REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 17
PESACHIM 17 - Dedicated by Reb Mordechai Rabin (London/Yerushalayim)
(a) Shmuel disagrees with Rav. According to him, the Kohanim did not make a
How does *he* interpret Chagai's Sha'aleh, and how can one infer
this from the Pasuk there "ve'Naga *bi'*Chenafo"?
(b) What proof does the Gemara attempt to bring for Shmuel from the Pasuk
"Vayomer Chagai Im Yiga Temei Nefesh be'Chol Eileh, ha'Yitamei, Vaya'anu ...
(c) How does Rav explain the fact that they erred by Tum'as Sheretz in the
very same point which they seemed to know with regard to Tum'as Mes?
(d) According to Ravina, there is no difference between their knowledge of
Tum'as Sheretz and Tum'as Mes (in fact, they were not fully conversant in
Then how does he explain Rav's understanding of the Pasuk in b?
How does he interpret "Temei Nefesh" mentioned there?
(a) How does Shmuel explain the fact that the Navi refers to them as Tamei?
Does this not imply that there was something wrong with their reply?
(b) And how does he explain the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'Chen Kol
Ma'aseh Yedeihem", which definitely implies something positively bad, and
not just rhetoric?
(a) We learnt earlier that, according to Rav, even Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer
agrees that 'Mashkeh Bei Midbachaya' (water and oil) are subject to Tum'ah;
whereas according to Levi, when Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer said 'Dachan', he
was referring to Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya'. Why must Levi follow the opinion
of Shmuel who says 'Dachan mi'Letamei Tum'as *Acheirim*' (but not Tum'as
*Atzman*), in order to explain the Pasuk in Chagai?
(b) And why must Shmuel (who says that the Kohanim did not err - because
Chagai was speaking about a Chamishi), hold like Rav (who says Mashkeh Bei
*Mitbachaya*) and not like Levi (who says Mashkeh Bei *Midbechaya*)?
(a) 'Blood, wine, oil and water which became Tamei inside the Azarah, are
Like which of the above Amora'im does the Tana of this Beraisa
(b) Can the blood etc. receive Tum'ah?
(c) Why *do* they transmit Tum'ah if they became Tamei *before* they were
brought into the Azarah?
(d) What did Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi mean when he said that Mashkeh Bei
Midbachaya are only Tahor in their place - in order not to clash with the
Reisha of the above Beraisa?
(a) In a Beraisa which holds like Rav, the Tana renders the blood and the
water of Mashkeh Bei Mitbachaya Tahor whether it became Tamei when it was
inside a receptacle or when it was in a pool on the ground.
Answers to questions
differentiates between the two.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(b) Why is Rebbi Shimon strict with regard to Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya that is
inside a receptacle?
(c) Then why is he lenient when it is lying in a pool on the ground?
(d) Does this distinction apply to blood as well as to water, or is it
confined to water?
How do we reconcile the Pasuk in Metzora "es Kol Besaro" from which we learn
that a Mikveh must contain forty Sa'ah (water which can contain a human
body) and the fact that a Mikveh is Kasher (min ha'Torah) as long as it
contains a Revi'is ha'Lug of water?
(a) According to Rav Papa, 'Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya Dachan' is Halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai, and applies even if liquids are Metamei mi'd'Oraysa.
What does the Gemara ask on this from Rebbi Eliezer, who says that there is
no Tum'as Mashkin at all, because of the testimony of Rebbi Yosef ben
It is clear from our Sugya that less than a Revi'is (ha'Lug) of liquid is
subject to Tum'ah. How do we reconcile this with the accepted fact that
the Shiur of Tum'as Mashkin is a Revi'is?
(b) And what else does the Gemara ask from the distinction that Rebbi Shimon
makes between liquid that became Tamei in a receptacle and liquid that
became Tamei in a pool?
(a) What does the statement of Rebbi Yehudah 'la'Kol Tamei' mean, and what
do we derive from it with regard to Tum'as Mashkin?
(b) The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Kelim says that any receptacle that
becomes Tamei via its back, does not render its inside Tamei.
Why is that?
(c) What comment does Rebbi Yehudah make there that contradicts his
(a) Shmuel answers the previous question by saying that Rebbi Yehudah
retracted from his original statement (and he really holds that liquid
transmits Tum'ah to vessels only mi'de'Rabbanan). Ravina maintains that
Rebbi Yehudah did not retract.
Answers to questions
How then, does he reconcile his two
(b) This answer however, is unacceptable - from the very words of Rebbi
Yehudah himself, who differentiated in the Mishnahin Kelim between vessels
that touched Tamei liquids and vessels that touched a Sheretz.
that disprove Ravina's answer?
(c) We therefore remain with the original answer of Shmuel; namely, that
Rebbi Yehudah retracted, and now holds that Tum'as Mashkin is
What are the two possible ways of explaining this
retraction (in a way that he may hold like Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon, or
he may hold like Rebbi Meir)?