Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

***************GIRSA SECTION********************
We recommend using the textual changes suggested by the Bach, Rav B. Rensburg 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 Gemara, Rashi or Tosfos.)

[1] Gemara 70b [line 11]:
"v'Iy Mishum *Melachah* ka'Parish
(a) This is the Girsa of RI (Tosfos DH Chazinan); Rashi's Girsa is
"v'Iy Mishum *Melachos Halalu* ka'Parish
(b) The Girsa of the Gemaros that were used by Rashi and Tosfos was
"v'Iy *Ki Moda'as Lei a'Shabbos, Akati Tzarich l'Odu'ei a'Melachos* (see
Tosfos ibid. who cite Rashba, for an explanation of this Girsa)
************************************************

1) [line 2] M'YDI'AS SHABBOS HU PORESH - when he is informed that it is Shabbos, he refrains from doing the forbidden Melachah

2) [line 8] CHILUK MELACHOS, MENALAN? - from where do learn that Melachos are differentiated (that for each Melachah one must bring a separate Korban)?

3) [line 10] AL CHILUL ECHAD - for the desecration of one Shabbos
4) [line 13] YUMAS B'MAMON - he will die through his money, i.e. he will have to buy many animals to offer as Korban Chata'os

5) [line 26] L'HAKISH ELEHA - to derive a law from the proximity of one verse to this verse

KOL DAVAR SHE'HAYAH BI'CHLAL V'YATZAH MIN HA'KLAL LE'LAMED
If an action or object was included in a general category of Halachah and was then singled out by the verse in order to tell us that certain Halachos apply to it, the Halachos which apply to that object are applicable to everything in the general category. There are three applications of this rule:

a) When a new Halachah is explicitly written in the Parshah discussing the object that was singled out
b) When there is no new Halachah written there, then we look for some new law that the Torah might may be teaching us by the fact that it singled it out [for example, l'Chalek (to differentiate all of the actions so that each one will be Mechayav a separate Korban)]
c) If we cannot say that the object was singled out to teach us l'Chalek, we say that it comes to *limit* the general category only to those members that are similar to and share the characteristics of the object that was singled out (this is similar to the rule of "Klal u'Frat u'Klal)

6) [line 30] HAV'ARAH L'LAV YATZAS
The Melachah of kindling was singled out in the Torah to teach that transgressing it involves only a Lav (and is not punishable with Sekilah, but with Malkos)

7) [line 32] L'CHALEK YATZAS
The Melachah of kindling was singled out in the Torah to teach that transgressing it (or any other Melachah) alone will require one to bring a Korban Chatas (and one does not need to transgress *all* of the Melachos in order to be Chayav to bring one Korban)

8) [line 34] "[NEFESH KI SECHETA BI'SHGAGAH MI'KOL MITZVOS HASHEM ASHER LO SE'ASENAH,] V'ASAH ME'ACHAS ME'HENAH" - "If an individual sins inadvertently by violating any of the negative commandments of Hashem,] and he does any one (lit. *from any one*) of these (lit. *from these*)" (Vayikra 4:2)

9) [line 37] ACHAS ME'ACHAS, HENAH ME'HENAH - the Torah could have written "Achas" ("one") but instead wrote "me'Achas" ("from one"). Similarly, the Torah could have written "Henah" ("these") but instead wrote "me'Henah" ("from these"). We can learn certain laws from these additions. We learn that a person is Chayav for transgressing Achas (one Melachah) or me'Achas (part of an intended Melachah), and Henah (the Avos Melachos themselves) or me'Henah (Toldos, which are derived and come from the Avos)

*10*) [line 37] ACHAS SHE'HI HENAH, HENAH SHE'HI ACHAS - That is, the Beraisa finds six teachings in the verse: (a) the word "Achas," (b) the Mem that precedes it, (c) the fact that it is associated in the verse with the word "Henah" (TOSFOS DH Mai) -- and then the same three inferences, but this time from the word "Henah."

11) [line 6] HE'ELEM ZEH VA'ZEH B'YADO - if he forgot that it was Shabbos and also that these Melachos are forbidden

*12*) [line 15] ELA, LO SHENA - Ravina claims that the fact that it is Shabbos is the main reason for not doing Melachos, therefore forgetting Shabbos is primary, and he is only Chayav one Chatas. (TOSFOS DH Amar Lei)

13) [line 27] D'YADA LAH BI'TECHUMIN - he knew that it was Shabbos with regard to the prohibition against walking beyond the Techum

14) [line 28] V'ALIBA D'REBBI AKIVA (TECHUMIN: D'ORAISA) A person is only allowed to travel a distance of two thousand Amos from his city or dwelling place (if he is not in a city) on Shabbos. Rebbi Akiva claims that this Halachah of "Techum Shabbos" is mentioned in the Torah. He compares two verses which specify the outer boundaries of the cities that were given to the Levi'im. One verse (Bamidbar 35:4) states that their cities' Migrashim (the open spaces outside of the cities) extend one thousand Amos from the wall of the city. The next verse (ibid. 35:5) specifies that the boundaries of the cities extend for two thousand Amos from the edges of the city. He explains that the first verse gives the cities' boundaries while the second verse sets the Techum Shabbos.

15) [line 29] KI'GROGERES - grain which is the size of a dry fig

Next daf