[97a - 48 lines; 97b - 48 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 97a [at the bottom of the page]:

"Amar Rav Chana Amar Rav Yehudah ... Yasiv Rav Chana v'Ka Kashya Lei ... Amar Lei Rav Yosef" אמר רב חנא אמר רב יהודה ... יתיב רב חנא וקא קשיא ליה ... אמר ליה רב יוסף

(a) The Girsa of our Gemara is Rashi's Girsa, as is apparent from Rashi DH v'Ka Kashya Lei and DH Amar Lei Rav Yosef (97b).

(b) Tosfos 4b DH Zarak, however, is Gores Rav Chisda as the first two names, and consequently the Maharshal emended the Girsa in our Sugya to comply with Tosfos. (This is also the Girsa of Dikdukei Sofrim #10.)

(c) Tosfos ibid. cites the opinion of Rabeinu Tam, who is Gores Rav Yosef as the first two names and Rav Chisda as the third (the exact opposite of the Girsa of Tosfos — see there).

[2] Gemara 97b [line 44]:

"ud'Ka'amrat Harei Kasav Shem mi'Shimon" ודקאמרת הרי כתב שם משמעון

(a) This is the Girsa in our Gemara and it is also the Girsa of Rashi. Accordingly, the Gemara is challenging the earlier Gemara which stated that it is "obvious" ("Peshita") that one who intended to throw an object eight Amos and only threw four Amos is Chayav. The Gemara now questions that, and indeed concludes that one is Patur for such an action.

(b) Some texts have the Girsa, "v'Amai Harei Kasav ... " ואמאי הרי כתב, the meaning of which is the same as the Girsa that we have (see (a), and Tosfos DH Hachi Garsinan).

(c) The Rishonim record another Girsa which reads, "Amar Mar Harei Kasav ..." אמר מר הרי כתב. Rashi cites this Girsa and says that it is the same as the Girsa that we have. However, Tosfos, and the Rashba in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on, explain that according to this Girsa the Gemara is not retracting its initial ruling, that one who intended to throw eight Amos and threw only four Amos is certainly Chayav, and this ruling stands according to the conclusion of the Gemara.

[3] Rashi 97b DH v'Iy l'Hacha ד"ה ואי להכא:

"d'Ba'inan Akirah ... v'Hacha Im Yetzi'as ha'Pesach Ha Lo Nach ... u'Mihu a'Hotza'ah Hu d'Mischayev ... d'Ha Nach b'Reshus ha'Rabim" דבעינן עקירה ... דהא נח ברשות הרבים

(a) The words of Rashi are very difficult to understand, because he should have written "d'Nach" דנח ("it rested") and not "Lo Nach" לא נח ("it did not rest"), because at this point it is assumed that the thrower intended for it to land immediately upon exiting Reshus ha'Yachid, as Rashi writes at the beginning of his comments here. If so, the object indeed rested when it exited Reshus ha'Yachid through the mechanism of "Kelutah" as our Sugya describes. How, then, could Rashi write that the object did not come to rest? (See the Maharsha, who was also bothered by this problem.)

(b) For this reason the Maharam deletes the text of Rashi from the word "v'Hacha" והכא until "u'Mihu" ומיהו. However, the words of Rashi, "u'Mihu... " ומיהו , at the end of Rashi's comments, do not fit well with the emendation suggested by the Maharam. It appears more likely that the words from "d'Ba'inan" דבעינן until the end of Rashi's comment belong earlier, in the end of DH ule'Mai. (A similar approach is suggested in Hagahos Rav Elazar Moshe Horowitz.)


1)[line 2]מויעפילו הוהMI'VA'YA'APILU HAVAH

According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, Tzelofchad was among the people of Bnei Yisrael who resolved to wage the war of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael on their own, after Moshe informed them that they were destined to wander in the desert for forty years and die there due to the sin of the spies. They were told that HaSh-m would not be with them in their military attempt, and as a result they were massacred by the Amalekim and the Kena'anim. (Bamidbar 14:40-45)

2)[line 3]"ויחר ...""VA'YICHAR ..."- "HaSh-m displayed anger against them (Miriam and Aharon, for speaking about Moshe) and departed." (Bamidbar 12:9) - The following verse states explicitly that Miriam became afflicted with Tzara'as. Rebbi Akiva learns that the anger of HaSh-m also caused Aharon to be afflicted with Tzara'as, although there are only hints to this effect.

3)[line 8]נזיפה בעלמאNEZIFAH B'ALMA- mere rebuke

4)[line 10]מהימני ישראלMEHEMNEI YISRAEL- Bnei Yisrael would believe him

5)[line 17]ויבלע מטה אהרןVA'YIVLA MATEH AHARON- This is apparently brought into the Gemara's discussion simply because it has to do with the signs that HaSh-m showed Moshe and that Moshe showed Pharaoh. (CHASAM SOFER suggests a more decisive connection between the Sugyos.)

