1)

TOSFOS DH V'HU

תוספות ד"ה והוא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is not an actual oath, but is akin to an oath.)

ולאו דשבועה ממש היא אלא יש להזהר וקצת יש עונש בדבר

(a)

Explanation: This is not an actual oath, but rather one must be careful about it. There is a slight punishment for (transgressing) it.

2)

TOSFOS DH YAKECHA

תוספות ד"ה יכך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how we know that an Alah without a Shevuah is like an Alah with a Shevuah.)

תימה דלעיל לא גמרינן אלא שבועה שאין עמה אלה שהיא כשבועה שיש עמה אלה אבל אלה שאין עמה שבועה כיש עמה שבועה מנ"ל

(a)

Question: This is difficult. Earlier, we only derive that a Shevuah that does not have an Alah is like a Shevuah with an Alah. However, how do we know that an Alah without a Shevuah is like an Alah with a Shevuah?

3)

TOSFOS DH V'AL

תוספות ד"ה ועל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains our Gemara according to an opinion in Sanhedrin.)

וא"ת למ"ד בפרק ד' מיתות (סנהדרין דף סו.) אלהים לא תקלל קדש איש איש כי יקלל למה לי

(a)

Question: According to the opinion in Sanhedrin (66a) that the Pasuk, "Elokim Lo Sekalel" refers to the name of Hash-m, why does the Torah say the Pasuk, "Ish Ish Ki Yekalel?"

וי"ל דאיצטריך לכרת

(b)

Answer: It is needed so that it should be punishable with Kares.

והא דאמרינן על הכנויין באזהרה

(c)

Question: The Chachamim say that one is warned not to curse using the "nicknames" of Hash-m with a negative prohibition. (This implies that one would receive lashes, not Kares!)

למעוטי מיתה אתא ולא למעוטי כרת

(d)

Answer: This excludes death, but not Kares.

4)

TOSFOS DH B'NAKVO

תוספות ד"ה בנקבו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that this is required for a different teaching.)

תימה הא איצטריך לכדדרשינן בפ' ד' מיתות (שם דף נו.) דאינו חייב עד שיברך שם בשם

(a)

Question: This is difficult. This is required for the teaching in Sanhedrin (56a) that one is only liable if he curses the name of Hash-m with the name of Hash-m!

5)

TOSFOS DH U'SHMOR

תוספות ד"ה ושמור

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why we don't apply this prohibition to topics in other Gemaros.)

תימה בקללה ד"ה חייב ובחובל עצמו איכא פלוגתא (ב"ק צא:) חבלה נמי תיפוק ליה מהאי קרא או מוהשמרו מאד לנפשותיכם

(a)

Question#1: This is difficult. Everyone agrees that one is liable if he curses himself. However, regarding someone who injures himself, there is an argument in Bava Kama (91b). Why don't we derive that one cannot injure himself from this Pasuk or from the Pasuk, "And you should guard you souls very much?"

ועוד תימה דבפ' ד' מיתות (סנהדרין דף סו.) דחיק לאשכוחי אזהרה למקלל אביו מנשיא וחרש ודיין ליגמר ממקלל עצמו

(b)

Question#2: There is another question. In Sanhedrin (66a), the Gemara presses to establish a source in the Torah for a warning for someone who curses his father, a king, a deaf person, and a judge. Why don't we derive this from the prohibition against cursing oneself?

וי"ל דאי לאו דאשכחנא אביו לא הוה גמרינן בעצמו מה שלא מצינו שאסור בחבירו

(c)

Answer: If we would not know that one is liable for cursing his father we would not have derived that he is prohibited from cursing himself, as this does not apply to his friend.

36b----------------------------------------36b

6)

TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN

תוספות ד"ה ה"ג

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the text of our Gemara, and when Rebbi Meir holds "from a negative one sees a positive.")

ה"ג בקונטרס ור"ח אלא לעולם איפוך ובאיסורא אית ליה ובממונא לית ליה ושאני סוטה דאיסורא דאית ביה ממונא הוא

(a)

Text#1: This is the text of Rashi and the Rach. Rather, you should switch the opinions around. He (Rebbi Meir) holds this regarding prohibitions, but not regarding money matters. Although the topic of Sotah involves prohibition, being that it involves money (whether or not she receives a Kesuvah) it is treated as a money matter.

ובספרים היה כתוב לא תיפוך

(b)

Text#2: The standard text had read that you should not switch the opinions around.

והקשה בקונטרס דלרבנן דפטרי מי לית להו דשתויי יין במיתה

(c)

Question: Rashi asks, according to the Rabbanan who say he is exempt, do they not hold that someone who enters the Mikdash drunk receives the death penalty? (The entire prohibition is based on the principle that, "from a negative one sees the positive," as the Torah says "do not drink...and you will not die.")

