[26a - 37 lines; 26b - 49 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 26a DH b'Shnas ha'Yovel ד"ה בשנת היובל:

Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #12


1a)[line 1]קדשי בדק הביתKODSHEI BEDEK HA'BAYIS- objects dedicated to the property of the Mikdash (see Background to Me'ilah 12:8)

b)[line 2]מקדשי מזבחMI'KODSHEI MIZBE'ACH- from objects dedicated to be offered on the Mizbe'ach as sacrifices

2)[line 9]סכינא חריפא מפסקא קראיSAKINA CHARIFA MAFSEKA KERA'EI- a sharp knife splits the verses

3)[line 12]כשדה מקנהK'SEDEI MIKNAH- like a Sedeh Miknah, it will be in his hands only until Yovel

4)[line 31]ואיצטריך "לא יגאל"V'ITZTERICH "LO YIGA'EL"- The words "Lo Yiga'el" (Vayikra 27:20) are written with regard to one who is Makdish a Sedeh Achuzah, while the words "la'Asher Kanahu" (Vayikra 27:24) are written with regard to one who is Makdish a Sedeh Miknah. Both verses are discussing a normal field as well as a field that a Kohen received in Yovel (because it was not redeemed by its owner), which was then purchased by a buyer who was later Makdish it. The Gemara teaches that we learn two things from "Lo Yiga'el Od." First, if the Kohen was Makdish the field he received, the original owner may redeem it. This Derashah is mentioned earlier by a Beraisa. Second, if the owner does redeem it, the field remains in his hands only until Yovel, like any Sedeh Miknah. This is the Derashah the Gemara is discussing here.


5)[line 48]קנין פירות כקנין הגוףKINYAN PEIROS K'KINYAN HA'GUF

Tana'im (see Bava Basra 49b) and Amora'im (see Bava Basra 136a) argue as to whether buying fruits that will be produced (e.g. the fruits of a tree or the handiwork of a slave) gives the owner of the fruits a certain amount of Halachic ownership in the object (Guf) that bore the fruits.

The Gemara here suggests that Rebbi Meir maintains that Kinyan ha'Peiros is k'Kinyan ha'Guf. When a son buys a field from his father, he buys only the Peiros, and not the Guf, because the field (Guf) will return to the father at Yovel. However, since Kinyan ha'Peiros is k'Kinyan ha'Guf, it is considered as though the son bought the Guf as well. Consequently, we might have thought that when he is Makdish the field (after the death of his father), it is considered to be Hekdesh of a Sedeh Miknah, and not a Sedeh Achuzah. Therefore, the verse teaches that it nevertheless is considered a Sedeh Achuzah.

Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, however, maintain that Kinyan ha'Peiros is not k'Kinyan ha'Guf. When the father dies before the son is Makdish the field, the son inherits the Guf of the field, and the field clearly has the status of a Sedeh Achuzah. Therefore, the verse is not needed to teach us this, but rather it teaches that when the son is Makdish the field while the father is still alive, it is considered to be Hekdesh of a Sedeh Achuzah, and not a Sedeh Miknah.