[28a - 52 lines; 28b - 46 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 28b [line 14, 15]:

Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #2, 3

[2] Gemara [line 31]:

The colon should be removed.


1)[line 3]H AVAYAH ACHERES- another "being," i.e. another day to be eaten (besides the first day, which is already learned from Korban Todah)

2)[line 17] MISHE'NIR'EH L'HAR'OSO L'CHACHAM- from when it is fit to be shown to a Chacham (i.e. from when it has developed a Mum)

3)[line 21] MIPNEI HASHAVAS AVEIDAH L'VE'ALIM- in order that the Kohanim, to whom the Bechor must be given, should not suffer a loss

4)[line 23] SHELOSHIM YOM ACHAR SHENASO O DILMA KODEM SHENASO- is the Beraisa which permits the owner to keep the Bechor for an additional thirty days because of Hashavas Aveidah discussing a Mum which developed after the Bechor was a year old, or even a Mum that developed within the year, which would mean that he would have the Bechor in his possession for a total period of one year and thirty days?

5)[line 31] YAMIM HA'CHASHUVIN SHANAH- an amount of days that are considered to be a significant part of the year, i.e. an entire month

6)[line 38]MUMCHEH- expert on matters of blemishes in animals

7)[line 41] DOKIN SHEBA'AYIN- (lit. eye's web, O.F. teile) a thin film (corneal opacity?) that develops due to an eye-disease, which is considered to be a blemish, or, alternatively, a cut on the eyelids, that disqualifies an animal from being brought as a Korban, as the Torah states in Vayikra 21:20. See Background to Menachos 78:38 with regard to blemishes that invalidate an animal from being offered as a sacrifice.

8)[line 42]MISHTANIN- they change, as a result of the throes of death, into Mumim Kevu'im


9)[line 4] V'CHULHU MISHTANEI- do all of the Mumim of Dokin of the eye change?

10)[line 7] SHEKAREI NINHU- they are false witnesses

11)[line 20] GEZEIRAS MEGADLEI BEHEMAH DAKAH NAG'U BAH- (a) they dealt with this case in this manner because of the difficulty involved with raising Behemah Dakah; the owner of the animal is recompensed with only a quarter of its value, because if the animal would still be alive, he would have a lot of bother and toil caring for the animal (RASHI, first (and preferred) explanation); (b) they dealt with this case in this manner because of the ban against raising Behemah Dakah in Eretz Yisrael; he is fined because he transgressed the decree of the Chachamim not to raise Behemah Dakah in Eretz Yisrael. The Chachamim decreed that it is prohibited to raise Behemah Dakah (small, domesticated farm animals such as sheep) in Eretz Yisrael because they enter people's fields and damage their property (RASHI, second explanation).

12)[line 25] DA'IN DINA D'GARMI

(a)Rebbi Meir holds a person liable for damaging another person or his possessions even in an indirect manner. For example, not rebuilding a fence that separates between the fields of two landowners may cause one person's vines to prohibit the grain of his neighbor as Kil'ayim (see Background to Yevamos 81:11). Rebbi Meir holds the person who did not rebuild his fence liable for causing the other field to become prohibited.

(b)There are two manners of causing indirect damage. The less direct manner is known as "Gerama," for which even Rebbi Meir does not hold a person liable. The more direct manner is known as "Garmi," for which Rebbi Meir holds a person liable. (The Rishonim argue as to the definition of "more direct.")

13)[line 33] HA'EM SHELAH- her womb

14)[line 37] B I'SHVIL SHE'LO TELED- so that it will not be able to give birth (in order that they would have a monopoly on all the cows and pigs)

15)[line 38] HALCHAH CHAMORCHA TARFON- "Tarfon, your donkey is now lost" (since you will have to sell it to pay the owner of the cow for the loss incurred by wrongly prohibiting his cow).


(a)The mistaken rulings of a judge fall into two categories (Sanhedrin 33a): First, "Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah" means that the judge forgot an explicit Halachah. In such a situation, the judge reverses his mistaken ruling and permits what he originally prohibited.

(b)The second type of mistake is termed a "Ta'us b'Shikul ha'Da'as." It involves a Halachah that is not explicit, but implicit. An example of this is when two Tana'im or Amora'im argue on a certain point, and the Gemara does not specify the Halachic ruling, but the Halachah can be inferred from a Sugya elsewhere (e.g. the Gemara elsewhere follows one of the two opinions without mentioning the other one). A judge who rules like the unmentioned opinion is termed a To'eh b'Shikul ha'Da'as. He does not reverse the mistaken ruling in such a case, since it does have some basis.