REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 66
(a) Our Mishnah lists Shabbos among the Chayvei Sekilah, but only with
regard to a Melachah that is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid and Chatas be'Shogeg.
Which category of Melachah does this come to exclude (besides the specific
Melachah that we will now discuss)?
(b) According to Rebbi Akiva, our Mishnah precludes Techumin, which is not
subject to Kareis and a Chatas.
Which Melachah does it preclude, according
to Rebbi Yossi?
(c) And the Tana goes on to list someone who curses his father or mother.
What condition is required for him to be Chayav Sekilah?
(d) Should he curse them with a Kinuy (and not with the Name 'Havayah'),
Rebbi Meir nevertheless declares him Chayav Sekilah.
What do the Chachamim
learn from the Pasuk in Emor "be'Nokvo *Sheim* Yumas"? Who is 'the
(a) With which Mishnah (that we learned earlier) does Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi
(b) What does ...
(c) What does Rebbi Yonasan say, based on the fact that the Torah does not
write "Yachdav" in the Pasuk?
- ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish Ish ... Asher Yekalel"?
- ... Rebbi Yashiyah there learn from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" (ibid.)?
(d) What does he then learn from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel"?
(a) And what does the Tana learn from the Pasuk ...
(b) So how do we know that one is Chayav for cursing a father who is neither
a Dayan nor a king?
- ... "Damav Bo"?
- ... "Elohim Lo Sekalel"?
- ... "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or"?
(c) Why would we not know parents from ...
(d) On what basis do we refute this Binyan Av mi'Shenei Kesuvim? Why could
we not learn the Chiyuv for cursing parents from them?
- ... a Dayan?
- ... a king?
(a) So we bring in the Pasuk "Lo Sekalel Cheresh", and learn from all three.
Why could we not learn parents from Cheresh alone?
(b) What is the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' that Nasi, Dayan and Cheresh share, that
enables us to learn the prohibition of cursing others in general, and one's
parents in particular, from them?
(c) What is the problem with learning Aviv ve'Imo from this 'Tzad
(d) And we answer that either Dayan or Nasi is redundant.
How does that
answer the Kashya? What would we have learned had the Torah just written
Cheresh and one of them?
(a) We have assumed until now that "Elohim Lo Sekalel" is Chol (referring to
the Dayanim). That is the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa.
Answers to questions
does Rebbi Akiva say?
(b) In support of Rebbi Akiva, what does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say about
(c) From where will Rebbi Yishmael then learn the Azharah for Birchas
(d) According to Rebbi Akiva, from where will we learn the Azharah for
Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo?
(e) Why can he not simply learn Chol from Kodesh (like Rebbi Yishmael learns
Kodesh from Chol)?
(a) A Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is not Chayav Sekilah unless she is a Na'arah.
What does this come to exclude?
(b) Which other two conditions does our Mishnah require for a Na'arah
ha'Me'urasah to carry a Chiyuv Sekilah?
(c) What will be the Din if she made Chupah, but did not yet consummate her
(d) What does 've'Hi be'Veis Avihah' come to exclude?
(a) What does the Tana say about a case where two men committed adultery
with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, the first one she'Lo ke'Darkah? What is the
second one Chayav?
(b) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei ...
(c) Rav Yehudah establishes our Mishnah, which precludes a Ketanah from the
Din of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, like Rebbi Meir.
- ... "Na'arah"?
- ... "Besulah"?
- ... "Me'urasah"?
- ... "be'Veis Avihah" (written in connection with a Motzi-Shem-Ra)?
What do the Chachamim say?
(d) In which case do they argue?
(a) How does Rav Acha try to establish our Mishnah ('Eino Chayav ad
she'Tehei Na'arah'), even like the Chachamim?
(b) How does Ravina refute Rav Acha's suggestion?
(c) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Ada asked Rav what the Din would be if someone
committed adultery with a Ketanah ha'Me'urasah, according to Rebbi Meir.
What might Rebbi Meir hold, if he does not exempt him completely?
(d) What did Rav Ya'akov bar Ada mean, when following Rav's reply 'Mistavra
mi'Sekilah Mema'et Leih', he quoted the Pasuk "u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem"?
(a) Shmuel was surprised that Rav remained silent after Rav Ya'akov bar
What did he mean to ask when he quoted the Pasuk "U'meis
ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado"? What must the Pasuk be referring to?
(b) Why can it not be referring to the case currently under discussion in
the Pasuk (of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah who was raped)?
(a) The Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel is also a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi
Yashiyah, in a Beraisa, holds like Rav, Rebbi Yonasan, like Shmuel. The
latter, says Rava, learns from "u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem", 'li'Me'utei Ma'aseh
What is 'Ma'aseh Chidudin'?
(b) By the same token then, why is he not Patur for having unnatural
relations with her (seeing as she derives no benefit from it)?
(c) What does Rebbi Yashiyah say about Ma'aseh Chidudin? Why might he agree
with Rebbi Yonasan in Halachah?
(a) Rebbi Yashiyah learns from "Levado" like Rebbi in a Beraisa, who
discusses a case where ten men commit adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah,
and (technically) she remains a Besulah (at least until the tenth Bi'ah).
How is this possible?
(b) What does Rebbi rule in such a case?
(c) What do the Rabbanan say?
(a) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explains that Rebbi, interpreting the
Pasuk "u'Bas Ish Kohen Ki Seichel Li'zenos ... ba'Eish Tisaref", says
'Techilah', because he holds like Rebbi Yishmael (whom we discussed
What does Rebbi Yishmael say with regard to the Din of 'bas
(b) What does Rebbi now mean when he says 'Techilah'?
(c) If so, what does Rebbi mean when he continues 've'Chein Hu Omer, u'Meis
ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado'?
(a) Rav Bibi bar Abaye rejects Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's
interpretation of Rebbi, based on Rav Yosef, who establishes Rebbi like
Rebbi Meir. What does Rebbi Meir say about a bas Kohen who is married to a
man who is Pasul, and who commits adultery?
Answers to questions
(b) How will we now explain Rebbi's statement?
(c) And we now explain 've'Chein ... ' as a mere Si'man.
Why do we need to
say that? Why can we not interpret it literally?