ונראה לתרץ דהא דפטרי משום דבעינן שם המיוחד ואינהו אאלהים קאי

(d)

Answer: It appears that the reason the Rabbanan say he is exempt is because they require the special name of Hash-m to be used, and they are referring to Elokim being used. because the Mishnah stated that Rebbi Meir says one is liable, it says again that the Chachamim say he is exempt.

אע"ג דכבר איפליגו

(e)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that they have already argued about this in the Mishnah. (Why does the Mishnah state this argument again?)

איידי דתנא ר' מאיר מחייב תנא נמי וחכמים פוטרין

(f)

Answer: Being that the Mishnah says that Rebbi Meir holds he is liable (in order to discuss the nature of the case), it also says that the Chachamim say he is exempt.

ואם תאמר התינח סוטה דלית ליה לר"מ מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן משום דאית ביה ממונא אבל אכתי תיקשה מכל הנהו קראי דמייתי פ"ג דקדושין (דף סא:) בשלמא לר"מ היינו דכתיב ואם בחקותי וגו' וכן אם תטיב ואם תאבו ואם לא יתחטא משמע דמצריך ר"מ כפילא אף על גב דליכא אלא איסורא גרידא

(g)

Question: It is understandable regarding Sotah that Rebbi Meir does not say, "from a negative one sees the positive" because it involves money. However, one can still ask all the questions based on the Pesukim that are quoted in Kidushin (61b). The Gemara asks, "It is understandable according to Rebbi Meir why the Pasuk says, "And if in My laws..." Similarly, "If you will do good," "If you will want," and "And if he will not be cleansed." These all imply that Rebbi Meir requires that both the positive and negative are clearly stated, even though the issue is only one of prohibition and does not involve money.

וי"ל דאם בחקותי ואם תטיב ואם תאבו איכא כמה מצות דאית בהו ממונא והוא יתחטא נמי שייך לענין ממון כגון מטמא תרומה

(h)

Answer: It is possible to answer that "And if in My laws," "If you will do good," and "If you will want," cover many Mitzvos, including those involving money. "And if he will be cleansed" includes monetary ramifications as well, for example making Terumah impure.

אבל קשיא לר"ת דבספ"ק דנדרים (דף יג:) גבי נדר לית ליה לרבי מאיר מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן אע"ג דליכא אלא איסורא

(i)

Question: This is difficult according to Rabeinu Tam. In Nedarim (13b), the Gemara says regarding vows that Rebbi Meir does not hold of the concept "from a negative one sees the positive." This is despite the fact that this only pertains to a prohibition.

ואומר הר"ר י"ט דוקא באיסור חמור הוא דאית ליה לר"מ מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן כגון שתויי יין ופרועי ראש דבמיתה

(j)

Answer: Rabeinu Yom Tov says that Rebbi Meir only holds regarding serious prohibitions that "from a negative one sees the positive." For example, he holds this is true regarding drinking and not having a haircut (for thirty days) and going into the Mikdash, as this is punishable by death.

וכן נמי גבי שבועה שלא אוכל לך בפ"ב דנדרים (דף טז.) משמע דאית ליה משום דאיסור חמור הוא דחשיב בפרק בתרא דיומא (דף פו.) חייבי כריתות ולא תשא עמהן

1.

Answer(cont.): This is also true regarding an oath that, "Shevuah if I will eat with you" in Nedarim (16a). The implication is that even Rebbi Meir holds that this concept applies there because he considers it a serious prohibition. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara in Yoma (86a) lists various things one is liable to receive Kares for, and it lists "Lo Sisa" ("Do not say Hash-m, your G-d's name, in vain") among them.

ולקמן בריש שבועת הדיינים (דף לט.) נמי אמרינן נזדעזע כל העולם כשאמר הקב"ה לא תשא

2.

Answer(cont.): Similarly, the Gemara later (39a) mentions that the entire world shook when Hash-m said, "Lo Sisa."

וא"ת והלא בקדושין (שם) בעי רבי מאיר תנאי כפול בשבועה גבי אז תנקה מאלתי

(k)

Question: In Kidushin (ibid.), Rebbi Meir requires that a double condition (both positive and negative) be mentioned in the Shevuah, regarding "Then I will be clean of my curse etc." (This was Avraham making Eliezer swear to find a wife for Yitzchak according to his wishes. What monetary issue was at stake?)

וי"ל דהתם איכא ממונא דכתיב וכל טוב אדוניו בידו

(l)

Answer: There is a monetary issue there, as the verse says, "And all of the good of his master was in his hand."

PEREK SHEVUAS HA'PIKADON
7)

TOSFOS DH SHEVUAS

תוספות ד"ה שבועת הפקדון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites the source for why this Asham must cost two Selaim.)

באשם מעילות כתיב ומיניה ילפינן שאר אשמות

(a)

Explanation: This is stated by an Asham Meilos, and we derive from there that this applies to all Ashamos.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF