REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 26
KESUVOS 26 & 27 (6th and 7th days of Pesach) - have been generously
dedicated by Dick and Beverly Horowitz of Los Angeles. May they be blessed
with a life of joy and much Nachas from their very special children and
(a) The Torah seems to say that Terumah is given to the Kohen, and Ma'aser
Rishon to the Levi. That is indeed the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah say?
(b) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar then mean when he says that Ma'aser
Rishon is no less of a Chazakah (to prove that the one who receives it is a
Kasher Kohen) than Terumah?
(c) Why did Ezra penalize the Levi'im?
(d) How did he penalize them according to Rebbi Akiva?
(a) We conclude that the recipient's father must have been a Kohen, because
otherwise, we would suspect that he is really a Levi, and that an Am
ha'Aretz gave him Ma'aser in spite of Ezra's Takanah.
Then why does he
need a Chazakah?
(b) Why is the Chazakah a valid one even according to those who permit a Zar
to eat Ma'aser Rishon?
(c) What does the Tana of the above Beraisa mean when he says that
receiving a portion in Beis-Din is not a Chazakah? To whom is he referring?
(d) Why would we have even thought that it is?
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Shimon ben ha'S'gan concludes our
Mishnah with the words 'Ma'alin li'Kehunah al Pi Eid Echad'.
Answers to questions
What is the
problem with his statement?
(b) Why can we not explain that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel instates a Kohen
with one witness even against protesters, whereas Rebbi Elazar does not?
(c) And why can we not explain that, according to Rebbi Elazar, even *one*
protester necessitates proof that he is a Kasher Kohen, whereas, Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel requires *two*?
(a) We conclude that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar argue in a
case when, although we know that his father is a Kohen, a rumor began to
spread that he is a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah.
On what grounds do we accept the two witnesses who declare the Kohen to be
Kasher, seeing as there are two witnesses who declare him Pasul?
How many witnesses
are required to dispel a rumor?
(b) Following the testimony of the one witness and his subsequent
reinstatement, two witnesses testified that he was indeed a ben Gerushah or
a ben Chalutzah.
What happened next?
(c) May two individual witnesses whose testimonies tally normally combine?
(d) Then what (do we initially think) is the basis of their Machlokes? Why
does the Tana Kama (Rebbi Elazar) not accept the testimony of the second
(a) What problem does Rav Ashi have with the current interpretation of the
(b) Rav Ashi connects it with the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan and the Tana
Kama in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama requires witnesses to testify as a pair in
What does Rebbi Nasan say?
(c) How will Rav Ashi connect the two Machlokos? How do Rebbi Elazar and
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel respectively hold?
(a) In another Machlokes in the same Beraisa, the Tana Kama requires the
witnesses to see the act simultaneously.
What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben
(b) How is it possible for two witnesses to have 'seen' the same act at two
(a) When does the Tana of our Mishnah permit a woman who was captured to
return to her husband, and when does he prohibit it?
(b) Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak qualifies our Mishnah.
In which case is
the woman forbidden to her husband even if she is being held to ransom?
(a) Why did the family of a certain woman in Ashkelon keep away from her?
(b) What did the witnesses testify about her? Which witnesses were they?
(c) What testimony did Rebbi Yossi ha'Kohen and Rebbi Zecharyah ben
ha'Katzav present in the name of the Chachamim? On what grounds did they
instruct the family to believe the witnesses (who seem to have been suspect
in the family's eyes)?
(d) What is significant about the fact that this episode took place in
Ashkelon (according to the first Lashon)?
(a) What is the difference between 'Nechbeshah' and 'Hurhenah'?
Answers to questions
(b) What do we try to infer from the above episode, which was a case of
Hurhenah? What does this inference prove?
(c) How do we refute the proof?
(d) Then why does the Tana describe a case of Hurhenah?