Daf Yomi Nedarim 10b-11a: Does Rabbi Meir Not Hold Of Michlal Lav Ata Shomea Hen?

A thought or two about the gemara Nedarim's analysis of the Mishna on Nedarim 10b. (Girsaot and translation taken from my Rif blog.)

Nedarim 10b:

Mishna:

לא חולין שאוכל לך לא כשר לא דכי לא טהור וטמא נותר ופיגול אסור כאימרא כדירים כעצים כאישים כמזבח כהיכל כירושלים כא' מכל משמשי המזבח אע"פ שלא הזכיר קרבן הרי זה נדר בקרבן.
ר' יהודה אומר האומר ירושלים הרי זה לא אמר כלום

{IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR}, 'THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE NOT CHULLIN, NOT KOSHER, NOT PURE, NOT RITUALLY CLEAN, AND IMPURE, LEFTOVER, PIGGUL {with improper intent}, FORBIDDEN, LIKE THE LAMB {of the daily sacrifice}, LIKE THE SHEDS OF CATTLE, LIKE THE WOOD, LIKE THE FIRE, LIKE THE ALTAR, LIKE THE TEMPLE, LIKE YERUSHALAYIM, LIKE ONE OF ALL THE UTENSILS OF THE ALTAR, THEN EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT MENTIONED A KORBAN, HE HAS VOWED BY KORBAN.
RABBI YEHUDA SAYS: IF ONE SAYS "LIKE YERUSHALAYIM," HE HAS NOT SAID ANYTHING.

The gemara:

{Nedarim 11a}
Gemara:

סברוה מאי לחולין לא חולין הוי אלא קרבן
מני מתני' אי ר"מ הא לית ליה מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן דתנן רמ"א כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי ב"ג וב"ר אינו תנאי
ואלא ר' יהודה?
אימא סיפא רי"א האומר ירושלים לא אמר כלום
ומדסיפא ר"י רישא לאו ר"י
לא קשיא כולה ר' יהודה והכי קתני
שר"י אומר האומר ירושלים לא אמר כלום

וכי אמר כירושלים לר"י מי מיתסר
והתניא ר' יהודה אומר כירושלים לא אמר כלום עד שידור בדבר הקרב בירושלים.
כולה ר' יהודה ותרי תנאי אליבא דר' יהודה.

They thought that what is lechulin {in the Mishna, in a certain girsa}? la chullin is it, but rather an offering.
Who is the author of our Mishna? If it is Rabbi Meir, behold he does not have the principle of from the negative you can infer the positive! For they learnt {in a Mishna}: Rabbi Meir says: Any stipulation which is not like the stipulation of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven is not a valid stipulation.
But can we say it is Rabbi Yehuda? The sefa {latter part of the Mishna} states: Rabbi Yehuda says, "One who says Yerushalayim does not say anything." And from the fact that the sefa is Rabbi Yehuda, the resha is not Rabbi Yehuda.
This is no question. It is all Rabbi Yehuda, and this is what it means to say: For Rabbi Yehuda says, "One who says 'Yerushalayim' has not said anything."

But if he said "Like Yerushalayim, would Rabbi Yehuda forbid?" But they learnt {in a brayta}, "One who said 'like Yerushalayim' has not said anything, until he vows with what is sacrificed in Yerushalayim.

{The answer:} It is all Rabbi Yehuda, and it is two Tannaim within the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

This explanation of the Mishna, as being in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, seems quite a bit forced. It would have been much easier to make it accord with Rabbi Meir, except of course that Rabbi Meir does not hold of the principle of מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.

But is this really so? The basis for this assertion is what he says in a Mishna in Kiddushin:

ג,ד רבי מאיר אומר, כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי בני ראובן ובני גד--אינו תנאי, שנאמר "ויאמר משה אליהם, אם יעברו בני גד ובני ראובן איתכם . . . ואם לא יעברו חלוצים, איתכם . . ." (במדבר לב,כט-ל). רבי חנניה בן גמליאל אומר, צורך היה הדבר לאומרו--שאלמלא כן, יש במשמע שאף בארץ לא הונחלו.

