כט ואמר ר' תנחום בר חכינאי (במדבר ה, יט) הנקי כתיב טעמא דכתיב הנקי הא לאו הכי מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן לא אמרינן
29 R'Kahana sat before Rab Judah, and was reciting this Mishnah as we learnt it. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah.');"><sup>41</sup></span> said to him: Modify it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Use the third person, so that it should not appear as if you were cursing me.');"><sup>42</sup></span> One of the Scholars was sitting before R'Kahana and reciting: God will likewise break thee forever; He will take thee up, and pluck thee out of thy tent, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LII, 7.');"><sup>43</sup></span> He said to him: Modify it! - Why do we require both?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be informed that both in the Mishnah and the Psalms it is necessary, when in company, to use the third person instead of the second, to avoid giving offence.');"><sup>44</sup></span> - I might have thought that only the Mishnah [we are permitted to modify], but verses of Scripture we are not permitted to modify; therefore he teaches us [that we are].' [MAY THE LORD] NOT SMITE YOU'; OR, 'MAY HE BLESS YOU'; OR, 'MAY HE DO GOOD UNTO YOU, [IF YOU BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME]'; R'MEIR MAKES THEM LIABLE; AND THE SAGES EXEMPT THEM. But R'Meir does not hold that from the negative you may derive the affirmative!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 61a. In our Mishnah: 'May the Lord not smite you, if you bear testimony' is not an oath unless the positive is implied: 'May the Lord smite you, if you do not bear testimony'; and yet R. Meir makes the witnesses liable, though he does not hold that the positive may be derived from the negative.');"><sup>45</sup></span> - Reverse it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Read in the Mishnah: R. Meir exempts them, and the Sages make them liable.');"><sup>46</sup></span> When R'Isaac came, he stated the Mishnah as we learnt it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not reversed.');"><sup>47</sup></span> R'Joseph said; Since we learnt it thus, and when R'Isaac came he also stated it thus, we may infer that we learnt it definitely so. But the question [then] remains!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir does not hold that from the negative we derive the affirmative!');"><sup>48</sup></span> - He does not hold [that from the negative we derive the affirmative] in money matters, but in prohibitions he holds [this principle].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And our Mishnah deals with an oath (a prohibition) . hebv');"><sup>49</sup></span> But the case of sotah is a prohibition, and yet R'Tanhum B'R'Hakinai said; It is written; hinnaki.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 19: ; If thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness . . be thou free from this water of bitterness. This implies: 'if thou hast gone aside . . be thou not free'. Hence, we deduce from the fact that Scripture does not state the affirmative, that we may derive the affirmative from hebv the negative. This is an argument against R. Meir. R. Tanhum (explaining R. Meir's view) states that Scripture uses the word advisedly, so hebj that it may also be read as ('be thou choked') , and taken with the subsequent verse: be thou choked by this water of bitterness . . if thou hebv hast gone aside. Hence, Scripture itself gives both negative and positive: If thou hast not gone aside . . be thou free () ; and be thou choked hebj hebv');"><sup>50</sup></span> The reason is because it is written hinnaki [which may be read as hinki], but were it not for this, [we should not know the affirmative], for we do not say that from the negative you may derive the affirmative!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, even in the case of a prohibition R. Meir does not hold this principle.');"><sup>51</sup></span>