מעילה בקונמות מודה דאין לו פדיון


Observation: This Beraisa implies that everyone agrees that one cannot redeem Konamos (like one can redeem Hekdesh). Even Rebbi Meir who says that there is Meilah in Konamos admits there is no redemption for such items.

והקשה הר' יצחק בן רבינו מאיר דבריש האשה רבה (יבמות פח. ושם) אמר אי קסבר יש מעילה בקונמות משום דבידו לפדותו הוא


Question: Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Rabeinu Meir asks that in Yevamos (88a) the Gemara says that if one holds that there is Meilah when misusing Konamos, this is because one is allowed to redeem it! [This implies that one can redeem Konamos!]

ותירץ ר"ת דקונמות דאסר אכ"ע יש להן פדיון לר"מ כיון דדמיא להקדש


Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that things that are forbidden through Konamos that are forbidden to the entire world can be redeemed according to Rebbi Meir, as this is similar to Hekdesh.

תדע מדנקט ככר זו עלי הקדש


Proof: This is clearly true, as the part of the Mishnah where Rebbi Meir says there is no redemption talks about a case where he forbade a loaf specifically "upon himself" (as opposed to the first case where he forbade it in general).

וא"ת וניפלוג בקונם גופיה


Question: Why don't they argue about Konam itself?

וי"ל דאה"נ ובקונם גופיה מפליג ורישא נמי איירי בקונם וככר זו הקדש היינו כהקדש דהא לר"מ לא שני ליה בין קרבן לכקרבן בין אימרא לכאימרא כדאיתא בספ"ק דנדרים (דף יג.) ה"ה בין הקדש לכהקדש כיון דדעתיה אקונם


Answer#1: In fact they do argue about Konamos. The first part of the Beraisa is discussing Konam, and saying that this loaf is Hekdesh means it is like Hekdesh. This is because Rebbi Meir does not differentiate between the term "Korban" and "like a Korban" or "Imra" and "like an Imra" as stated in Nedarim (13a). He similarly does not differentiate between "Hekdesh" and "like Hekdesh" being that his mindset is on Konam.

א"נ איירי בפירש בהדיא כהקדש ואיידי דנקט בסיפא ככר זו עלי הקדש דלא איצטריך לפרש כהקדש כיון דאמר עלי תנא נמי רישא ככר זו הקדש


Answer#2: Alternatively, the case is where he explicitly said, "like Hekdesh." Being that the second case had to mention a case where he said "Kikar Zu Alay Hekdesh," and there was no need to say "like Hekdesh" being that he said "Alay," the Tana also said in the first part of the Beraisa "Kikar Zu Hekdesh."

וחכמים דאמרי בין הוא בין חבירו לא מעל פליגי נמי ארישא


The Chachamim who say that both he and his friend cannot transgress Meilah argue on the first part of the Mishnah as well.

וברוב ספרים גרס בר"פ אין בין המודר (שם לה.) בין כך ובין כך לא מעל


Text#1: Most Sefarim in Nedarim (35a) have the text, "Either way he was not Moel."

ואית ספרים דגרסי אחד זה ואחד זה לא מעל וגרסי נמי התם ברישא קונם ככר זו הקדש


Text#2: There are some Sefarim that have the text, "Each one was not Moel." They also have the text there in the first part of the Beraisa, "Konam Kikar Zu Hekdesh."



תוספות ד"ה נזיר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Chartzanim is just an example, not a question only pertaining to Chartzanim.)

איידי דקאי בחרצן נקט חרצן וה"ה דמצי למיבעי בחלב ונבילה בכל אדם


Observation: Being that he was talking about Chartzanim (grape pips), he asked the question about Chartzanim. In fact, he could have asked this question about forbidden fats and Neveilos for any person (not just regarding a Nazir).

אבל אין לפרש דנקט חרצן משום דאית בה תרתי שמושבע ועומד ולא אכלי ליה בעיניה ואיכא למימר טפי דדעתיה אכל שהוא


However, one cannot explain that the reason Chartzanim is discussed is because there are two factors involved. One factor is that he is commanded from Har Sinai not to eat them, and the other is that they are not eaten as is, and therefore there is more reason to say that his mindset was that he cannot even eat a small amount.

דהא מנבילה וטריפה פשיט ליה


This is because the answer to the question is from the topic of Neveilah and Treifah. (This clearly shows it has nothing to do with specific characteristics of Neveilah and Treifah.)



תוספות ד"ה אהתירא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rav Ashi's question is also according to Rebbi Yochanan.)

אפילו לרבי יוחנן דאמר (יומא דף עג:) חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה אתיא בעיא דרב אשי


Implied Question: This question of Rav Ashi is even according to Rebbi Yochanan, who says in Yoma (73b) that even half of the amount forbidden by the Torah is forbidden according to Torah law. [Why should we assume this is true if Rav Ashi seems to be saying that less than the amount forbidden by the Torah is permitted according to Torah law?]

דמסתמא כר' יוחנן סבירא ליה דקיימא לן כוותיה והיינו טעמא דכיון דליכא אלא איסורא בעלמא לא חשיב ליה מושבע ועומד


Answer#1: Rav Ashi must hold like Rebbi Yochanan, as we rule like Rebbi Yochanan. Rav Ashi's logic in the question is still intact, as being that there is only a mere prohibition (but the transgression is not punishable by Beis Din) it is not considered that he is sworn from Har Sinai not to do this.

א"נ לרבי יוחנן נפרש אהיתירא קמשתבע כגון ליהנות שלא כדרך הנאתו דקיימא לן (פסחים דף כד:) כל איסורים שבתורה אין לוקין עליהן אלא כדרך הנאתן ואפילו איסור בעלמא ליכא מדאורייתא אלא מדרבנן


Answer#2: Alternatively, according to Rebbi Yochanan we should explain that (Rav Ashi's question is regarding a case where) he is swearing about something permitted, for example to have benefit in an abnormal way. In Pesachim (24b), the Gemara rules that one only receives lashes for any Torah prohibition if he benefits in a normal way from that sin. There is no Torah prohibition at all, only a Rabbinic prohibition, when benefiting in an abnormal fashion.



תוספות ד"ה תא ונטעום

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara indicates that eating includes drinking.)

ואי שתיה לאו בכלל אכילה הוא היה להן להזכיר גם השתיה


Explanation: If drinking would not be included in eating, he would have had to explicitly mention drinking as well.

ולפי הספרים דל"ג אלא אזלי ושתו ניחא טפי


Text: According to the Sefarim that only have the text, "They went and drank" it is more understandable (as a term of eating translated directly into only drinking).

וא"ת מה ענין טעימה אצל אכילה


Question: What does (the fact that this is the definition of) tasting have to do with (the definition of) eating?

ויש לומר שמא בלשונם הוו קרו לאכילה טעימה


Answer: Perhaps in their language eating and tasting were synonymous.



תוספות ד"ה איבעית אימא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that logic sometimes needs to be backed up by a Pasuk.)

בספ"ק דקדושין (דף לה:) גבי כל שישנו בהשחתה אמר הכי וכן בכמה מקומות


Observation: This is stated in Kidushin (35b) regarding whoever is commanded in not destroying etc. and in many other places.

ותימה כיון דאיכא סברא ל"ל קרא דהכי פריך בפ"ב דכתובות (דף כב.) גבי הא דאמר רב הונא מנין להפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר למה לי קרא סברא הוא הוא אסרה הוא שרי לה


Question: This is difficult. Once there is a logical reason for this, why does the Torah bother to state a Pasuk teaching this lesson? The Gemara in Kesuvos (22a) indeed asks regarding Rav Huna's question about the source of the law, "the mouth that forbids is the mouth that can permit," why do we need a Pasuk to tell us this law? It is logical that if he forbids her he can permit her!

ויש לחלק דיש דברים שאין הסברא פשוטה כל כך וצריך הפסוק להשמיענו הסברא


Answer: It is possible to differentiate that there are some things that are not so simple, and the Pasuk does need to explain the reasoning (as in the case of our Gemara).