[29a - 43 lines; 29b - 44 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 29a [line 12]:

"d'Afilu b'Soch Zemano Mutar b'Hana'ah" דאפילו בתוך זמנו מותר בהנאה

The word "b'Hana'ah" בהנאה is unnecessary as is evident from Tosfos (Rashash; this is also the Girsa in the manuscripts brought by the notes to Dikdukei Sofrim #4.)

[2] Tosfos 29a DH b'Din ד"ה בדין:

The words "d'Iy Efshar *Im Lo* Yehei Shelo" דאי אפשר אם לא יהא שלו

should be "d'Iy Efshar she'Lo Yehei Shelo" דאי אפשר שלו יהא שלו (Bechor Shor)


1)[line 8]אבל אתה רואה של אחריםAVAL ATAH OCHEL SHEL ACHERIM- (a) but one may eat Chametz of a Nochri [even on* Pesach mid'Oraisa] (RASHI); (b) but one may eat Chametz of a Nochri [*after* Pesach, and derive benefit from it on Pesach] (TOSFOS)

2)[line 33]מעלMA'AL- transgressed the prohibition against deriving benefit from Hekdesh. Since the word "Lecha" excludes Hekdesh from the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, the Chametz of Hekdesh has value as it can be sold to a Jew after Pesach.

3)[line 35]היה עושה את יום הכפורים כשבתHAYAH OSEH ES YOM HA'KIPURIM K'SHABBOS (KAM LEI BID'RABAH MINEI)

(a)When a single action causes one to incur two punishments, or a punishment plus a monetary liability, then the sinner receives only the more severe punishment and is exempted from the less severe one. This is known as Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei; literally, "he remains with the greater of them." For example, one who stabs another to death is liable to receive the death penalty, but will not have to pay for the shirt ruined by the stabbing.

(b)This rule applies only when the two punishments, or the punishment and the monetary liability, are incurred through a single action. If one action follows the other -- even by a split second -- then the sinner receives both punishments. The Gemara (Kesuvos 31a) discusses what defines a single action for the purposes of Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei. According to one opinion, an entire series of actions which together define a sin are considered a single action with regard to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei.

(c)Although Beis Din does not require one to pay for damages, etc. when he receives a more severe punishment, he will be held responsible for not doing so by the Heavenly court.

(d)There are a number of situations in which this rule may not apply:

1.Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that only a death penalty will absolve he who is liable from other punishments. One who is liable to receive Malkus must pay in addition to receiving Malkus. (Kesuvos 33b)

2.If one sins unintentionally, whether or not Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei applies is the subject of a Machlokes. If the sin is one which warrants Malkus, Rebbi Yochanan is of the opinion that since no actual punishment is executed, that which this sin could potentially have resulted in Malkus is not enough to exempt the sinner from monetary liability. Reish Lakish disagrees and says that a potential punishment holds the same exempting powers of an actual punishment. Rav Dimi understands that a sin which warrants the death penalty is subject to the same disagreement between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, while Ravin maintains that in this case both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei is applicable. (Kesuvos 34b-35a)

3.In certain cases in which the payment is to be made to someone other than the victim, the sinner may be liable to pay even when his action is also punishable with the death penalty or Malkus.

(e)Rebbi Nechunya ben ha'Kanah says that a more severe punishment will absolve the sinner from receiving a lesser punishment even when the former is to be meted out from Above, while the second from an earthly court. According to this opinion, an action which causes the perpetrator to be liable to Kares (such as performing Avodah on Yom Kippur) or Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (see Background to 32:16) will absolve him from a monetary payment incurred by the same action. Therefore, one who eats Terumah b'Mezid need not pay for it since by doing so he is liable to Misah b'Yedei Shamayim.

4)[line 39]בפודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלביםPODIN ES HA'KODSHIM L'HA'ACHILAN L'KELAVIM

(a)If an animal that is Kodesh develops a Mum (blemish) and is therefore no longer fit to be offered as a Korban, it may be redeemed. Money equal to the value of the animal is given to Hekdesh, after which point the Kedushah which previously rested upon the animal is transferred to the money. Even after being redeemed, however, animals which were once Kodesh do not lose all of their sanctity. Although one may redeem animals of Kodesh with a Mum in order to slaughter them and eat them as Chulin, it is prohibited to shear sheep, work with beasts of burden, or milk animals that were once Kodshim.