6)[line 18]קלוטה כמה שהונחהKELUTAH K'MAH SHE'HUNCHAH

A person who throws an object from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid through an intervening Reshus ha'Rabim is guilty of violating Shabbos mid'Oraisa, according to Rebbi Akiva. One explanation of his opinion is that the object is "caught" by the air of Reshus ha'Rabim below ten Tefachim and is considered Halachically at rest on the ground. The person has done an Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid and a Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim, and is guilty of Hotza'ah.

7)[line 37]מידלי חד ומתתי חדMIDLI CHAD, U'METASEI CHAD- one house is higher than the other

8)[line 39]כלבוד דמיK'LEVUD DAMI (LAVUD)

(a)The Torah requires Mechitzos (partitions) for various Halachos (e.g. for Reshus ha'Yachid of Shabbos and Sukah). A Mechitzah must be ten Tefachim high and enclose an area of four by four Tefachim.

(b)A Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai states that even though the Mechitzah is not complete, there are times when we may consider it complete for Halachic purposes (Sukah 5b).

(c)One of these cases is Lavud (lit. a branch or connection). This Halachah states that objects that are within three Tefachim of the ground are considered to be lying on the ground. When there are not three full Tefachim between the Mechitzah and the surface (or object) next to, above, or below it, we consider it to be a complete Mechitzah in which the surfaces or objects are connected without any gaps. (The space that is provided by the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of Lavud is measured along with and as a part of the existing segment of the partition.)

9)[line 40]תילקטTILAKET- to be picked clean and smoothed

10)[line 40]מלקטMELAKET- a plane or file used for metal surfaces (RASHI Kidushin 35b)

11)[line 40]רהיטניREHITNI- a plane used for wooden surfaces

12)[line 41]המשלשל דפנות מלמעלה למטהHA'MESHALSHEL DEFANOS MI'LEMAILAH LEMATAH- one who weaves curtains as the walls of a Sukah, from the top downward

13)[line 43]שהגדיים בוקעין בהSHEHA'GEDIYIM BOK'IN BO- [a partition] through which kid-goats can get through easily

14)[line 44]הלכתא גמירי להHILCHESA GEMIRI LAH- [that all cases where a space smaller than three Tefachim is considered Lavud] is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai

15)[line 46]מקורהMEKORAH- covered

16)[line 46]כמאן דמליא דמיK'MAN D'MALYA DAMI- as if it is filled up with material (so that whatever is thrown inside is considered as if it has landed even though it is in midair)


17)[line 15]עד דנפקא ליה לרשות הרבים תנוחAD D'NAFKA LEI LI'RESHUS HA'RABIM, TANU'ACH- that is, he intended to throw it such that Halachically it should be considered to have "come to rest" as soon as it reaches Reshus ha'Rabim. He did not intend for it to fall to the ground, however, until it reached four Amos into Reshus ha'Rabim. (Had he intended for it to fall to the ground as soon as it entered Reshus ha'Rabim, even Rebbi Yehudah would exempt him from a Korban since his intentions were not fulfilled.) (RAMBAN, RITVA)

18)[line 21]השובטHA'SHOVET- separating the warp (longitudinal) threads with a Kirkar (O.F. raiol), a pointed wooden tool

19)[line 21]המדקדקHA'MEDAKDEK- to even the woof thread by hitting it with the Kirkar so that it should not be too taut

20)[line 22]מיסךMEISACH- threading a loom; tying the thread from the front to the back roller

21)[line 36]קבעי להKA'BA'I LAH- he wants it [to land]

22)[line 39]כתב שם משמעוןKASAV SHEM MI'SHIMON

(a)A person must bring a Korban Chatas for desecrating Shabbos only when he does a Melachah b'Shogeg, that is, he does a Melachah mistakenly not knowing that the day is Shabbos or not knowing that the action that he did is a Melachah that is prohibited on Shabbos. However, a person who is Mis'asek, i.e. who does a completely different action from that which he intended to do, incurs no punishment whatsoever. (See Shabbos Chart #14, where the differences between Shogeg and Mis'asek are explained.)

(b)When a person intends to do a larger action that will desecrate Shabbos but only does a part of that action, the Torah informs us that he is Chayav a Korban Chatas, since it is considered Shogeg and not Mis'asek. (See Shabbos Chart #16 where the different opinions of the Tana'im with regard to this Halachah are explained.)

(c)EXAMPLES: A person who intends to write the name "Shimon" and stops after writing "Shem" (the first two letters) is Chayav. Similarly, a person who intends to weave a large garment and stops in the middle is Chayav.