[14a - 23 lines; 14b - 19 lines]
*********************GIRSA SECTION*********************
We recommend using the textual changes suggested by the Bach, the Tzon Kodashim 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 14a [line 9]:
"Iy Hachi, Amai Shel Hekdesh Ein Nehenin v'Ein Mo'alin, Ela ..." àé äëé àîàé ùì ä÷ãù àéï ðäðéï åàéï îåòìéï àìà ...
These words are the Girsa of Tosfos. This Sugya also appears in Avodah Zarah 42b, but the Girsa there is different in three places (see next two Girsa Section entries). Rashi's Girsa here is like the Girsa in Avodah Zarah (see Charts and Insights), as follows:
"Deika Nami, deka'Tani Gabei Hekdesh Lo Nehenin v'Lo Mo'alin (Iy Amart bi'Shelama...), l'Olam d'Aisi Etzim me'Alma, v'Hacha ..." ãé÷à ðîé ã÷úðé âáé ä÷ãù ìà ðäðéï åìà îåòìéï (àé àîøú áùìîà ...) ìòåìí ãàééúé òöéí îòìîà åäëà ...
[2] Gemara [line 12]:
"Hachi Nami Mistabra ... Lishkelei Mishkal" äëé ðîé îñúáøà ... ìù÷ìéä îù÷ì
See previous Girsa Section entry. In the Gemara Avodah Zarah 42b and in Rashi's Girsa here, these words do not appear at all.
[3] Gemara [line 14]:
"l'Olam d'Aisi me'Alma" ìòåìí ãàéúé îòìîà
See Girsa Section entry #1. In the Gemara Avodah Zarah 42b and in Rashi's Girsa here, these words do not appear at all.
[4] Rashi 14b DH Mafrishin Mimenah ã"ä îôøéùéï îîðä:
The words "Kol ha'Shevach, v'Adayin" ëì äùáç åòãééï
should be "l'Chol ha'Shevach, keshe'Adayin" ìëì äùáç ëùòãééï
[5] Rashi DH u'Meshani d'Lo Ika Binyan ã"ä åîùðé ãìà àéëà áðéï:
Should be corrected as suggested by Shitah Mekubetzes #6
*******************************************************
1)[line 3]ãìà áèìä òåáã ëåëáéíD'LO BATLAH OVED KOCHAVIM (AVODAH ZARAH: BITULAH)
It is impossible to Mevatel (nullify) an Avodah Zarah (an idol or other object of idolatry; see Background to Chulin 89:31) that belongs to a Jew. A Nochri can Mevatel an Avodah Zarah that belongs to a Nochri, whether it is his own or it belongs to someone else, thereby removing its Isur Hana'ah. There is a Machlokes whether the Nochri must do some abusive action to the Avodah Zarah in order to annul it or it is enough to verbally annul it. (SHULCHAN ARUCH YD 146)
2)[line 4]äéà âåôä ìà îöìäHI GUFAH LO MATZLAH- it could not even save itself
3)[line 8]ãàéúáø îâåôäD'ITVAR MI'GUFAH- that [the bird] broke off [the branches of the nest] from the tree itself.
4)[line 10]áâéãåìéï äáàéï ìàçø îëàïB'GIDULIN HA'BA'IM L'ACHAR MI'KAN- the Mishnah is discussing branches that grew after the person made the tree Hekdesh
5)[line 15]åîàé éúéæ? éúéæ àôøåçéíU'MAI YATIZ? YATIZ B'EFROCHIN- and what does the Mishnah mean when it says that one may "knock it [with a stick]"? It means that one may knock the birds (and not the nest). The Gemara gives three explanations for the difference between a nest in a tree of Hekdesh and a nest in an Asheirah tree:
(a) Reish Lakish explains that when the twigs of the nest were broken off from the tree, this is considered "Bitul" and they lose their status of Avodah Zarah. Since Hekdesh has no law of "Bitul," a branch of a Hekdesh tree does not lose its status of Hekdesh just because it was broken off of the tree.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains that the twigs used to make the nest came from a different tree, and not from the tree of Hekdesh or the Asheirah itself. Rashi in Avodah Zarah (42b, DH Lo) explains that the Rabanan prohibited benefiting from a nest in a tree of Hekdesh in order to prevent people from using the tree itself. The Rabanan did not enact such a decree for a nest in an Asheirah, because people anyway tend to distance themselves from an Asheirah.
(c) Rebbi Avahu explains that there is no difference between a nest in a tree of Hekdesh and one in an Asheirah. In both cases, the nest itself is forbidden when it was made from the twigs of the tree itself. The Mishnah is teaching that it is permitted to use the birds in the nest. See TOSFOS (DH Efrochin) who explains why the Mishnah teaches what is prohibited (the nest itself) with regard to a tree of Hekdesh, and what is permitted (the birds) with regard to an Asheirah, when the laws for nests in both trees are the same.
6)[line 18]äâæáøéíHA'GIZBARIM- the treasurers of the Beis ha'Mikdash
7)[line 19]ùì÷çå òöéíSHE'LAKCHU ETZIM- who bought wood
8)[line 20]ùéôåééSHIFUY- sawdust
9)[line 20]ðáééäNEVIYAH- (a) leaves (RASHI); (b) flowers (ARUCH)
14b----------------------------------------14b
10)[line 1]îåúø ä÷èøúMOSAR HA'KETORES (KETORES)
(a)The Ketores is the incense that was offered on the golden Mizbe'ach in the Heichal of the Beis ha'Mikdash. It was offered twice each day, in the morning when the Kohen cleaned out the lamps of the Menorah, and before evening when the Kohen lit the Menorah (see Background to Kerisus 2:8).
(b)The total amount of Ketores that was prepared each year weighed 368 Maneh. One Maneh was burned every day, half in the morning and half before evening. Three Maneh were reground on Erev Yom ha'Kipurim for the Kohen Gadol to use on Yom ha'Kipurim, from which he took out "Melo Chafnav" of Ketores to burn in the Kodshei ha'Kodashim (see Background to Yoma 49:15b). The Gemara (Kerisus 6b) records that after 60 or 70 years, the Mosar ha'Ketores (extra Ketores) would reach the weight of half of the required amount, or 184 Maneh, which could be re-consecrated for the coming year, as the Mishnah states (Shekalim 4:5, recorded in our Gemara).
11)[line 2]îôøéùéï îîðä ùëø äàåîðéïMAFRISHIN MIMENAH SCHAR HA'UMNIN- the Gizbarim would take money from the treasury of Hekdesh and be Mechalel the money on the value of the work performed by the workmen for the Beis ha'Mikdash, and the money would then be designated to be the workmen's wages (it would not actually be given to them, though) (RASHI)
12)[line 10]ãìîà áòé ìîéæâà åæâà òìééäåDILMA BA'I L'MIZGA, V'ZAGA ALAIHU- perhaps he will desire to sit/lean, and he will sit/lean on them
13a)[line 17]òöéí ãîëàï åàéìêETZIM DEMI'KAN V'EILACH- wood that is needed for the future
b)[last line]òöéí ãéåîéäETZIM D'YOMEI- wood that will be used that same day