REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 82
CHULIN 81-84 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) Our Mishnah includes the Parah Adumah amongst the things Rebbi Shimon
considers an unfit Shechitah. We query this from a Beraisa, where Rebbi
Shimon declares that a Parah is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin.
What is the problem
with that? Why ought it not to do so?
(b) The reason that it nevertheless is, is because it had a Sha'as
How does Resh Lakish explain this? At which point is the Parah
Adumah fit to be become food?
(c) Upon which principle of Rebbi Shimon is this ruling dependent?
(d) Why does the Parah Adumah need to adopt Tum'as Ochlin, seeing as it is
an Av ha'Tum'ah in its own right?
(a) What does Rav Sh'man bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan conclude, based on the
fact that the Shechitah of a Parah Adumah is potentially a Kasher Shechitah
even according to Rebbi Shimon (as we just explained)?
(b) What does the Mishnah in Sotah say about an Eglah Arufah, in a case
where the murderer is found before its neck is broken?
(c) What does Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai conclude, based on the fact that
the Shechitah of an Eglah Arufah is potentially a Kasher Shechitah no less
than that of a Parah Adumah?
(a) In another statement, Rebbi Yanai said that he had forgotten which stage
renders the Eglah Arufah forbidden. His colleagues however, reminded him.
What did they say?
(b) What problem does this create with our previous answer?
(c) How does Rebbi Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami attempt to resolve the problem?
In whose name does he quote the previous answer?
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the birds used for the purification of the
Metzora too, are Asur be'Hana'ah from the time of Shechitah.
How about the
bird that is sent away into the fields (and is not Shechted)?
(b) Resh Lakish forbids both birds already from the time that they are
What happens to the bird that is sent away? How will one know
that it is Asur ba'Hana'ah?
(c) What is Resh Lakish's source for the prohibition from such an early
stage? What does this prove?
(d) So like whom does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba finally establish 'Eglah Arufah
(e) How do we reconcile Resh Lakish with the Mishnah in Sotah (which we
quoted earlier) 'Nimtza ha'Horeg ad she'Lo Te'aref ha'Eglah, Teitzei
(a) What does our Mishnah say about two people who purchased a cow and its
child? Who has the first right to Shecht?
(b) What happens if the second purchaser Shechts his animal first?
(c) What does Rav Yosef mean when he says that our Mishnah is written
(d) And what does the Beraisa mean when it says ...
- ... 'Zariz'?
- ... 've'Niskar'?
(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where someone first Shechts ...
(b) And what does the Tana Kama say in a case where one first Shechts a cow,
then its ...
- ... a cow and then its two children?
- ... the two children and then the cow?
(c) What does Sumchus rule in the latter case?
- ... daughter, and then its grandchild?
- ... grandchild, and then its daughter?
(d) What does the Beraisa learn from the fact that the Pasuk in Emor (in
connection with Oso v'Es Beno ["Lo Sishchatu be'Yom Echad"]) uses the plural
(a) What is the case? Why must the Pasuk be speaking about three animals?
Answers to questions
(b) How do we know that it is speaking about three generations and not about
a mother and its two children, where each person Shechted one of the
(c) On what grounds do we query this Limud? What might we have thought had
the Torah written "Lo Sishchat"?
(d) What do we answer? What could the Torah have written to avoid making
(a) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether Sumchus reason (for obligating two sets of
Malkos in our Mishnah, for Shechting the daughter after the mother and the
grandchild) is perhaps because he holds that someone who eats two k'Zeisim
of Cheilev in one He'elam must bring two Chata'os.
What does 'in one
(b) What does a Chiyuv Chatas have to do with a Chiyuv Malkos?
(c) If that is indeed Sumchus' reason, then why does the Tana present his
Machlokes with the Rabbanan in our Mishnah, where the Chiyuv comes from two
(d) And what will Sumchus say in the Reisha, where one Shechted the cow
after its two children?
(a) What is the alternative interpretation in Sumchus? How will he then hold
with regard to someone who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one go?
(b) What does Rav Yosef reply?
(c) And to prove it, he cites a Beraisa 'ha'Zore'a Kil'ayim Kil'ayim,
Lokeh'. Apart from the fact that if the Beraisa came to be Mechayev one
set of Malkos, it would be obvious, why must the Tana mean that he is Chayav
two sets of Malkos?
(d) And why can the Tana not be referring to a case where he transgressed on
two occasions after two separate warnings? What does the Mishnah say in
Nazir about a Nazir under similar circumstances?
(a) How does Rav Yosef then try to prove that the author of the Beraisa must
be Sumchus? Why can it not be the Rabbanan?
(b) We refute Rav Yosef's proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like
the Rabbanan, and in a case where there were two warnings.
What is then
the Chidush, specifically pertaining to the case of Kil'ayim?
(c) And the Beraisa actually comes to preclude from a ruling by Rebbi
What does Rebbi Yashiyah say about someone who plants wheat or
barley with grape seeds?
(a) So Rav Yosef tries to prove his point from a Mishnah in Gid ha'Nasheh,
where the Tana Kama declares someone who eats a k'Zayis from both the right
Gid ha'Nasheh and the left one, Chayav two sets of Malkos.
What does Rebbi
(b) Why can the Mishnah not be speaking where someone ate them one after the
other with a separate warning for each one? What would then be the problem
with Rebbi Yehudah's ruling?
(c) We learn Rebbi Yehudah's opinion regarding Hasra'as Safek from his
ruling in a case where someone strikes or curses two men who are both Safek
How does such a case come about?
(a) What does the Tana Kama rule there?
(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah say? What distinction does he draw that the Tana
Kama does not?
(c) We therefore conclude that the Mishnah in 'Gid ha'Nasheh' must be
speaking when he eats the two Gidin in one go and with one warning. What
makes Rav Yosef think that the author must therefore be Sumchus?
(d) We refute this proof too, however, by establishing the Mishnah where he
ate one Gid after the other, in which case the author can be the Rabbanan of
How will we then reconcile Rebbi Yehudah's opinion with his
opinion in Nazir ('Hasra'as Safek Lo Sh'mah Hasra'ah')?
(a) The source for that opinion is another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah
exempts from Malkos, someone who leaves over from the Korban Pesach until
the morning from Malkos, because it is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'.
Answers to questions
does Rebbi Ya'akov say?
(b) What can we extrapolate from both Tana'im as regards 'Has'ra'as Safek'?