REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 85
(a) What did Rav Sheishes reply, when they asked him whether Beis-Din was
permitted to appoint a son to lash his father or to place him in Cherem?
(b) We query Rav Sheishes' reply from a Beraisa 'u'Mah Mi she'Mitzvah
Le'hakoso, Mitzvah she'Lo Le'hakoso; Mi she'Eino Mitzvah Le'hakoso Eino Din
she'Mitzvah she'Lo Le'hakoso'.
What is the meaning of ...
(c) How do we initially interpret 'Mi she'Mitzvah Le'hakoso' and 'Mi
she'Eino Mitzvah Le'hakoso', to pose a Kashya on Rav Sheishes?
- ... 'Mi she'Mitzvah Le'hakoso, Mitzvah she'Lo Le'hakoso'?
- ... 'Mi she'Eino Mitzvah Le'hakoso, Eino Din she'Mitzvah she'Lo Le'hakoso'?
(d) How do we resolve the problem? If the Beraisa do not distinguish between
a son and a stranger, then what distinction does it make?
(a) How does Rav Chisda interpret the Beraisa 'ha'Yotze Le'hareg u'Ba B'no
ve'Hikahu ve'Kilelo Chayav ... Ba Acher ... Patur' to differentiate between
the son and someone else?
(b) On whom does this pose a Kashya?
(c) How will Rav Sheishes then explain the Beraisa?
(a) What is the problem with Rav Sheishes' explanation?
(b) We cannot answer that the stranger is Patur because it is as if he
killed a dead man, because of another statement of Rav Sheishes.
Rav Sheishes say about someone who shamed a sleeping person?
(c) What does that have to do with our case (of striking a man who is about
to be killed)?
(d) So we try to establish the Beraisa when he struck the Chayav a blow that
caused less than a Shaveh-Perutah.
What is the problem with this answer?
What did Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about Reuven who strikes Shimon a
blow that causes a wound of less than a Shaveh-Perutah?
(a) What is the problem with then interpreting Patur (in the case of a
stranger striking the Chayav) to mean Patur from paying (even though he
(b) So we suggest that the stranger is Patur because the Torah writes
"ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or".
What do we learn from there?
(c) We now know why he is Patur for cursing him.
But why is he also Patur
for striking him?
(d) But then it is unclear why the son is Chayav.
What is wrong with the
answer 'be'she'Asah Teshuvah' (like Rav Pinchas explained in a different
(a) We finally answer that the stranger is Patur because one is only Chayav
for 'Mekuyam she'be'Amcha'.
What do we mean by that?
(b) Then why is a son Chayav?
(c) That explains why he is Chayav for cursing him, but why is he Chayav for
striking him, seeing as he would be Patur if he struck his father after his
(a) Finally, we cite the opinion of Rabah bar Rav Huna.
Answers to questions
What does he say
about a son striking or cursing (i.e. placing a Cherem on) his father? In
which case is he permitted to do so?
(b) Why will we accept the opinion of Rabah bar Rav Huna rather than that of
(a) In which regard is our Mishnah more strict with regard to cursing one's
father than striking him?
(b) Why is that?
(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk "Aviv ve'Imo Kilel", which is
(d) Why, besides learning a *'Binyan Av*' from Makeh, might we have thought
(e) Bearing in mind that Haka'ah is written near K'lalah, why does this Tana
not learn Haka'ah from K'lalah with a Hekesh?
(a) What does Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa, learn from "Aviv ve'Imo Kilel"?
On what basis does he explain the Pasuk this way?
(b) What does Rebbi Yonasan say to that? Why does he not need to come on to
"Aviv ve'Imo Kilel" to learn this D'rashah?
(c) What is now the problem according to Rebbi Yashiyah?
(d) If Rebbi Yashiyah now learns Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo le'Achar Miysah from
the Pasuk "Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo Mos Yumas", what does Rebbi Yonasan learn
from this Pasuk?
(a) Why does Rebbi Yashiyah not learn bas Tumtum ve'Androginus from "Ish Ish
(Asher Yekalel)", like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa?
(b) According to the Beraisa, which Chumra does Makeh have over Mekalel?
(c) Then why does our Mishnah (which discusses the Chumra of Mekalel over
Makeh) not mention it?
(a) One Beraisa permits cursing and striking a Kuti.
What does a second
(b) Assuming that both Beraisos consider the Kutim true Geirim, over which
point will they argue? Why does one Beraisa permit striking a Kuti and the
other forbid it?
(a) What alternative explanation do we try to offer as a basis for their
(b) On what grounds do we refute this explanation? What does the Beraisa
which permits both, say about a Kuti's ox?
(c) What would be the Din in this regard, if the Kutim were Geirei Arayos
(and not genuine Geirim)?
(d) What must therefore be the basis of their Machlokes?
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah requires a kidnapper to actually take the
person he is kidnapping into his domain before he becomes Chayav Miysah. He
derives this from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Nimtza be'Yado".
he learn from ...
(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah add to this, based on the Pasuk there
"ve'His'amer Bo u'Mecharo"?
- ... "be'Yado"?
- ... "ve'Nimtza"?
(c) Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah subjects a father
who kidnaps his own son, to the Din of Gonev Nefesh.
What does Rebbi
Yehudah say about someone who kidnaps a Chatzi Eved ve'Chatzi ben Chorin?
(d) What do the Rabbanan of both Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben
Berokah and of Rebbi Yehudah say?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Rebbi Yehudah requires the kidnapper to
work with the person he kidnapped.
Does that mean that the Tana Kama does
not require it? How can he argue with a Pasuk ("ve'His'amer Bo")?
(b) What does Rebbi Yirmiyah ask about someone who kidnaps a sleeping person
and sells him?
(c) Which second case does he incorporate in his She'eilah?
(d) What sort of 'Imur' is Rebbi Yirmiyah talking about?
(e) What is the outcome of Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilos?
(a) Having written ...
Answers to questions
(b) What does a second Beraisa (based on the first of the above Pesukim) say
about someone who steals a Ger, an Eved Meshuchrar or a Katan?
- ... "Ki Yimatzei Ish Gonev Nefesh ... ", why does the Torah need to add "ve'Gonev Ish u'Mecharo ... "?
- ... the above, why does the Torah then add "u'Meis *ha'Ganav* ha'Hu"?
(c) The first Beraisa learns his Din from the 'Hey' in "ha'Ganav".
does the Sifri learn from "ha'Hu"? What does it come to exclude?
(d) What does the second Beraisa say about a kidnapper who ...
- ... did not sell the person whom he kidnapped or who sells him without first taking him into his domain?
- ... sold his own father, brother or any other relation?
- ... kidnapped an Eved and sold him?