[12a - 41 lines; 12b - 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] Rashi 12a DH l'Tum'ah ã"ä ìèåîàä:
The Dibur ha'Maschil should be "Lo Shena Tum'ah Chadashah" ìà ùðà èåîàä çãùä
[2] Rashi DH Tum'ah Chadashah èåîàä çãùä
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #23
[3] Rashi DH Amar Ravina ã"ä àîø øáéðà:
The words "d'Hainu Tum'as ha'Guf" ãäééðå èåîàú äâåó
should be "d'Hainu b'Tum'as ha'Guf" ãäééðå áèåîàú äâåó
[4] Gemara 12b [line 25]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #5 (this is also the Girsa of Rashi)
[5] Gemara [line 28]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #6 (this is also the Girsa of Rashi)
[6] Gemara [line 31]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #7 (this is also the Girsa of Rashi)
[7] Gemara [line 36]:
"mi'Min Echad Hu va'Amai Kari Lei Shnei Minim" îîéï àçã äåà åàîàé ÷øé ìéä ùðé îéðéí
The word "Hu" is unnecessary
[8] Gemara [line 50]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #16
[9] Rashi 12b [at the beginning of the page]:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #20
[10] Rashi DH Yode'a Atah b'Edus : ã"ä éåãò àúä áòãåú
The word "Migo" is the beginning of a new Dibur ha'Maschil
[11] Rashi DH Mahu d'Seima : ã"ä îäå ãúéîà
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #27
[12] Rashi DH l'Chumra : ã"ä ìçåîøà
The words "Yoser mi'Chdei Achilas Pras b'Samuch" éåúø îëãé àëéìú ôøñ áñîåê
should be "Yoser mi'Chdei Achilas Pras, Kedei Achilas Kelayos b'Samuch" éåúø îëãé àëéìú ôøñ ëãé àëéìú ÷ìéåú áñîåê (Rashash)
*******************************************************
1a)[line 9]èåîàä çãùäTUM'AH CHADASHAH- a "new," recent Tum'ah from which it is impossible that he already became Tahor
b)[line 10]èåîàä éùðäTUM'AH YESHANAH- an "old" Tum'ah from which he may have already become Tahor
2)[line 28]àé äëé äééðå çìá!IY HACHI, HAINU CHELEV!- If he is trusted in the Beraisa because he has a Migo, then the Beraisa is just repeating the Din which is stated in our Mishnah with regard to Chelev!
3)[line 32]÷îúøéõ ãáåøéäKA'METARETZ DIBUREI- he can redefine his words to mean the opposite of what we first thought they meant
4)[last line]áîàé òñ÷éðï?B'MAI ASKINAN?- with what are we dealing? Rashi suggests two ways of reading this Gemara:
(a) Since the Chachamim do not trust a person to say that he is Tahor when he contradicts witnesses, it is clear that they believe him only because of a Migo (and not because of "Adam Ne'eman..."), and, apparently, the person has no Migo to say that he is Tahor. The Gemara now proceeds to discuss whether the case in which there is no Migo is where the question regards a new Tum'ah, or even where the question regards a Tum'ah Yeshanah (day-old Tum'ah). The Gemara concludes that when the point in question is whether the person ate Kodshim when he was Tamei (as opposed to whether he entered the Mikdash while he was Tamei), there is indeed no Migo (the logic is that since the Migo does not apply to the object that the person touched, it will not apply to the person either).
(b) The Gemara is still in the process of proving whether a person is believed to exempt himself from a Korban because of a Migo, or whether he is believed even when there is no Migo. The Gemara understands that when the Chachamim of the Beraisa say that they do not trust a person to say that he is Tahor when he contradicts witnesses, they are not discussing a person who ate Kodshim or entered the Mikdash, but simply whether the person is Tamei or Tahor — no matter whether the question regards Tum'ah that is a day old or new Tum'ah. The Gemara is now pointing out that even though the Migo should have applied in this case, the person is not believed. We are therefore forced to conclude that the Chachamim believe a person regarding whether he is Chayav a Korban because of his Tum'ah (i.e., if he ate Kodshim or entered the Mikdash) only because a person is given credibility with regard to Korbanos ("Adam Ne'eman..."), and not because of the Migo. The Gemara rejects this and concludes that the Chachamim did not trust the person even in a case of a day-old Tum'ah, because the Migo did not apply in the particular case they were discussing, even though the Tum'ah was already a day old.
