REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
MAKOS 2 - dedicated in memory of Nachum ben Shlomo Dovid Mosenkis Z"L (whose
63rd Yahrzeit occurred on 23 Teves 5763) by his son, Shlomo Dovid (Sid)
Mosenkis of Queens N.Y.
Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of
Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any
bearing on the practical Halachah.
(a) Our Mishnah discusses how witnesses become Zomemin.
What are Eidim
(b) If they did become Zomemin, what punishment ...
(c) How would the witnesses know that the Kohen was the son of a divorcee?
- ... would one expect them to receive assuming that they testified a. that Reuven, a purported Kohen, is the son of a divorcee or of a Chalutzah; b. that Shimon is Chayav Galus.
- ... will actually receive, according to our Mishnah?
(a) What is strange about the Tana's Lashon "Keitzad he'Eidim Na'asin
(b) What else is strange about the Mishnah's question, in view of the
Mishnah later 'Aval Amru Lahem He'ach Atam Me'idin ... '?
(a) In answer to these questions we explain that the Tana refers directly to
a Mishnah in 'Eilu Hein ha'Nechnakin'.
What does the Mishnah say there
about Zomemei bas Kohen u'Bo'alah?
(b) What is our Mishnah then coming to add?
(c) How does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi extrapolate the Din in our Mishnah from
the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv"?
(d) So why not simply declare the witnesses Pasul and not their children?
(a) How does bar Pada learn the Din in our Mishnah from a 'Kal va'Chomer'
from the 'Mechalel'? Who is the Mechalel?
Answers to questions
(b) On what grounds do we reject bar Pada's source, and revert to that of
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi?
(a) What does Resh Lakish learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "*Hu* Yanus el
Achas he'Arim ... "?
(b) How does Rebbi Yochanan learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(c) What Pircha do we ask on the 'Kal-va'Chomer', forcing us to learn like
(d) What does Ula mean when he speaks of a hint in the Torah for Eidim
(a) What problem does he have with the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Hitzdiku es
ha'Tzadik, ve'Hirshi'u es ha'Rasha. ve'Hayah Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha"?
(b) So how does he interpret it?
(c) Why do we need a special Pasuk? Why should they not receive Malkos from
the Pasuk (in the Aseres ha'Dibros) "Lo Sa'aneh ve'Re'acha Eid Shaker"?
(d) Our Mishnah cited two cases where the witnesses receive Malkos (rather
than the punishment that they tried to mete out to the defendant). The Tana
Kama of the Beraisa cites two more cases. One of them is when they tried to
make the defendant pay Kofer (by testifying that his Mu'ad ox [that already
killed three animals] killed a person).
What is the ...
- ... fourth case?
- ... fifth case added by Rebbi Akiva?
(a) What is the S'vara behind the ruling that the false witnesses do not pay
(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama holds that Kofer entails paying the
dead man's value.
What does Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben
(c) Which Tana does Rav Chisda think holds that Kofer is a Kaparah? What
does the second Tana then hold?
(a) Rav Papa however, disagrees. According to him, both Tana'im hold 'Kufra
Kaparah' (in which case, either could be the author of our Beraisa).
do the Rabbanan learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Hashasah" "Hashasah"
("Kasher Yashis Alav Ba'al ha'Ishah", also in Ki Seitzei, in connection with
a man who struck a pregnant woman and killed her baby)?
(b) What is then the reason of Rebbi Yishmael?
(a) In the case of 'Ein Nimkarin be'Eved Ivri', Rav Hamnuna initially
thought that the Tana is speaking when the defendant has money to pay (in
which case they are not sold, since he would not have been sold either).
Will it make any difference if they have no money to pay?
(b) But there where he does not have money to pay (even if they do) then
they would have to be sold (just like he would have been).
On what grounds
do we refute that statement?
(c) So we amend Rav Hamnuna. He initially thought, we now say, that the
Beraisa speaks in a case where either the defendant or the witnesses, has
money, but if neither has, then then the Eidim Zomemin are sold too.
did Rava, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Nimkar bi'Geneivaso"?
(a) We learned in the Beraisa that, according to Rebbi Akiva, the Eidim
Zomemin do not pay by their own admission.
Answers to questions
Why not? What do we learn from
the Pasuk there (in connection with paying Kefel) "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim"?
(b) How does Rabah prove that Eidim Zomemin is a K'nas?
(c) Rav Nachman seems to bring a second proof from the fact that the money
remains in the original owner's hands, yet the witnesses are obligated to
What problem do we have with Rav Nachman's statement?
(d) How do we therefore amend it?