REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 24
(a) We just learned that Resh Lakish establishes the Rabbanan in our Mishnah
('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Terifos ... , Chayav') by
Bearing in mind that we are referring to an Isur Malkos,
why does Rebbi Shimon then rule 'Patur'?
(b) And what is his reason, according to Rebbi Yochanan (who attributes the
Rabbanan's reason to Isur Kolel)?
(a) What do we mean when we say that according to Resh Lakish 'Mashkachas
Lah be'La'av ve'Hein'?
(b) What is the source for this?
(c) Why does this create ...
- ... no problem with Resh Lakish's interpretation of our Mishnah?
- ... a problem with Rebbi Yochanan's?
(a) So to reconcile the Seifa of our Mishnah with the Reisha, we establish
the Reisha like Rava.
What does Rava say about a case of 'Shevu'ah she'Lo
Ochal, ve'Achal Afar'?
(b) Then why is he Chayav in the Seifa ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal
Neveilos u'Tereifos ... Chayav')?
(c) The Reisha speaks by S'tam, as we learned originally.
How does the
Seifa now speak?
(d) What is the problem with the text that reads 'Mashkachas Lah
ke'de'Rava', but establishes the case by Neveilah which has gone bad?
(a) How does Rav Mari try to prove that Neveilos and T'reifos are considered
edibles, from the Seifa 'Konem Ishti Nehenis Li Im Achalti, ve'Achal ha'Yom
Neveilos u'Tereifos ... '? What does the Mishnah rule in that case?
Answers to questions
(b) On what grounds do we reject Rav Mari's proof? In what way is that case
(a) What is an 'Isur Mosif'? What would be an example of this with regard to
a piece of Cheilev Kodesh?
(b) Why might even those who hold Isur Mosif not necessarily hold of Isur
Kolel? What advantage does Isur Mosif have over Isur Kolel?
(c) What does Rava say regarding someone who first declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo
Ochal Te'einim' and then 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim va'Anavim'?
(d) Why does Rava need to say this? Why is it not obvious?
(a) The Mishnah in K'risus obligates a Tamei who eats Cheilev of Nosar of
Hekdesh on Yom Kipur four Chata'os and one Asham.
Why must he bring ...
(b) If the Isur Cheilev took effect as soon as the animal was born, on what
grounds do we not apply the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Asur with regard to
- ... four Chata'os?
- ... one Asham?
(c) On what grounds does the Tana Kama reject Rebbi Meir's comment that, if
he carried it out on Shabbos, he would be Chayav another Chatas?
- ... Hekdesh? Why does the Isur of Hekdesh take effect on the Cheilev?
- ... Nosar?
- ... Tamei? Why does the Isur of Tum'ah (when the person becomes Tamei) take effect at all?
- ... Yom ha'Kipurim?
(a) Rava B'rei de'Rabah asks why, according to Rava, the Tana does not
insert the case where the sinner also declared 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal
Temarim ve'Cheilev' (which is an Isur Kolel)? What do we answer?
(b) In that case, why is Hekdesh not an Isur ha'Ba me'Atzmo?
(c) Alternatively, the Tana precludes Shevu'ah from the list because the
Tana is only concerned with things that cannot be revoked.
Hekdesh, which generally comes about through a Neder, not also fall under
the category of things that can be revoked, like Shevu'ah?
(a) The third reason we give for the Tana's non-insertion of Shevu'ah in the
Mishnah is because the Chiyuv by a Shevu'as Bituy is a Korban Oleh ve'Yored,
whereas the Tana is only concerned with a Chatas Kavu'a. To evade the
problem from 'Tamei she'Achal es ha'Kodesh' (which also requires a Korban
Oleh ve'Yored) we establish the author as Rebbi Eliezer.
Who must the
Tamei person then have been? What does Rebbi Eliezer say there?
(b) We also ask from Hekdesh on Rav Ashi, who ascribes the Tana's
non-insertion of Shevu'ah in the Mishnah to the fact that the Tana is only
concerned with things that require a Shiur.
Under what circumstances does
Shevu'ah not require a Shi'ur?
(c) How do we answer the Kashya that Hekdesh does not require the Shi'ur of
a k'Zayis either?
(d) Rav Ashi from Aviraya answers that the Tana only inserts cases that are
Shogeg of a Chiyuv Kareis (Cheilev, Nosar and Yom Kipur), precluding
Shevu'as Bituy, which is the Shogeg of a La'av.
How do we answer the
Kashya that the Asham Me'ilos comes for a La'av, yet the Tana inserts it?
(a) How can we refer to Me'ilah as a La'av, when Rebbi (in a Beraisa)
specifically rules that one would be Chayav Misah?
Answers to questions
(b) The final reason for the Tana's omission of Shevu'ah is that of Ravina,
who explains that he only lists sins that pertain to food exclusively,
whereas Shevu'ah pertains to other things as well.
What problem do we have
with this from Hekdesh?
(c) So how do we amend Ravina's answer? On which category of things do
Shevu'os take effect, which Hekdesh will not?