But, this is a statement in the context of stipulations. Who says that a simple statement in the form of negative cannot imply a positive by Nedarim, where after all both yadot and kinuyim are in force? Indeed, who says that this is anything which should be extrapolated out of the specific context of stipulations? It is, after all, derived from a pasuk, and Rabbi Chanania ben Gamliel has a reply in the context of the intent of that pasuk. Perhaps it is a gezeirat hakatuv only by stipulations. Instead, we make this more general rule that Rabbi Meir purportedly subscribes to, and this causes problems to a local understanding of the Mishna in Nedarim.

Indeed, the same extrapolation presents another problem, with a Mishna in which Rabbi Meir explicitly speaks. On Nedarim 11b:

תנא חולין החולין כחולין בין שאוכל לך בין שלא אוכל לך מותר.
לא חולין שאוכל לך אסור
לא חולין לא אוכל לך מותר

It was taught: Chullin, haChullin, keChullin, whether "that I eat of yours," or "that I do not eat of yours," is permitted.
It is not chullin, that I eat of yours, it is forbidden.
It is not chullin that I do not eat of yours, it is permitted.

רישא מני ר"מ היא דלית ליה מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן
אימא סיפא לחולין לא אוכל לך מותר

The resha is who? Rabbi Meir, who does not have the principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. But then the sefa says "lachullin {=not chullin} I will not eat from you, it is permitted!
{And this cannot be Rabbi Meir, because:}

והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר
וקשיא לן
הא לית ליה לרבי מאיר מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן
וא"ר אבא נעשה כאומר לקרבן יהא לפיכך לא אוכל לך
ה"נ לא חולין ליהוי לפיכך לא אוכל לך

האי תנא סבר לה כותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא ס"ל בחדא דלית ליה מכלל לאו וכו' ופליג עליה בחדא בקרבן

רב אשי אמר הא דאמר לחולין הא דאמר לא חולין דמשמע לא ליהוי חולין אלא קרבן

But we learnt {in a Mishna}: lakorban {=not a korban} that which I do not eat of yours, Rabbi Meir forbids. {With the simple understanding that: since that which I do not eat is not a korban, that which I would eat of your would be forbidden like a korban.} But Rabbi Meir does not hold of the principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement?!
And Rabbi Abba {there} says: He is made as if he said "for a korban {=lekorban} it should be, and therefore I will not eat of yours."
So too {here, by the sefa of the brayta, we should interpret it as} "it is not to be chullin, and therefore I will not eat of yours."

The answer: This tanna holds like him {Rabbi Meir} in one and argues upon him in one. He holds in one {=the resha} that there is no principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. And he argues with him in one of them -- by the korban. {and the meaning of lakorban.}

Rav Ashi said: This {=resha} is where he said leChullin, and this is where he said la chullin, which implies that it should not be chullin but rather korban.

Yet it would be simpler to say that Rabbi Meir indeed holds of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. But in the brayta, which states

לא חולין שאוכל לך אסור
לא חולין לא אוכל לך מותר

it is not about whether one can make such a derivation. Rather, the former implies that that which I eat from you is not chullin {but rather korban}, and thus is forbidden. While the latter, with the double negative, implies that that which he did not eat is not chullin, but that which he would eat is chullin, and thus permissible. Indeed, this would appear to be like (part of) Rav Ashi's resolution.

In terms of the Mishna, which states:

והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר

this is not an issue of deriving a positive from a negative statement, but rather since it says lekorban, rather than la korban, in two separate words. And indeed, that is how it appears in the citation from the Mishna. While in the Mishna, it is la chullin as two separate words.

And this appears to accord with Rabbi Abba, above.

This is all complicated, or hidden, by the fact that the girsa as it appears in our gemara, as opposed to how it appears as cited above from the Rif, does not have these marked distinctions.

And if so, we do not really need to have the prompting the setama digmara gives in these places for Rav Ashi and Rabbi Abba. And this prompting is the claim that Rabbi Meir does not hold of michlal lav ata shomea hen. But as above, we can dispense with that.

And once we do, we do not need the claim for the first Mishna that it is a Tanna based in part or Rabbi Yehuda and who argues on him in part. And we do not need the claim in the latter case that it is a Tanna who agrees with and disagrees with Rabbi Meir.

I would suggest that all of this is a later stammaic reworking of the gemara, from a particular extrapolation from Kiddushin about Rabbi Meir's views.