REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 8
(a) On what grounds did Rav decline to litigate when his innkeeper came
(b) To whom did he send him?
(c) Why did he subsequently do to warrant a reprimand from Rav Kahana?
(d) What did Rav Kahana warn him?
(a) Resh Lakish establishes the Pasuk in Devarim "ka'Katon ka'Gadol
Tishma'un" in connection with attaching as much importance to a case
involving a P'rutah as to one of a hundred Manah.
Why can this not be
(b) Then what does Resh Lakish mean?
(c) And how does Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina explain the Pasuk there "Ki
ha'Mishpat l'Elokim Hu"? What does he record Hakadosh Baruch Hu as saying?
(a) How does Rebbi Chanina (or Rebbi Yashiyah) explain the Pasuk
"ve'ha'Davar Asher Yiksheh Mikem"? How does he connect it with the Pasuk
"va'Yakreiv Moshe es Mishpatan Lifnei Hashem"?
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this explanation however, on the basis
of the continuation of the Pasuk "Tikrevun Elai *u'Shema'ativ*".
does that prove?
(c) In that case, why *was* the Parshah ...
(d) What do we then learn from these two Pesukim?
- ... of Nachalos said through the query of the daughters of Tz'lofchad?
- ... of Chilul Shabbos said through the actions of the Mekoshesh (the man who gathered wood on Shabbos [who some say was actually Tz'lofchad]?
(a) How does Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Simla'i explain the Pasuk ...
(b) What is the connection between the former Pasuk and the Pasuk in
Beha'aloscha "Ka'asher Yisa ha'Omen es ha'Yonek"?
- ... "va'Atzaveh es Shofteichem ba'Eis ha'Hi"?
- ... "va'Atzaveh eschem ba'Eis ha'Hi"?
(c) How does Rebbi Yochanan explain the apparent discrepancy between the two
Pesukim in Vayeilech, where Yehoshua is first instructed "Ki Atah Tavo es
ha'Am", and then "Ki Atah Tavi es ha'Am"?
(d) How does Rebbi Yochanan know that the second Pasuk was said by Hashem,
and not by Moshe, like the first?
(a) The Beraisa states 'Zimun bi'Sheloshah'.
Why can 'Zimun' not refer to
the B'rachah of Mezuman?
(b) And how do we know that, when the Beraisa states 'Zimun u'Birchas Zimun
bi'Sheloshah', the latter is not merely an explanation of the former?
(c) So we establish the Beraisa like Rava.
What did Rava say about three
Dayanim who sent a Sheli'ach to invite someone to a court hearing?
(d) Under which circumstances will this not be necessary?
(a) Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda asked Rav Nachman bar Ya'akov how many
Dayanim are required to judge Diynei K'nasos.
Why can we not accept the
She'eilah at surface value?
(b) What then, did he mean to ask him?
(c) He replied by quoting Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda's grandfather.
did he say in the name of Rav? How does that resolve the She'eilah?
(a) Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue in our Mishnah whether Motzi-Shem-Ra
requires three judges or twenty-three.
Answers to questions
What is the case?
(b) How do know that the husband only intends to make his wife lose her
Kesuvah, and not to have her sentenced to death (with witnesses)?
(c) What problem do we initially have with the Chachamim's opinion (that it
(d) So Ula establishes their Machlokes by whether 'Chosheshin le'La'az (the
Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Meir).
What does this mean? How does it explain
(a) According to Rava, nobody holds 'Chosheshin le'La'az', and the
Rabbanan's reason is because they hold 'Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel
What happened initially?
(b) What does the husband now request?
(c) What are the Rabbanan now concerned about?
(a) The Beraisa states 'va'Chachamim Omrim, Tav'u Mamon bi'Sheloshah'.
does it say about Tav'u Nefashos'?
(b) How will Rava explain the Beraisa?
(c) What problem does it pose on Ula?
(a) To reconcile Ula with the Beraisa, Rava, together with Rav Chiya bar
Avin, establishes the Reisha by Eidim Zomemin.
How did Rava describe Rav
Chiya bar Avin?
(b) What is the case? How does he explain the Reisha?
(c) What does the Tana then mean when he says 'Tav'u Nefashos,
(d) What is the basis to differentiate between the two cases? Why are we not
concerned about 'Kevodan shel Rishonim' in the Reisha, too?
(a) Some commentaries establish the entire Sugya in connection with the
Manah that the father claims from the husband (see Tosfos on the previous
Amud DH 'Motzi-Shem-Ra').
On what grounds do we reject this explanation?
(b) According to Abaye, even Rebbi Meir agrees with both Chosheshin le'La'az
and Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Rishonim, and they argue over the Machlokes
between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama.
According to the Tana Kama in a
Beraisa, which condition is required to sentence someone to death, besides a
Beis-Din of twenty-three, witnesses and warning?
(c) What detail does Rebbi Yehudah add to the last condition?
(d) How will we now explain the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the
(a) With regard to the previous case, how do we know that there is not
another pair of witnesses ready to testify (in which case it would remain
within the realm of Diynei Nefashos)?
Answers to questions
(b) Rav Papa learns basically like Abaye. Only to explain the Rabbanan, he
establishes them like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah say about a Chaver? What is a 'Chaver'?
(c) What is now the case by Motzi-Shem-Ra?
(d) How will we now explain the opinion of ...
- ... Rebbi Meir?
- ... the Rabbanan?