REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 82
(a) Why is it that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, it is easy to understand
why the piece of Chatas which is Tahor does not become Bateil?
(b) What is the problem according to Resh Lakish?
(a) Rav Shisha Brei de'Rav Idi explains that, according to Resh Lakish, the
Reisha speaks by Tum'as Mashkin.
What is the significance of Tum'as
Mashkin, as opposed to other Tum'os? Why does the piece of Kodshim then
(b) In that case, according to Resh Lakish, why is the piece not Bateil in
(c) What would be the Din in the Reisha if it was speaking about Tum'as
Sheretz (rather than Tum'as Mashkin)?
(d) Then why did the Seifa not remain with a piece of *Tamei* Chatas meat
that fell into Tahor pieces, but when the piece became Tamei through a
Sheretz (to remain with Tum'ah and Taharah, like in the Reisha)?
(a) To explain the Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa according to Resh
Lakish, Rabah establishes the Beraisa by meat of Kodshim that did not melt,
and the former is Bateil because it is only a La'av, whereas the latter is
not, because it is a case of Kareis.
What does he mean? To which La'av and
Kareis respectively is he referring?
(b) What is the problem with this answer from Rabah's very own words later
in ha'Ishah Basra?
(c) Rav Ashi ascribes the piece not becoming Bateil in the Seifa, to the
fact that it is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'.
Why is that ridiculous?
(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say about two piles of wheat, one of
Chulin and one of Terumah that fell into two boxes, one containing Chulin
and the other, Terumah, and we don't know which pile fell into which box?
Answers to questions
(b) What condition does Resh Lakish require for the Chulin box to remain
Chulin and permitted to Yisre'eilim?
(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
(d) How does this statement appear to clash with Rebbi Yochanan's opinion
regarding Terumah nowadays?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan answers that the author of this Beraisa is the Rabbanan,
whereas his previous statement is according to Rebbi Yossi.
Rebbi Yossi say?
(b) How does the Seder Olam Darshen this from the Pasuk in Nitzavim "Asher
Yarshu Avosecha vi'Yerishtah"?
(c) On what basis did Rebbi Yochanan make his initial statement (permitting
the wife of an Androginus to eat Chazeh ve'Shok as well as Terumah)
according to the opinion of Rebbi Yossi?
(d) How does he know that the opinion cited in the Seder Olam is that of
(a) What does the Mishnah in Mikva'os say about a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah to
which one added a Sa'ah of fruit juice (or of drawn water), and then took
one Sa'ah away?
(b) What would be the Din if one reversed the process, taking away a Sa'ah
first and then adding the Sa'ah?
(c) Rebbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that, assuming that one keeps on
doing this, it is only permitted up to a majority. Bearing in mind that
Rebbi Yochanan just said that, in the case of the boxes, where it is only a
Din de'Rabbanan, no majority is needed, why did we think that the two
statements clash? How did we initially explain his latter statement?
(d) What did he really mean when he said that it is only permitted up to a
(a) How will Resh Lakish, who forbids the wife of an Androginus to eat
Chazeh ve'Shok, amend the Mishnah, which states 'Androginus Nosei'?
Answers to questions
(b) What do we try to prove from the Lashon 'Aval Lo Nisa'?
(c) Why is there in fact, no proof from there? Why is there still a Kashya
on Resh Lakish?
(d) If, as we conclude, 'Nosei' means Lechatchilah, because the Tana Kama
considers him a Vaday Zachar, how will his opinion differ from that of Rebbi
Eliezer, who says 'Androginus Chayavin Alav S'kilah ke'Zachar'?