12b----------------------------------------12b
5)[line 5]åëâåï ãàîøé ìéä òãéí "àëìú ÷ãùéí áèåîàú äâåó"U'CHEGON D'AMAR LEI EDIM, "ACHALTA KODSHIM B'TUMAS HA'GUF"- and the case is where witnesses said to him, "You ate Kodshim when you were Tamei" (see Insights)
6)[line 19]ðùàìúé òì ðæéøéNISH'ALTI AL NEZIRI (SHE'ELAH BI'NEDARIM U'NEZIRUS)
(a)When an adult makes a Neder (or designates Chalah, Terumah or Hekdesh) or a Shevu'ah or declares Nezirus, and he regrets having made the Neder or Shevu'ah, he may have it revoked by a Beis Din of three (if they are not outstanding authorities) or a Yachid Mumcheh (an outstanding authority). The general method used is that Beis Din investigates whether the person would not have made the Neder or Shevu'ah in the first place had he been aware of a particular fact. This investigation provides the person with a "Pesach" ("opening") with which the Beis Din can revoke the Neder or Shevu'ah.
(b)There is a Machlokes Rishonim as to the status of a Yachid Mumcheh. The RAN rules that he must be an outstanding Torah authority well versed in the laws of Nedarim. Others rule that in addition to the previous, the scholar must also have Semichah (RAMBAN, cited by the RAN in Nedarim 23a).
7)[line 20]éåãò àúä áòãåú ôìåðéYODE'A ATAH B'EDUS PELONI (SHEVU'AS HA'EDUS)
(a)One of the litigants in a court case has the right to force a person to take an oath when he feels that the person is concealing testimony about the case. The oath that the alleged witness takes to claim that he is not harboring any testimony is called a Shevu'as ha'Edus (Vayikra 5:1).
(b)For example, a person asks two witnesses to testify on his behalf, in order to oblige the opposing litigant to pay him. The witnesses deny all knowledge of the case and even swear in court to that effect. If they admit afterwards that they did know testimony, they must bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored. If they are wealthy they each bring a female sheep or female goat as a Korban Chatas. If they cannot afford the animal, they each bring two turtledoves or two common doves, one as a Chatas and one as an Olah. If they cannot even afford birds, they each bring an offering of 1/10 of an Eifah of flour as a Minchas Chatas (ibid. 5:5-13).
(c)Shevu'as ha'Edus applies only if they denied in court the fact that they know testimony. The witnesses are obligated to bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored even if they intentionally make a false Shevu'ah. They are also obligated if they are Shogeg with regard to the Shevu'ah (that is, they do not know that this Shevu'ah will obligate them to bring a Korban — see Shevuos 31b), if they intentionally make a false Shevu'ah while they actually know testimony. However, they are not obligated to bring a Korban if they are Shogeg with regard to the testimony (that is, they forgot at the time of the Shevu'ah that they know testimony — Shevuos 30a).
8)[line 25]äòìîåú îçì÷éíHA'ALAMOS MECHALKIN (HE'ELEM)
(a)A He'elem is a period of forgetfulness. If a person sins repeatedly (for example, if he ate two or more k'Zeisim of Chelev) in one He'elem, and later finds out that he has sinned, he only has to bring one Korban Chatas to atone for his sins. However, if a person sins two different types of sins in one He'elem, he has to bring a separate Korban Chatas for each sin.
(b)The Torah states (Vayikra 20:17) that having relations with one's sister is punishable with Kares, a fact that is already known from the general Chiyuv Kares for all of the Arayos in Acharei Mos (Vayikra 18:29). As such, the Kares of Achoso is a "Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal v'Yatza Min ha'Chelal l'Lamed" (see Background to Bechoros 6:1), one of the thirteen methods that Chazal use for extracting Halachos from the verses of the Torah. The verse teaches that if a person transgresses, b'Shogeg, more than one type of Giluy Arayos in one He'elem (for example, if he lives with his sister and his father's sister), he is Chayav for each of the Arayos a separate Korban Chatas. Two Arayos are considered different types of sins, and not repetitions of the same sin.
9)[line 30]úîçåééï (îçåì÷éï) [îçì÷éï]TAMCHUYIN (MECHULAKIN) [MECHALKIN]
If the same form of forbidden food was prepared in different dishes or forms, and one person eats a k'Zayis from each of several of the dishes, Rebbi Yehoshua does not view his eating as one continuous sin, for which one Korban will suffice. Rather, for each dish he has to bring a separate Korban.