(b)The Tana'im disagree as to whether or not one may redeem Kodshim which are forbidden for Jews to eat in order to use their meat as dog food. While one opinion is that it makes no difference for what purpose one wishes to redeem the animal, another view derives from a verse that it is prohibited to redeem animals of Kodshim if they may be eaten only by Nochrim or dogs. According to this ruling, their redemption is permitted only if a Jew may either or derive some other type of benefit from them. (Pesachim 29b, and TOSFOS DH Rav Ashi)

(c)Rav Yosef says that even though Chametz belonging to Hekdesh may be sold to Jews after Pesach, since it is worthless on Pesach no one would say that he who derives benefit from it then is Mo'el. Rather, those who disagree in this Beraisa must agree with Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili who maintains that it is permitted to derive benefit from Chametz on Pesach. The subject of their Machlokes is whether or not it is permissible to redeem this Chametz on Pesach, when it is only fit to be fed to animals.


5)[line 3]בדבר הגורם לממון כממון דמיDAVAR HA'GOREM L'MAMON, K'MAMON DAMI

(a)Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon refers to an object which is forbidden to eat, use, or derive benefit from in any way; and yet, when this object is destroyed, it causes a financial loss. Examples of such objects are: (1) an object from which it is forbidden to derive benefit from at present but will be Mutar b'Hana'ah in the future, such as Chametz on Pesach according to the view of Rebbi Shimon who permits its use after Pesach; (2) an item which became Asur b'Hana'ah or invalidated (such as an animal upon which Beis Din decreed the death penalty) while in the domain of someone other than the owner who had agreed to guard the item. Under certain circumstances, the Shomer may return such an item "as is" (though it is now worthless) to the owner, and he need not replace it with a different object of similar value; (3) a Korban which, if lost, must be replaced by he who designated it as such.

(b)The Tana'im disagree as to whether a person who steals or damages such an item is liable to pay for the damage (seeing as he caused the owner/Shomer a financial loss) or not (since it is worthless at present).

6)[line 21]בנותן טעםB'NOSEN TA'AM- when it gives taste [to the mixture which it is a part of]

7)[line 25]במינו במשהוB'MINO B'MASHEHU- in [a mixture of] like substances, [the forbidden substance will forbid the entire mixture] when [even] a minute amount [is present]

8)[line 25]במינו במשהוB'MINO B'MASHEHU (MIN B'MINO EINO BATEL)

(a)The status of a mixture containing that which may not be eaten and that which may depends on the ratio of the two elements. (1) If most of the mixture is Isur, the entire mixture is prohibited mid'Oraisa. (2) If most of the mixture is Heter, but the Isur constitutes more than one sixtieth of the mixture, then the Isur has the status of a "Nosen Ta'am" (giving taste) to the Heter, and it is prohibited mid'Rabanan. This follows the understanding of those who maintain that "Ta'am k'Ikar" (the taste of a food item must Halachically be dealt with as its essence) is a Rabbinic law. There are those, however, who are of the opinion that "Ta'am k'Ikar" is mid'Oraisa. According to this view if the two elements of the mixture do not have the same taste then the entire mixture would be prohibited mid'Oraisa. (3) If the amount of Isur is less than one sixtieth of the Heter, then it is not Nosen Ta'am to the Heter and the mixture is permitted.

(b)The above guidelines apply to cases in which the two substances are of different tastes, and it is therefore possible to discuss one changing the taste of the other. When a liquid of Isur is mixed with an identical liquid of Heter, the Tana'im disagree as to the status of the mixture. According to the Rabanan, since identical elements are not Nosen Ta'am to each other whatsoever, the Isur is nullified by a simple majority of Heter; a ratio of sixty parts of Heter to one of Isur is not required. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the opposite is true. Even a miniscule amount of Isur prohibits the entire mixture, since mid'Oraisa Isur cannot be nullified by Heter with the identical taste as the Isur. (When the two substances mixed together are dry*, all opinions agree that the simple majority of the mixture determines the mixture's Halachic status).

(c)These rules apply to normal Isurim. There are, however, Isurim for which the guidelines are more stringent. Some of these exceptions are nullified by a ratio of one hundred parts of Heter to one part of Isur (Terumah), and others by two hundred parts of Heter (Orlah and Kil'ayim). Yet others may never nullified; some due to their stringency (Avodah Zarah, Chametz according to Rav in Pesachim 30b, and Davar she'Yesh Bo Matirin), and others due to the importance of the Isur (e.g. a Biryah, Chatichah ha'Re'uyah l'Hiskabed, etc).