QUESTION: Rebbi Elazar quotes bar Kapara who taught in the name of Rebbi
Meir two Halachos. First, he taught that Evarei Olah (the limbs of a Korban
Olah) that were left over from the burning of the Olah are to be burned upon
a separate Ma'arachah. Second, he taught that Evarei Olah that were left
over from a weekday Korban are to be burned on Shabbos.
The Gemara inquires what new Halachah he is teaching which we did not
already know. We find both Halachos written explicitly in a Beraisa (cited
on 45a), in which Rebbi Meir states that there is a separate Ma'arachah for
the Evarim that are left over (and thus we already know the first Halachah
expressed by Rebbi Elazar quoting bar Kaparah in the name of Rebbi Meir). In
the same Beraisa, Rebbi Meir states that the Ma'arachah for the leftover
Evarim was used even on Yom Kipur. Since Yom Kipur is akin to Shabbos, we
see from there the Halachah which was expressed in the second statement of
Rebbi Elazar. The Gemara goes on to answer that each statement is indeed
necessary for different reasons.
RASHI (DH Hachi Garsinan) makes an ambiguous comment. He says that the Girsa
that was apparently written in some printings of the Gemara is incorrect. It
is not clear why he changes the Girsa and what he accomplishes by changing
it. What was the Girsa and why does Rashi change it? (Note that in order for
Rashi's words to read smoothly, one word must be added at the end of his
comments. Before the words "d'Hadar Parich," the word "Leisa" should be
added so that it reads "*Leisa*, d'Hadar Parich" -- "*that is incorrect*,
because the Gemara then goes and asks...".)
ANSWER: The BACH explains that Rashi's text had a Girsa in which the
beginning of the statement said that Evarim of an Olas *Shabbos* that are
leftover are burned upon a separate Ma'arachah. However, if so Rashi should
have refuted the Girsa for another, simpler reason. It is clear from the
continuation of the statement in which he says "and even on Shabbos" that
the first part of the statement is *not* talking about Shabbos.
The SI'ACH YITZCHAK preserves the words of Rashi as they appears in our
texts, and he explains as follows, based on the words of TOSFOS (Menachos
40b, DH Techeles). Rashi's Girsa had, in the first part of the statement,
the words "the Evarim of an *Olas Chol*," which teaches that a separate
Ma'arachah is made for leftover Evarim even on Shabbos. Rashi rejects that
Girsa, because according to that Girsa the first and second parts of the
statement comprise only one Halachah and teach but one Halachah -- that the
leftover Evarim of a weekday Korban may be burned even on Shabbos. It is not
teaching the point that there is a fourth Ma'arachah.
Rashi is bothered by this Girsa, because the Gemara asks, "What is this
teaching us -- we have already learned that there is a separate Ma'arachah
according to Rebbi Meir?"According to this Girsa, Rebbi Meir here is not
teaching us that there is a separate Ma'arachah! Therefore, Rashi says that
the proper Girsa is "the Evarim of *an Olah*" and not ("Olas Chol") have
their own Ma'arachah, and even on Shabbos. The first part of the statement,
then, is separate from the second part and is teaching that a separate
Ma'arachah is made. The second part teaches that it is made even on Shabbos.
According to this Girsa, the flow of the Gemara -- in which it asks why each
Chidush is necessary -- makes sense.
TOSFOS in Menachos (40b) and TOSFOS YESHANIM here defend the original Girsa
of "Olas Chol." Rashi asked that we do not see that Rebbi Meir is teaching
that there is an additional Ma'arachah if he is only referring to Olas Chol.
Tosfos says that because of the letter "Vav" added to the word "v'Afilu," it
is evident that Rebbi Meir's statement includes two Halachos and that by
saying "v'Afilu b'Shabbos," he is adding to a *previously stated* Halachah.