[17a - 49 lines; 17b - 53 lines]
*********************GIRSA SECTION*********************
We recommend using the textual changes suggested by the Bach and the marginal notes of the Vilna Shas. This section is devoted to any OTHER important corrections that Acharonim have pointed out in the Gemara, Rashi and Tosfos.
[1] Gemara 17a [line 3]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #2
[2] Gemara [line 9]:
The words "Lo b'Chada v'Lo b'Chada" ìà áçãà åìà áçãà
should be "Lo b'Hada v'Lo b'Hada" ìà áäãà åìà áäãà (Rashash)
(This Girsa change also applies to Rashi and to the subsequent appearance of this phrase below, line 22)
[3] Gemara [line 43]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #14
[4] Gemara [line 45]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #16
[5] Gemara [line 46]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #17
[6] Rashi 17a DH Rebbi Eliezer Mechayev:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #19
[7] Gemara 17b [line 39]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #10
[8] Gemara 17b [line 40]:
The words "Rebbi Eliezer Omer ..." øáé àìéòæø àåîø
should be "Rebbi Elazar Omer ..." øáé àìòæø àåîø (this Girsa change should be made in the entire Sugya, as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #11; see Girsa Section to Kerisus 18:1)
*******************************************************
1)[line 11]îã÷úðé "åîåãä øáï âîìéàì" îëìì ãôìéâéMID'KATANI "U'MODEH RABAN GAMLIEL" MI'CHLAL D'PELIGI- that is, since the Beraisa mentions that Raban Gamliel said this point and makes no mention that Rebbi Eliezer (or any other Tana) sides with him, it can be inferred that Raban Gamliel had a unique opinion with regard to Chatzi Shi'ur
2)[line 34]ãèáéìåú äåééï ëéîéí ùáéðúéíD'TEVILOS HAVYAN KA'YAMIM SHE'BENASAYIM- that we compare a Nidah who becomes Tehorah through Tevilah and then becomes Temei'ah again, to a Shabbos, which passes, giving way to the days of the week, and then returns 7 days later (see RAMBAM Perush ha'Mishnayos and Shitah Mekubetzes to Daf 16a, #5)
3)[line 37]àùúå ðãä ... çééá òì ëì àçú åàçú î÷ì åçåîøISHTO NIDAH ... CHAYAV AL KOL ACHAS V'ACHAS MI'KAL VA'CHOMER- Rebbi Eliezer follows the opinion he expressed on Daf 15a, that one is Chayav a Chatas for each Be'ilah of an Ervah
PEREK #4 SAFEK ACHAL CHELEV
17b----------------------------------------17b
4)[line 1]çìáCHELEV (CHELEV)
(a)Chelev refers to the fat of an animal that is offered on the Mizbe'ach. It consists of the layer of fat covering the stomachs, all the other fat attached to the stomachs, and the fat on the kidneys along the flanks (Vayikra 3:4). The verse states, "Chukas Olam l'Doroseichem b'Chol Moshevoseichem, Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam Lo Socheilu." - "It shall be an everlasting statute for your generations throughout all your settlements, that you eat neither [forbidden] fat nor blood" (Vayikra 3:17).
(b)It is forbidden to eat the Chelev of a Kosher Behemah (farm animal), but it may be used for any other purpose. The Chelev of a Chayah (a Kosher non-farm animal), however, may even be eaten. "Shuman" refers to all the other fat of an animal that is permitted.
(c)If a person eats a k'Zayis of Chelev b'Mezid (intentionally) after Hasra'ah (being forewarned), he is punished with Malkus (lashes). If he was not given Hasra'ah, he is Chayav Kares. If he sins b'Shogeg (unintentionally) he must bring a Korban Chatas (as with all sins for which one is liable to Kares b'Mezid). If a person is in doubt whether the fat he ate was Chelev or Shuman, he must bring a Korban Asham Taluy (see Background to Kerisus 15:18).
5)[line 18]éù àí ìîñåøúYESH EM L'MASORES / YESH EM LA'MIKRA
(a)Some words in the Torah, based on the Mesorah (the authoritative "Tradition"), are read differently from the way that they are written. There is no question how the verse is to be read when reading the Torah, since the Mesorah specifies a certain way of reading it. However, the Tana'im and Amora'im argue over how to learn Halachos from such verses. "Yesh Em la'Masores" means that we learn Halachos from the verse based on the way it is written; "Yesh Em la'Mikra" means that we learn Halachos from the verse based on the way it is read.
(b)For example, according to the Mesorah, the word "ba'Sukos" (which appears three times in the verses regarding Sukah in Parashas Emor) is written once with a "Vav," implying our pronunciation of "ba'Sukos" (plural), and twice without a Vav, implying the pronunciation "b'Sukas" (singular), which is not the way that we read it. We pronounce the word as "ba'Sukos" all three times, according to the Mesorah.
(c)Similarly, in our Sugya, the word written in the Torah is "Mitzvos" (Vayikra 5:17), which has only one letter "Vav." This leads to the Derashah of "Mitzvas" in the singular (one piece of fat about which we are in doubt) or "Mitzvos" in the plural (two pieces of fat, one Shuman and one Chelev, and we are in doubt as to which one the person ate).
6)[line 40]ëåéKOY
(a)There is a Machlokes Tana'im as to which animal Chazal (Mishnah Chulin 83b, et al.) refer to as a "Koy." Some Tana'im rule that it is a crossbreed between certain species of goats and deer, while others rule that is an independent species (Daf 80a). The Koy shows signs of being both a Behemah (a domesticated farm animal) and a Chayah (a non-farm animal). The Chelev (forbidden fat — see Background to Chulin 5:15a) of a Behemah is prohibited and its blood does not need Kisuy ha'Dam (covering after ritual slaughter — see Background to Chulin 83:12), while the Chelev of a Chayah is not prohibited but its blood does need Kisuy ha'Dam.
(b)As a result, still other Tana'im rule that the status of a Koy is always in doubt (a Safek). This is usually the context in which the Gemara refers to a Koy, as an animal about which the Halachic status is uncertain. Because of this doubt, the Chelev of a Koy is prohibited and its blood requires Kisuy ha'Dam. (For additional Halachos regarding the Koy, see Bikurim 2:8-11.)
7)[line 42]ñô÷ áï úùòä ìøàùåï àå áï ùáòä ìàçøåïSAFEK BEN TISH'AH L'RISHON O BEN SHIV'AH LA'ACHARON
If a woman remarried within three months of her previous marriage and gave birth six months later, we are in doubt if the baby born is the son of the first husband after a full gestation period, or if he is the premature baby of the second husband. The Gemara is discussing a case where we have a doubt whether the child that is born is the son of the dead brother (in which case Yibum was prohibited), or of the Yavam (in which case it was a valid Yibum.)
8)[line 45]àúéåíOSYOM- immediately
9)[line 49]àôùø ìáøø àéñåøåEFSHAR L'VARER ISURO- we can clarify if it was prohibited