[13a - 45 lines; 13b - 31 lines]
*********************GIRSA SECTION*********************
We recommend using the textual changes suggested by the Bach, the Tzon Kodashim, the Vilna Ga'on 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 13b DH Lishna Acharina ã"ä ìùðà àçøéðà:
The words "Nisparesh Temuras Shemo" ðúôøù úîåøú ùîå
should be "Lo Nisparesh Temuras Shemo" ìà ðúôøù úîåøú ùîå (MAR'EH KOHEN). (Of all of the suggested corrections of the Acharonim, this text appears to be the most preferable.)
[2] Hagahos Tzon Kodashim in the margin alongside Rashi ibid.:
The words "ki'She'ar Shelamim" ëùàø ùìîéí
should be "mi'She'ar Shelamim" îùàø ùìîéí
[3] Rashi ibid.:
"Igru'ei Migra" àéâøåòé îéâøò
This appears to be a new Dibur ha'Maschil
[4] Rashi DH u'Meshani Ein : ã"ä åîùðé àéï:
"Lidon b'Davar Chadash" ìéãåï áãáø çãù
This is a new Dibur ha'Maschil (Bach #5, Hagahos ha'Gra [at the end of the Maseches])
(The other emendations of the Bach (#4 and #5) are not clear)
[5] ibid.:
The words "del'Dainei b'Temuras Gufo" ãìãééðéä áúîåøú âåôå
should be "del'Dainei k'Temuras Gufo" ãìãééðéä ëúîåøú âåôå (DIVREI NECHEMYAH)
[6] Hagahos ha'Bach 13b #4, 5:
See above #4
*******************************************************
1)[line 1]îòðåúMA'ANOS- furrows of the plow
2)[line 8]àí úøí äøàùåï ëùéòåøIM TARAM HA'RISHON K'SHI'UR- if the first partner separated a proper amount of Terumah. One may separate as Terumah either 1/60th (Ayin Ra'ah), 1/50th (Beinonis), or 1/40th (Ayin Yafah) of his produce. If the first partner separated at least a Shi'ur Beinonis (1/50th), then the second partner's act of separating Terumah is ineffective.
3)[line 15]ìøáåú ùåââ ëîæéãL'RABOS SHOGEG K'MEZID- to teach that one who accidentally makes a Temurah is like one who intentionally makes a Temurah. Regarding in what way a Shogeg is like a Mezid, see Insights to Temurah 17a.
4)[line 25]úìîåã ìåîø "÷øáï"TALMUD LOMAR, "KORBAN"- the Torah teaches, "Korban." The verse introduces the prohibition of Temurah by saying, "v'Im Behemah Asher Yakrivu Mimenah Korban" - "If it is an animal that that can be offered as a Korban..." (Vayikra 27:9).
5)[line 29]"åð÷øá àú ÷øáï ä' [àéù àùø îöà ëìé æäá àöòãä åöîéã èáòú òâéì åëåîæ, ìëôø òì ðôùúéðå ìôðé ä']""VA'NAKREV ES KORBAN HASH-M [ISH ASHER MATZA CHLI ZAHAV ETZ'ADAH V'TZAMID TABA'AS AGIL V'CHUMAZ, L'CHAPER AL NAFSHOSEINU LIFNEI HASH-M]"- "We have brought an offering to HaSh-m, [every man who found any gold article [such as] an anklet, a bracelet, a ring, an earring, or a body ornament, [wishes to bring it] to atone for our souls before HaSh-m" (Bamidbar 31:50) - This statement was said after the war against Midyan by the captains and generals of the army. The soldiers realized that no one had fallen in battle, and as such were inspired to dedicate a thanksgiving gift to HaSh-m.
13b----------------------------------------13b
6a)[line 1]ìîä éöàúLAMA YATZAS - why was it singled out [from its category] (DAVAR SHEB'CHLAL V'YATZA LIDON B'DAVAR HE'CHADASH, EIN LECHA BO ELA CHIDUSHO BILVAD)
(a)In the Introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash to Vayikra), Rebbi Yishmael lists thirteen methods that Chazal use for extracting the Halachah from the verses of the Torah. One of them is "Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal v'Yatza Lidon b'Davar he'Chadash." This rule applies if an action or object was included in a general category of Halachah and was then singled out in a verse in order to tell us a new Halachah that applies to it that contradicts the general rule of the Klal. That Halachah only applies to the specific action or object and not to the general category, unless the verse specifically states otherwise. The Gemara here discusses the example of Ma'asar Behemah, which is singled out to teach that it takes effect even in error (see entry #6b below).
