REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 5
(a) What does our Mishnah mean when it rules ...
(b) Abaye learns the latter Din from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Rasha" "Rasha"
from Chayvei Miysah.
- ... 'Meshalshin be'Mamon'?
- ... 'Ein Meshalshin be'Makos'?
Rava however, learns it from a S'vara. Which
(c) Why does the same S'vara not then apply to Mamon?
(a) Our Mishnah states 'Ein ha'Eidim Na'asin Zomemin ad she'Yazimu es
Which case does this come to preclude?
(b) According to the Tana Kama, irrespective of how many pairs of witnesses
Reuven and Shimon declare Zomemin, they are believed, and (in a case of
Chiyuv Miysah) all the pairs are put to death.
What does Rebbi Yehudah
say? What does 'Istatis' mean?
(c) What does Rav Ada (or Rabah or Rava) learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim
"ve'Hinei Eid Sheker where'd, Sheker Anah be'Achiv"?
(d) How does de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn it from the Pasuk there "Ki Yakum
Eid Chamas be'Ish La'anos Bo Sarah"?
(a) What distinction does Rava draw in a case where Reuven and Shimon
testified that Levi killed Yehudah ...
(b) Why is ...
- ... on the east side of the palace, and Yisachar and Zevulun claim that Reuven and Shimon were with them on the west side of the palace at that time? When will Reuven and Shimon be Zomemin and when will they not?
- ... on Sunday morning in Sura, and Yisachar and Zevulun testified that Reuven and Shimon were with them in Neherda'a on Sunday evening.
When will Reuven and Shimon be Zomemin and when will they not?
- ... the first case not obvious?
- ... the second case not obvious?
(a) Rava rules in a case where Reuven and Shimon testify that Levi killed
Yehudah, and Yisachar and Zevulun then render them Zomemin, adding that Levi
did indeed kill Yehudah but 1. on Tuesday, or even 2. on the Friday before,
the first pair are Chayav Misah. Why might we have thought otherwise ...
(b) Why indeed, are the first witnesses then Chayav Misah?
- ... in the first case?
- ... in the second case (even after knowing the first ruling)?
(c) We ask from the Mishnah later, which expressly declares Reuven and
Shimon Chayav Misah, even though Levi is found to be Chayav too (so what is
What do we answer?
(a) What does Rava rule in the Seifa, in a case where Yisachar and Zevulun
render Reuven and Shimon, who testified on Thursday that Levi was sentenced
to death for the murder of Yehudah on Monday, and Yisachar and Zevulun,
after testifying 'Imanu Heyisem', add that Levi was sentenced on Tuesday
(bearing in mind that when Reuven and Shimon claimed that Levi had murdered
Yehudah, the murder had not yet taken place)?
Answers to questions
(b) Why is that?
(c) What will be the ruling in a parallel case where Reuven and Shimon
testify on Thursday that Levi ...
(d) Why is the case of K'nas different than that of Mamon in this regard?
- ... borrowed a hundred Zuz from Shimon on Monday, and Yisachar and Zevulun, after testifying 'Imanu Heyisem', add that he borrowed the money on Tuesday?
- ... stole a sheep, and Shechted or sold it on Monday, and Yisachar and Zevulun, after testifying 'Imanu Heyisem', add that he stole it ... on Tuesday or even on the Friday before?
(a) We ask that if, as Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah claims, 'Istatis Hi Zu',
why do we sentence the first pair of witnesses to death on their testimony.
On what grounds do we reject Rebbi Avahu's answer (that the Tana speaks when
they were already put to death)?
(b) So how does Rava explain Rebbi Yehudah's statement?
(c) What Kashya do we ask (and remain with) on Rava from Rebbi Yehudah's
(a) What did Resh Lakish rule in a case where a woman brought two pairs of
witnesses who were found to be Zomemin, and she produced a third pair?
(b) On what grounds did Rebbi Elazar object to Resh Lakish's ruling?
(c) What happened subsequently, that caused Resh Lakish to become angry with
(d) After suggesting that Resh Lakish holds like Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi
Yochanan, like the Rabbanan, how do we reconcile ...
- ... Resh Lakish with the Rabbanan? Why might even they agree with Rebbi Yehudah in this case?
- ... Rebbi Yochanan with Rebbi Yehudah? Why might even Rebbi Yehudah agree with the Rabbanan in this case?
(a) The Chachamim obligate the Eidim Zomemin, only if they became Zomemin
after the Din against the litigant whom they obligated was concluded.
did the Tzedokim say?
(b) If the Tzedokim based their ruling on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Nefesh
Tachas Nafesh", what is the source of the Rabbanan's ruling?
(c) What do the Rabbanan then learn from "Nefesh be'Nafesh"?
(d) What did b'Rivi reply, when his father asked him that if the Eidim
Zomemin are Chayav before the Din has been carried out (from "Ka'asher
Zamam"), how much more so afterwards?
(a) Now that the Torah writes in Kedoshim "Ish Asher Yikach es Achoso bas
Aviv O Bas Imo", why does the Pasuk need to add "Ervas Achoso Gilah"?
(b) Why can we not learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from "bas Aviv O bas
(c) And having written in Acharei-Mos "Ervas Achoscha bas Avicha O bas
Imecha ... ", why does the Torah need to add "Ervas bas Eishes Avicha
(a) In connection with the Din in our Mishnah ('Ein ha'Eidim Zomemin
Neheragin ad she'Yigamer ha'Din'), what do we learn from the
(b) Seeing as the witnesses in the latter case also receive Malkos (as we
learned above), why can we not learn it from the previous case of Chayvei
- ... "Rasha (by Malkos)" "Rasha" (by Misah)?
- ... "Rotze'ach (be'Shogeg)" "Rotze'ach"?
(c) What did the Chachamim say to Rebbi Yehudah ben Tabai when he related
how he killed an Eid Zomem after the G'mar Din but before the defendant had
been put to death, to preclude the opinion of the Tzedokim?
(d) What was Rebbi Yehudah ben Tabai's dual reaction to the Chachamim's
reprimand? What did he ..
- ... undertake from that time on?
- ... do to atone for his mistake?
(a) Everyone believed the voice that they heard to be that of the Eid Zomem.
How did Rebbi Yehudah ben Tabai try to prove that it must have been his
(b) How did Rav Acha b'Rei de'Rava refute his proof?
(a) What problem does our Mishnah have with the Pasuk in Shoftim ''al-Pi
Shenayim Eidim O Sheloshah Eidim Yumas ha'Meis"?
(b) How does the Tana Kama resolve it?
(c) And what does he learn from the word "Eidim"?
(d) Rebbi Shimon learns from this Pasuk that three, and even a hundred,
witnesses do not become Zomemin unless all of them are, just like the Din is
Seeing as the Torah writes "ve'Hinei Eid Sheker ha'Eid" (in the
singular), from where do we know, even in the case of two witnesses, that
both must be Zomemin?
(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, the third witness comes (not to be lenient,
like Rebbi Shimon, but) to be strict.
How does he go on to explain this?
(b) What 'Kal va'Chomer' does he derive from his statement?
(c) What is the source of this 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(d) What second Chumra does he learn from the comparison of three witnesses
(a) How does Rebbi Yossi qualify the previous ruling? What is the reason for
Answers to questions
(b) Rebbi agrees with Rebbi Akiva, but only under certain conditions.
(c) What is the logical basis for this distinction?