Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

*********************GIRSA SECTION*********************
We recommend using the textual changes suggested by the Bach, the Tzon
Kodshim and the parenthetical marginal notes of the Vilna Shas. This section
is devoted to any *OTHER* changes that we feel ought to be made in the
Gemara and Rashi)

[1] Gemara 24a [line 38]:
The words "Yoledes *Merachama d'Minah*,
should be "Yoledes *Merachama, Merachama d'Minah*..."
*******************************************************

1) [line 10] MIPNEI SH'MERACHEMES AF AL PI SHE'EINAH YOLEDES - an animal will nurse a young one even though it is not hers, because she loves the offspring even of another animal

2) [line 19] OSO V'ES BENO - it is forbidden to kill a mother animal and its offspring on the same day (Vayikra 22:28). If you assume that a mother animal loves only its own offspring, then one who kills this animal and the young one nursing from it will get lashes. If, however, you assume that a mother animal loves the offspring of other animals, then one who kills this animal and the one nursing from it will not get lashes (because it is not certain that the animals are related).

3) [line 28] CHAZIR SHE'KARUCH ACHAR RACHEL - a piglet clinging to and nursing from a sheep

4) [line 33] CHUTZ ME'AREV V'TZIDON V'RA'AYAH ACHRONAH - except for the cases of Arev (a guarantor), Tzidon (the city of Sidon) and Ra'ayah Acharonah (the latter case of proof), as follows:
(a) AREV (Bava Basra 173b-174a) - The Chachamim rule that a loan may be given on the condition that the creditor can collect from the debtor's guarantor (Arev Kablan) before first going to the debtor. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that if the debtor has property, the creditor must collect from him, even if the loan was given under the above condition.
(b) TZIDON (Gitin 74a): It occurred once in Tzidon that a man said to his wife, "This will be a valid Get (bill of divorce) on condition that you bring to me my robe," and then the robe was lost. According to the Rabanan, the Get is annulled and void. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that she may give the value of the robe and the Get will be effective.
(c) RA'AYAH ACHARONAH (Sanhedrin 31a): The Chachamim rule that a litigant, after being instructed in Beis Din to prove his case, who says, "I do not have any proof," may not use any proof that he may subsequently find as valid evidence. (Since he already admitted to not having proof, we suspect that the documents that he brings afterwards may be forged.) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that we acknowledge the possibility that he did not know about the evidence for his case at the moment that he said he did not have proof, and he may therefore use the proof he subsequently finds as valid evidence. (The Mishnah previously quoted a ruling of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a *different* case involving proof in which the Halachah *does* follow his opinion. Hence the latter case is known as "Ra'ayah Acharonah.")

5) [line 19] OKER DAVAR M'GIDULO - uprooting something from its source of growth. Such an act is a Toldah of the Melachah of Tolesh and is forbidden on Shabbos and Yom Tov.

6) [line 21] DAVAR SHE'EINO MISKAVEN
(a) A Davar she'Eino Miskavein is an act which is done for a certain purpose (which can be accomplished without transgressing an Isur Torah), but which *may* result in an Isur Torah being inadvertently performed. Rebbi Yehudah prohibits performing such an action, since it may result in an Isur Torah. Rebbi Shimon disagrees, claiming that even though an Isur Torah may result from this action, since the Isur Torah will come about without intent, the action is permitted.
(b) The laws of a Davar she'Eino Miskaven (that it is permitted according to Rebbi Shimon or forbidden according to Rebbi Yehudah) apply only when it is not inevitable that an Isur Torah will occur as a result of one's action. However, when an Isur Torah will definitely occur as a result of one's action, it is known as a Pesik Reshei and is forbidden. For example, if a person cut the head off of a chicken on Shabbos and states that he had no intention to kill the animal but he merely wanted its blood to feed to his dogs, it is considered as though he had full intention to kill the animal since it was an inevitable outcome of his act, and he is Chayav.
(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 drags a bench and a furrow *does* result, even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that the person who dragged it is not obligated to bring a Korban, since the furrow was created 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.

*7*) [line 21] D'HAVAH LEI DAVAR SHE'EINO MISKAVEN - The Mishnah is discussing a case in which he makes a place to cut with the knife and unintentionally uproots some of the hairs; even though some hairs will probably be pulled out by his action, nevertheless he has no intention to do so.

8) [line 24] IPSHUT LECHU - I will explain it to you

Next daf