REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 55
(a) When the Torah in Acharei-Mos writes with regard to blood of both the
Par and the Sa'ir that it has to be sprinkled "Al ha'Kapores", does it mean
(b) What was the difference in the way the Kohen Gadol performed the
Mitzvah of "*Al* ha'Kapores", and the way he performed that of "*Lifnei*
(c) What does the Torah write specifically ...
- ... by the Par that it does not write by the Sa'ir?
- ... by the Sa'ir that it does not write by the Par?
(a) Why does the Pasuk "(written by the Sa'ir) "ve'Lifnei ha'Kapores"
initially appear to be redundant?
(b) Why then, does the Torah write it?
(c) If the Torah does not want the blood to touch the Aron, then why does
it write "Al"?
(d) How might we say the opposite with regard to the "Al" of the Par?
(a) We answer the previous Kashya by pointing out that if we use the
'Lematah' of Sa'ir to compare the 'Lema'alah' of Sa'ir to it, we would
still need the 'Lema'alah' of Par to teach us *something else*, whereas if
we were to use the 'Lema'alah' of Par to compare the 'Lematah' of Par to
it, then we would have no use for the 'Lematah' of Sa'ir.
What would we
learn from the 'Lema'alah' of Par (i.e. "al P'nei ha'Kapores Keidmah")?
(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Asah es Damo Kasher Asah *le'Dam
(c) And why can we not learn that from the comparison of "Damim" by the
Sa'ir to "Damim" by the Par - written in both cases by 'Lematah'?
(a) What do we learn from the same Pasuk "ve'Asah es Damo *Kasher Asah*
(b) And why can we not learn that from the comparison of "Damim" written by
'Lema'alah' of *Par* to "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of Sa'ir?
(a) Rebbi Meir cites the text of the wording of the Kohen Gadol as 'Achas,
Achas ve'Achas, Achas u'Shetayim ... ', like in our Mishnah.
Rebbi Yehudah's version of the text?
(b) What is the basis of the two versions? Do they really argue?
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, the purpose of announcing the number each
time the Kohen sprinkled was to prevent him from erring.
What does Rebbi
(d) What is the Halachic difference between the two opinions?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in Shekalim, holds that there were no collecting boxes
for the Kinei Chovah (the obligatory bird-offerings - e.g. that of a Zav or
a Zavah), because they might become mixed.
Answers to questions
How does Rav Yosef initially
(b) In that case, why should they not take *two* boxes, and write on the
one 'Chovah', and on the other, 'Nedavah'?
(c) How do we try to prove from the stand in our Mishnah, that Rebbi
Yehudah does not rely on the method of writing as a reminder?
(a) Apart from the six boxes marked 'Nedavah', that stood in the Azarah,
there were another seven boxes marked 'Tiklin Chadtin', 'Tiklin Atikin',
'Kinim', 'Gozlei Olah', 'Eitzim', 'Levonah' and 'Zahav la'Kapores'. What
was the difference between ...
(b) Why were there six boxes for Nedavah?
- ... Tiklin Chadtin and Tiklin Atikin?
- ... Kinin and Gozlei Olah?
(c) Considering the author of this Mishnah in Shekalim is Rebbi Yehudah,
how does this create a problem with what we just wrote above in question
(a) We just established that, in principle, Rebbi Yehudah *does* rely on
What is the significance of the 'four Zuzim' in the previous question?
What reason does Rav Dimi from Eretz Yisrael now give for his
having said earlier that there were no boxes for Kinei Chovah?
(b) How do we refute this on the basis of a Mishnah in Gitin (with regard
to someone who sends his Chatas from overseas)?
(c) So how do we amend Rav Dimi's statement?
(d) Why can the Kohen not just take four Zuzim from the box and throw it
into the Yam ha'Melach (in order to fulfill the obligation of 'Chatas
Answers to questions