(b)This rule should not be confused with Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal v'Yatza Min ha'Klal l'Lamed (see Background to Bechoros 6:1), which refers to a case where the new law that is mentioned with regard to the object that was singled out does not contradict the general rule of the Klal. Rather, a Halachah is stated again about a specific member of the Klal.
b)[line 2]úîåøú ùîåTEMURAS SHEMO - an exchange of "its name" (MA'ASAR BEHEMAH: KARA LA'TESHI'I ASIRI)
(a)Every year, a person must collect all of the Kosher animals that were born during that year into a corral. As they leave the corral through a narrow opening, one by one, the owner counts them and marks every tenth one as Ma'asar Behemah. The Mitzvah of Ma'asar Behemah is stated in Vayikra (27:32), "v'Chol Ma'asar Bakar va'Tzon, Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet, ha'Asiri Yiheyeh Kodesh la'Sh-m" - "And all of the herds and flocks shall be tithed as they are counted under the rod, every tenth one being consecrated to HaSh-m."
(b)See more in Background to Temurah 8:2.
(c)Ma'asar Behemah has the feature that it takes effect even in error. If the tenth animal was not called "tenth" but the animal next to the tenth animal was called "tenth," then both it and the actual tenth become consecrated, according to all opinions (Mishnah Bechoros 60a). See Insights here.
7)[line 8]àîøé îùåí ãøáé øçîðà... àéâøåòé àéâøòAMREI MISHUM D'RABI RACHMANA... IGRU'EI MIGRA?- do we say that since the Torah adds the law of Temuras Shemo to Ma'asar Behemah, this should diminish it?!
(a) Rashi explains this question in two ways: (a) The Gemara is asking why, when one calls the eleventh animal the "tenth," Kedushah does not take effect on a Ba'al Mum (even though Ma'aser itself does place Kedushah on a Ba'al Mum). The Gemara concludes that the law of Temuras Shemo (calling the eleventh animal the "tenth") is novel and cannot be compared to the laws of Ma'aser. (b) The Gemara is asking why the Torah found it necessary to teach us that the normal laws of Temurah apply to Ma'aser just as they apply to other Korbanos. The Gemara answers that since Ma'aser is a novel law (because even a Ma'aser declared in error takes effect), we would not have compared it to other Korbanos with regard to Temurah, had the Torah not said so explicitly. Rashi prefers this explanation.
8)[line 12]ãáø äáà ìéãåï áãáø äçãùDAVAR HA'BA LIDON B'DAVAR HE'CHADASH
See above, entry #6a.
9)[line 25]îåúøåú ìðãáú éçéã àæìé ... îåúøåú ìðãáú öáåø àæìéMOSAROS L'NIDVAS YACHID AZLEI... MOSAROS L'NIDVAS TZIBUR AZLEI
(a)There is a Machlokes what to do with the money that was used to redeem Kodshim that were not fit to be offered, and with money that was set aside for buying Korbanos and not used.
(b)The Chachamim are of the opinion that the money is put into the Shofaros (donation boxes) that are kept in the Mikdash, and is used to buy Korbanos "Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach" (communal Olos) to be sacrificed when the Mizbe'ach is not otherwise in use (see Background to Menachos 90:13). (Rashi to Sukah 56a DH Kayitz explains that these offerings were called "Kayitz," because they were like a "dessert" ("Kayitz" refers to cut figs, a common dessert food) to the Mizbe'ach.) These Korbanos were Korbenos Tzibur (offerings brought by the entire people) and not Korbenos Yachid (personal Korbanos).
(c)Rebbi Elazar is of the opinion that the owner of the money himself uses the money to purchase an Olas Nedavah (a private Korban).
10)[line 29]åàí úîöé ìåîøV'IM TIMTZI LOMAR- and if you were to say.... The Gemara here is following the approach of the Lishna Acharina earlier, on Daf 9b.