10)[line 41]àéï éãéòä ìçöé ùéòåøEIN YEDI'AH L'CHATZI SHIUR
(a)If a person does a Melachah of Shabbos b'Shogeg (thinking that it is permissible) and afterwards learns of his sin, but then forgets that this same Melachah is prohibited and does it again, he has to bring two Korbanos (since there were two He'elemos, i.e. periods of forgetfulness). Similarly, if a person ate a k'Zayis of Isur b'Shogeg (thinking it was permissible food) and afterwards learned of his sin, but then forgot that this same food was prohibited and ate another k'Zayis, he also has to bring two Korbanos for the two He'elemos.
(b)Raban Gamliel rules that if the same sequence of events occurred but the person did less than the amount required to be Chayav each time (e.g. writing less than two letters or eating less than a k'Zayis each time), the actions are not split up by the knowledge of the sin. He must bring a Korban Chatas if the total was more than the required amount (or more than a k'Zayis. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shegagos 6:1) stipulates that in order for the amounts of less than a k'Zayis to be counted together, they must be eaten in less than the amount of time that it takes to eat three k'Beitzim, between three and nine minutes, according to the differing opinions.)
11)[line 42]÷ìéåúKELAYOS- roasted grain (i.e. as if the food was broken up into very small pieces and the person eats them one at a time)
12)[line 43]ëãé àëéìú ôøñKEDEI ACHILAS PRAS
(a)The Torah specifies that a k'Zayis is the amount of food that constitutes a "Ma'aseh Achilah," the minimum Halachically-binding act of eating and digesting. A person who eats a k'Zayis of a food in order to fulfill a Mitzvah (such as Matzah) has fulfilled his requirement. Similarly, someone who eats a k'Zayis of a prohibited food (such as blood or Chelev), is punished for his action.
(b)The Torah also specifies (as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai) the amount of time in which a k'Zayis must be eaten in order for the act to be considered a Ma'aseh Achilah. This amount of time, called a "Kedei Achilas Peras," is defined as the amount of time that it takes to eat three (according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah) or four (according to Rebbi Shimon — Eruvin 82b) Beitzim of bread with relish, while reclining. A person who eats a k'Zayis of Matzah in more than this amount of time has not fulfilled the Mitzvah, and a person who eats a k'Zayis of Isur in more than this amount of time is exempt from punishment.
(c)Our Mishnah quotes the opinion of the Chachamim who rule that in order for the two half-Zeisim to be combined, they must be eaten without a break of Kedei Achilas Peras.
13)[line 44]ùúä øáéòéú ééï åðëðñ ìî÷ãùSHASAH REVI'IS YAYIN V'NICHNAS L'MIKDASH (AVODAS BEIS HA'MIKDASH: SHESUYEI YAYIN)
(a)It is forbidden to enter the Beis ha'Mikdash while one is under the influence of wine or anything intoxicating. The verse states, "Yayin v'Shechar Al Tesht Atah u'Vanecha Itach b'Vo'achem El Ohel Mo'ed v'Lo Samusu..." - "Do not drink wine or any other intoxicant, you (Aharon) and your descendants, when you come to the Ohel Mo'ed, and do not die [on account of it]..." (Vayikra 10:9). This applies if one drank a Revi'is of undiluted wine or more than a Revi'is of diluted wine.
(b)If a Kohen entered the Beis ha'Mikdash beyond the point where the Mizbe'ach begins during the time of the Avodah and performs Avodah while under the influence of wine, he is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim. The Avodah that he performs is Pasul (disqualified). If he was under the influence of other intoxicants he has transgressed a Lav and receives Malkus. The Avodah that he does is Kosher. If he enters but does not perform any Avodah, whether under the influence of wine or other intoxicants, according to the RAMBAM (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 1:15) he receives Malkus, while according to the RAMBAN (Sefer ha'Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh 73) and other Rishonim, he is only prohibited to do so mid'Rabanan.
(c)It is forbidden for anyone (even a non-Kohen) to enter the Ezras Yisrael or beyond while intoxicated, even though one does not transgress a Lav for doing so (SEFER HA'CHINUCH #152).
14)[line 45]ôñ÷ áäPASAK BAH- if he paused in the middle of drinking the wine; i.e. he did not drink an entire Revi'is uninterruptedly