REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 15
(a) How do we reconcile the two statements, one of which says that they
argue over eighteen things, and the other that they agree over eighteen
2) The three Machlokos of Shamai and Hillel:
(b) Who is they?
(a) When the measurements in Yerushalayim were enlarged by one sixth, the
original Shiur Chalah changed from seven a half Lugin plus a fifth of a Lug
to six Lugin. In Tzipuri, they enlarged them again, so that six Lugin now
The Torah's Shiur for Chalah is a tenth of an Eifah.
1 Eifah = 3 Sa'ah = 18 Kabin = 72 Lugin = 432 egg-volumes.
According to Shamai, one Kav of flour is Chayav Chalah, according to
Hillel, it is two Kabin.
What do the Chachamim hold?
(b) What does Rebbi Yossi say, and why is he slightly more lenient than the
(a) 1 Hin = 3 Kabin = 12 Lugin = 72 egg-volumes.
Hillel say that one Hin of drawn water invalidates a Mikvah. What does
(b) Why did he use the expression 'a Hin', which is not a Talmudic word?
(c) What is Shamai's opinion in this matter?
(d) What Shiur did the two weavers from the Dung-gate, testifying in the
name of Shemayah and Avtalyon, give, that will invalidate a Mikvah?
(e) What is the significance of their profession and their location of
(a) The third and final Machlokes between Shamai and Hillel concerns the
Din of Nidah. According to Shamai 'Kol ha'Nashim Dayan Sha'atan'.
does this mean?
(b) What does Hillel hold?
(c) Why did Rav Huna omit the Machlokes between Shamai and Hillel whether a
Korban brought on Yom-Tov requires Semichah or not?
(a) They also argue about whether grapes picked for the wine-press are
Muchshar to receive Tum'ah or not, where Shamai says that they are, and
Hillel says that they are not.
What is Shamai's reason?
(b) Why did Rav Huna not include this case in his list?
(a) Rome turned against Yisrael 180 years before the Churban Bayis Sheini;
80 years before, the Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on the lands of the gentiles
and on glass vessels, and 40 years before the Churban, the Sanhedrin moved
from the Lishkas ha'Gazis (in the Beis Hamikdash) to the 'Chanuyos'.
What is the significance of the latter part of the statement?
Answers to questions
(b) In view of the first part of the statement, how can we attribute the
decree of Tum'ah on the lands of the gentiles to Yossi ben Yoezer and Yossi
ben Yochanan, who lived many generations before Hillel and Shamai?
(c) How many years before the Churban was Hillel the 'Prince of Israel'?
(a) The Gemara initially answers that Yossi ben Yoezer and Yossi ben
Yochanan decreed that only Terumah which actually *touched* the ground of
the gentile lands would be Tamei to be burnt; whereas if it just entered
suspended in the air it would remain Tahor, and the Rabbanan of eighty
years added Tum'ah, even to Terumah that entered gentile lands suspended in
the air (though one would not burn it). Why is this answer unacceptable?
(b) And on what grounds does the Gemara reject the contention that Yossi
ben Yoezer and Yossi ben Yochanan decreed that, upon contact with the
ground of the gentile lands, Terumah would be Tamei, though not to be
burnt, whilst in the air, it would remain Tahor; and the Rabbanan of 80
years added that the former should be burnt, and the latter should be
Tamei, but not burnt?
(c) We remain then, with the decree in three stages: Yossi ben Yoezer and
Yossi Ish Yerushalayim, the Rabbanan of eighty years and the Rabbanan of
What did each one decree?
(a) The Rabbanan of Usha decreed that in six cases of Safek, one burns
1. A Safek Beis ha'Pras; 2. Safek earth that came from gentile lands; 3.
Safek clothes of an Am ha'Aretz; 4. Safek vessels which were found; 5.
Safek spittle; 6. Safek urine of a human being. What are all these?
(b) In what way is the last case more stringent than all the others?
(c) According to the Tana Kama, it must be certain that the Terumah touched
What does Rebbi Yossi say about that?
(d) And what is the opinion of the Chachamim in this matter?
(a) One of the eighteen things is that glass vessels (which are Tahor min
ha'Torah), can receive Tum'ah.
Answers to questions
Why did they decree Tum'ah on glass
(b) Then, considering that Tevilah is not effective by earthenware vessels,
how do we explain the Mishnah in Mikva'os 've'Eilu Chotzetzin be'Keilim:
ha'Zefes ve'ha'Mor bi'Chelei Zechuchis? Why should Tevilah be effective by
glass any more than it is by earthenware?
(c) What do the Rabbanan hold in the Mishnah in Mikva'os?