REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 48
CHULIN 47-50 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(a) What does Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman say about a lung which
is stuck to the wall of the chest?
(b) Under which circumstances does he consider it Tereifah?
(c) What does Mar Yehudah in the name of Avimi say?
(d) According to Mar Yehudah, how does one check the lung in the case where
there are no ulcers (see Tosfos DH 'Maysinan'), based on what Ravin bar
Sh'va told Rava?
(a) Even if no wound was found on the chest-wall, Rav Nechemyah b'rei de'Rav
Yosef would still examine the lung.
How would he do that?
(b) According to Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Papi, it was not
on this case that Rav Nechemyah b'rei de'Rav Yosef prescribed the warm water
test, but on a case cited by Rava that we learned earlier. Which case?
(c) On what grounds does Rav Ashi object to Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Huna
b'rei de'Rav Papi's version?
(d) According to Rav Ashi, why might the test prove negative, even though
one of the lobes must have had a hole?
(a) What does Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman say about an animal
with a lung that has a hole which is blocked by the wall of the chest?
(b) Then why is there a problem with the animal in the previous case?
(c) What is considered the lung's usual location.
(d) Which ruling of Rav Nachman is Halachah, and which is not?
(a) How does Ravina qualify Rav Nachman's ruling, permitting an animal whose
punctured Una is blocked by the chest wall.
Under which circumstances will
we declare it Tereifah?
(b) Rav Yosef queries Ravina from a Beraisa.
On what grounds does the Tana
declare someone who has a hole in his penis, Pasul (to marry a regular
(c) And what will be the Din if the hole becomes sealed?
(d) The Beraisa concludes 've'Zehu P'sul she'Chozer le'Hechshero'.
can we extrapolate from there? How does Rav Yosef ask from there on Ravina?
(a) Ravina counters however, that 've'Zehu' comes to preclude another
similar case, concerning a hole in the lung, which we have already
(b) Rav Ukva bar Chama queries Ravina from his own case, if the
corresponding chest wall were to subsequently become punctured.
problem does he have with that? What ought our Mishnah to have inserted?
(c) To which Ravina retorts that Rav Ukva bar Chama might just as well have
asked on our Mishnah from a ruling by Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi
Yochanan. What does Rebbi Yochanan say about a gall-bladder that became
punctured and that was subsequently blocked by the liver?
(d) Why is this a Kashya on our Mishnah?
(e) So why in fact, *does* our Mishnah omit the case of ...
- ... 'Nekuvas ha'Kaved'?
- ... 'Nekuvas ha'Dofen'?
(a) What did Shmuel reply, when Rabah bar bar Chanah asked him what the Din
will be regarding an animal that has ulcers on its lung?
(b) If Rabah bar bar Chanah thought so too, why did he ask Shmuel for his
(c) The Talmidim's doubts were based on a statement by Rav Masna.
Rav Masna say about a lung that is full of ...
(d) If the Talmidim were correct in equating 'Malya Mugla' with 'He'elsah
Tzemachin', what was their mistake? If Rav Masna was not talking about the
lungs, then what was he talking about?
- ... pus?
- ... clear water?
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef was walking behind Rebbi Yirmiyah in the
What did they see that prompted him to ask Rebbi
Yirmiyah whether he would not like to purchase a nice piece of meat?
(b) What did Rebbi Yirmiyah really mean when he replied that he had no money
(c) Accepting the answer at surface value, how did Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef
offer to solve that problem?
(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah then cited Rebbi Yochanan, who had sent lungs with ulcers
to Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon, who had in turn, declared them Kasher in
the name of his brother Rebbi Elazar.
Then why was Rebbi Yirmiyah hesitant
to issue a ruling in the matter?
(e) So why did Rebbi Yochanan not declare them Tereifah?
(a) Rava was walking behind Rav Nachman in the tanners market (or in the
market of the Rabbanan [see Rabeinu Gershom]), when they came across some
lungs with large ulcers.
Answers to questions
Why did Rava relate this episode? What is he
coming to teach us?
(b) How did Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi react, when walking through the market
place in Teverya, they came across 'Tinri Tinri'? What are 'Tinri'?
(c) Besides the fact that the 'Tinri' are hard and an Atum (a stopped up
lung) is not, how else can one distinguish between them?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan and his colleagues declare an animal in whose lungs a
needle is found, Tereifah.
What do Resh Lakish and his colleagues say?
(b) We initially assume that their argument is based on whether an internal
Chesaron is considered a Chesaron or not.
On what grounds do we consider
our case a Chesaron at all?
(c) But we conclude that in fact, they are arguing over how the needle
arrived in the lung.
On what basis does ...
- ... Resh Lakish assume that the needle must have pierced the lung, after arriving there via the Veshet (despite the fact that we did not find the hole in the lung through which it must have entered)?
- ... Rebbi Yochanan assume that it arrived there directly via the Kaneh (without puncturing the lung), in spite of the fact that an animal does not generally swallow needles (or anything else) via its Kaneh?
(a) Both opinions agree we conclude, that an internal Chesaron is not
considered a Chesaron.
On what grounds do we reject the version that reads
that it is?
(b) By what principle do we rule like those who declare the animal Kasher?
(c) In which case will even Rebbi Yochanan agree that the animal is
(a) When an animal was brought, first before Rebbi Ami and later before
Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, what did each one in turn, want to rule?
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah (or Rebbi Zerikah) queried their ruling from our Mishnah
'Re'ah she'Nikvah O she'Chasrah, Tereifah'? How did he interpret 'Chasrah'?
(c) After ruling that the animal was Kasher, Rebbi Ami sent the animal to
Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, because he had reservations about his ruling (which
will be clarified shortly).
How do we know that his Safek was not based on
Rebbi Yirmiyah's Kashya?
(a) When the She'eilah was sent back to Rebbi Ami, he declared the animal
How did he reconcile this ruling with Rebbi Yochanan and his
colleagues, who declared such an animal Kasher?
(b) What does Rav Nachman rule in a case of a Simpon of the lung that is
found to have a hole in it?
(c) Why is that?
(d) How do we then reconcile Rav Yochanan's ruling with that of Rav Nachman?
(a) What does Rav Nachman rule in a case where a hole is found in a part of
the Hadura de'Kanta (the large intestines surrounding the fatty part of the
bowels) where it lies against another part of the intestines?
(b) How does Rav Ashi reconcile this with Rav Nachman's previous ruling,
regarding a hole that is found in a Simpon, in a location where it borders
on another Simpon?
(c) And he compares it to an animal whose legs are cut off at one point and
it is Kasher, whereas if they are cut off another point, they are Tereifah,
even though this appears to be a contradiction.
What is he referring to?
(a) When the case of a lung with a needle in the large Simpon was brought
before Resh Lakish and his colleagues, they declined to rule either Isur or
We understand why they did not permit the animal. But why did they
decline to forbid it?
(b) When a piece of liver was brought before Mar b'rei de'Rav Yosef
containing a needle, what objection did Rav Ashi raise, when Mar b'rei
de'Ravina wanted to declare the animal a Tereifah?
(a) So what ruling did Rav Ashi issue depending on which way the needle was
Answers to questions
(b) Why is that?
(c) In which case would it make no difference which way the needle is