REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 114
(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who cooks ...
(b) What is the reason for these rulings?
- ... meat in whey (a by-product of milk)?
- ... meat in blood?
- ... bones, Gidin, horns or hooves in milk?
(c) And what does the Tana say about eating Pigul, Nosar and Tamei that were
cooked in milk?
(d) Having just concluded that both Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi hold 'Ein Isur
Chal al Isur', how will we reconcile their opinion with this Beraisa, which
clearly holds 'Isur Chal al Isur'?
(a) We just cited the Beraisa which exempts someone who cooks meat in whey,
which in fact, supports a statement of Resh Lakish. What does the Tana in
Machshirin say about 'Mei Chalav' and 'Mochel' (the juice that seeps out of
(b) And how does Resh Lakish qualify this Mishnah? In which case, does he
not consider Mei Chalav to be milk?
(a) Taking the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " literally (see also Tosfos DH
'ba'Chaleiv Parah'), from where does the Beraisa learn the prohibition of
cooking a piece of kid-goat in the milk of a cow and a sheep?
(b) How is it possible to learn this from "ba'Chaleiv Imo", bearing in mind
that Shmuel needed all three Pesukim "ba'Chaleiv Imo" to preclude the milk
of a Zachar, a Shechutah and a Temei'ah?
(c) Then from where does this Tana learn that the prohibition pertains to
species other than a goat?
(a) And from the extra "G'di" we include Basar Chayah ve'Of in the
How do we reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva, who precludes Basar
Chayah ve'Of from the very same words?
(b) If the third "G'di" comes to preclude Basar Beheimah Temei'ah, from
where will this Tana learn that Basar Sh'lil is included in the Isur?
(c) Rav Ashi asks a Pircha on the 'Kal-va'Chomer' me'Ikra de'Dina (from a
goat to other animals), as a result of which we are forced to learn them
What does me'Ikra de'Dina mean?
(d) What is the 'Pircha'?
(a) Another Beraisa tries to learn that one is Chayav for cooking the G'di
in the milk of its big sister from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the milk of its
mother (only it subsequently learns it from "ba'Chaleiv Imo", just like the
previous Tana did).
What does the Tana mean by 'the milk of its big
(b) What is the 'Kal-va'Chomer'?
(c) How is it possible for the kid's mother to enter the pen together with
it to be Ma'asered?
(a) The Tana then goes on to learn the G'di's 'little sister' from its
'mother' and its 'big sister'.
What does the Tana mean by its 'little
(b) Why does he not learn it from its ...
(c) So from where do we learn it?
- ... 'mother' together with the 'big sister'?
- ... its 'mother' (on its own)?
- ... 'big sister (on its own)?
(a) What do we mean when we then ask that, in that case, we can also learn
its big sister from a combination? Which combination?
(b) How will we then learn it from there?
(c) From where do we know that lambs and kid-goats are placed in the same
pen to be Ma'asered?
(d) What do we conclude?
(a) Why is the current explanation flawed? Why can we not possibly learn
'the big sister' from the 'small sister'?
Answers to questions
(b) Why can the Tana not then mean to say that we learn the 'small sister'
from "ba'Chaleiv Imo" and the big sister from the little sister?
(c) We therefore reinterpret 'big sister' to mean a big goat that has
already been Ma'asered.
Why can we not learn it from the first "ba'Chaleiv
Imo", from which we learn the milk of a cow and a sheep (like the previous
(d) And what do we now mean when we ask 'I Hachi, Achoso Gedolah Nami Teisi
mi'Beinaihu'? Which combination are we referring to?
(a) When we now ask 'Ela "ba'Chaleiv Imo" Lamah Li'?, we are referring to
the third Pasuk.
What did we learn from ...
(b) And we cite a Beraisa which learns from the third Pasuk, the Isur of
cooking the kid-goat in its own milk. Initially, the Tana tries to learn
this from a 'Kal va'Chomer'.
- ... the first "ba'Chaleiv Imo"?
- ... the second "ba'Chaleiv Imo"?
What does he mean when he says ...
(c) And what does he mean when he says ...
- ... 'Lo Ne'esar P'ri im P'ri bi'Shechitah'?
- ... 'Ne'esar P'ri im ha'Eim bi'Shechitah?
(d) What does the very fact that we need a Pasuk to forbid the kid in its
own milk prove?
- ... 'Makom she'Ne'esar P'ri im P'ri be'Bishul'?
- ... 'Eino Din she'Ne'esar P'ri im ha'Eim be'Bishul'?
(a) Rav Achdevui bar Ami tries to ascribe the Tana's refutal of the
'Kal-va'Chomer' (in favor of the Pasuk) to the Pircha 'Sus ben Susya Achi
What does he mean?
(b) Why does Rav Achdevui bar Ami not mention that the Pircha was 'me'Ikra
de'Dina' (like Rav Ashi did earlier)?
(c) We reject this Pircha however, because of 'Pered ben Susya Achi Pirdah'.
What is the Din there?
(d) What does that prove?
(a) Mar b'rei de'Ravina therefore presents the Pircha with regard to the
case of an Eved, the son of a Shifchah, whose sister is a Shifchah
Meshuchreres (who has been set free), and whose mother is a Shifchah.
is the Pircha from there?
(b) On what grounds do we refute this Pircha, too?
(c) On which case is this refutal based?
(a) Rav Idi bar Avin then cites K'lai Zera'im, to explain the Pircha.
is K'lai Zera'im?
(b) What do we mean when we say that P'ri im P'ri is forbidden, but P'ri im
ha'Eim is permitted in that context? What does he mean by 'Eim'?
(c) How do we refute the Pircha? What causes the Isur, which is not the case
by Basar be'Chalav?
(d) How do we prove that?
(e) How does Rav Ashi finally present the Pircha on the 'Kal-va'Chomer'? Why
can we not learn the prohibition of cooking 'P'ri im Imo' from 'P'ri im
(a) In connection with Basar be'Chalav, what does Rav Ashi learn from the
Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sochal Kol To'eivah"?
(b) And he learns the Isur of Hana'ah based on a principle of Rebbi Avahu
Amar Rebbi Elazar.
(c) How does he then apply it to Basar be'Chalav?
(a) How will we then ever know those Isurin that are not Asur be'Hana'ah, in
spite of the Torah's use of the word "Lo Sochal ... " (such as that of
(b) The Torah writes in Re'ei (in connection with Neveilah) "la'Ger Asher
bi'She'arecha Titnenah ... O Machor le'Nochri".
What does "Ger" mean in
(c) What does Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, learn from the juxtaposition of
"Titnenah" to ...
(d) What ought the Torah to have written had it meant literally what it
- ... "O Machor"?
- ... "va'Achalah" to "O Machor la'Nochri"?
(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
Answers to questions
(b) How does he counter Rebbi Meir's argument? What ought the Torah to have
written had it meant to include giving Neveilah to a Nochri and selling it
to a Ger?
(c) How does Rebbi Meir counter that? Why does the Torah use the word "O",
according to him?
(d) Why does Rebbi Yehudah find this unnecessary?