[101a - 31 lines; 101b - 33 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] Tosfos 101a DH Aval ד"ה אבל:

"u'Mihu Shnei Mekomos b'Chad Bayis" ומיהו שני מקומות בחד בית

The word "u'Mihu" ומיהו is not found in the manuscripts and should be removed. (DIKDUKEI SOFRIM #200)


1)[line 5]גנוGANU- sleep

2)[line 9]זימנין סגיאיןZIMNIN SAGI'IN- many times

3)[line 10]נחית מאיגרא לארעאNACHIS ME'IGRA L'AR'A- he would go down from the roof to the ground; alternatively, from the attic to the ground floor

4)[line 13]איתעקרא ליה שרגאIS'AKRA LEI SHERAGA- a candle fell [and went out before he began his meal]

5)[line 13]ועיילי ליה למניה לבי גנניה דרבה בריהV'AILEI LEI L'MANEI L'VEI GENANEI D'RABAH BREI- and they brought his utensils up to the house where there was a wedding feast for his son, Rabah

6)[line 18]בי מרBEI MAR- the house of Rabah

7)[line 19]אדאזליתו לאושפיזאAD'AZLISU L'USHPIZA- by the time you arrive at your place of lodging

8)[line 24]מתירין מבגד לבגדMATIRIN MI'BEGED L'BEGED- one may remove Tzitzis threads from one garment and tie them onto a different garment (this is usually done in order to transfer them from an old Talis to a new one; Rashi Shabbos 22a)

9)[line 25]מדליקין מנר לנרMADLIKIN MI'NER L'NER

(a)Whether one may light subsequent Chanukah lights from a previously lit Ner is the subject of a Machlokes Amora'im. Shmuel is of the opinion that one may do so. Rav, however, requires that one maintain a separate light which does not have the Kedushah of a Chanukah light — known as a Shamash — from which to ignite subsequent Chanukah candles.

(b)Two possible reasons are offered to explain the opinion of Rav. One is due to Bizuy Mitzvah — lack of respect for the Mitzvah. Lighting one Chanukah light from another would require transferring the flame from the Ner Mitzvah with a splinter of wood or similar object. Since this object is not part of the Mitzvah, using it to take the flame demonstrates lack of respect for the Mitzvah. The second explanation proposed is that of Akchushei Mitzvah — diminishing of the Mitzvah. Through the process of transferring the flame, some of the oil of the first light is lost. Moreover, it appears as if some of the light of the Ner Mitzvah is being removed (Gemara/Rashi Shabbos 22a).


(a)A Davar she'Eino Miskavein is an act which is done for a certain purpose (which will be accomplished without transgressing a Melachah), but which may result in a Melachah being inadvertently performed. Rebbi Yehudah prohibits performing such an action mid'Rabanan, since it may result in a Melachah. Rebbi Shimon disagrees, claiming that even though a Melachah may result from this action, since the Melachah will come about without intent, the action is permitted.

(b)The action mentioned in our Gemara is that of dragging a bench or chair over soft ground. The possibility exists that one may inadvertently dig a furrow while doing so, which is prohibited as part of the Melachah of Choresh (plowing). Rebbi Shimon permits one to drag a bench across a dirt floor as long as he has no intention of digging a furrow. Rebbi Yehudah does not allow one to drag the bench to begin, for fear that he may dig a furrow.

(c)A person must have specific intent to do a Melachah on Shabbos in order to be liable for punishment or to be required to bring a Korban. Therefore, if a person does an action that does result in a Melachah being performed inadvertently, even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that the person is not obligated to bring a Korban, since the Melachah was done accidentally. Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue only as to whether it is permitted in the first place to perform an action that may result in a Melachah. (See Insights to Shabbos 41:2.)

11)[last line]שינוי ייןSHINUY YAYIN- [one who receives] a different wine (i.e., wine from a barrel other than the one from which the wine he made a blessing on came)


12)[line 1]אינו צריך לברךEINO TZARICH L'VARECH- he need not recite a Berachah [of "Borei Pri ha'Gafen" again]. This is assuming that he has had in mind to continue drinking the entire time; that is, he had no Hesech ha'Da'as. It is important to note that although one need not make a second Berachah Rishonah on a new wine brought before him in the middle of a meal, if it is of higher quality then the Berachah of "ha'Tov veha'Metiv" must be recited (Berachos 59b).

13)[line 9]ברכה לאחריהןBERACHAH L'ACHAREIHEN- a [significant] after-Berachah [such as Birkas ha'Mazon or a Berachah me'Ein Shalosh on the Shiv'as ha'Minim]

14)[line 16]לקיבעא קמא הדרL'KIV'A KAMA HADAR- he is continuing (lit. he is returning to) his original meal. (a) The RASHBAM (DH b'Devarim and DH Aval) explains this statement of Rav Chisda to mean that since a significant Berachah Acharonah must be recited, one who moves to a different location clearly plans on continuing his meal and reciting that Berachah Acharonah following all that he ate in both locations. Therefore, it is considered one long meal and no Berachah Rishonah is required in the new location. (b) The ROSH (10:6) understands the logic of Rav Chisda as follows: Had one not eaten anything in the second location, he would have been required to return to his original location in order to recite the Birkas ha'Mazon or a Berachah Acharonah (see Berachos Daf 51a). Therefore, he has not been Mesi'ach Da'as from his meal, and it is considered as if he is still in his original location, finishing his meal.

15)[line 20]אין טעונין ברכה למפרעEIN TE'UNIN BERACHAH L'MAFRE'A- they need not make an after-Berachah before they leave

16)[line 25]מדקתני "עקרו רגליהן"MIDEKA'TANI "AKRU RAGLEIHEN"- from the fact that the Beraisa states that they "uprooted themselves" (which implies that they still had unfinished business there)