REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 36
NEDARIM 36 - dedicated anonymously in honor of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, and in
honor of those who study the Dafyomi around the world.
(a) How does Rav Shimi bar Ashi try to resolve the She'eilah (whether
Cohanim are Yisrael's Sheluchim or the Torah's), from the Beraisa 'Im Hayah
Cohen, Yizrok Alav Dam Chataso ve'Dam Ashamo'?
(b) Why does he not bring the same proof from our Mishnah, which also
permits the Madir to bring the Chata'os and Ashamos of the Mudar, should he
be a Cohen?
(c) How do we reject the proof from the Beraisa?
(a) The Tana in a Mishnah in Menachos states 'ha'Cohanim she'Piglu
be'Mikdash Mezidin, Chayavin', from which we infer 'Ha be'Shogeg, Peturin',
to which the Beraisa adds 'Ela she'Pigulan Pigul'.
How do we try to prove
from the inference that the Cohanim are Sheluchim of the Torah?
(b) Why do we make no attempt to bring the same proof from the Reisha?
(c) We reject the proof by quoting the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Yechashev Lo".
What does this Pasuk teach us?
(a) Earlier, Rebbi Yochanan proved that a Mechusar Kipurim does not require
Da'as, from the fact that a father is obligated to bring the Korbanos of his
son who is a Zav.
What do we then try and prove from Rebbi Yehudah, who
obligates a man to bring a Chatas Cheilev (a regular Chatas) on behalf of
his wife who is a Shotah? What did Rebbi Elazar say about someone who
brought a Chatas Cheilev on behalf of his friend without his express
(b) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yehudah, if he is really referring to
the Chatas Cheilev that one brings on behalf of one's wife, assuming she ate
(Cheilev ... ) whilst she was ...
(c) So how do we establish Rebbi Yehudah? Which Korban *is* he referring to?
- ... a Shotah?
- ... a Pikachas, and then became a Shotah?
(d) What is the basis of the Machlokes whether we learn a Gadol from a Katan
or a Pikei'ach from a Shotah or not?
(a) May a father include his young children in his Korban Pesach?
(b) According to those who do learn Gadol from Katan (Efshar mi'she'I
Efshar'), why does Rebbi Elazar then rule that if one Shechted the Pesach on
behalf of one's friend without his express knowledge, his friend will not
have fulfilled his obligation? Why do we not learn the opposite from a
(c) If 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa', how can a child, who has not been
designated, be permitted to eat from the Korban Pesach (which requires
(a) What does the Mishnah state in Pesachim regarding a father who announces
that he is about to Shecht the Pesach on behalf of whichever of his sons
arrives in Yerushalayim first?
Answers to questions
(b) How do we prove from there that 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa'?
(c) On what grounds would the son who arrived first have earned *his* part
in the Pesach even if Seh le'Veis Avos would be d'Oraysa?
(d) We support the proof (for 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa') with the
Beraisa, which relates a story of a father who issued such a challenge to
his sons and daughters, and, when the man's daughters came in before his
sons, comments that his daughters were keen, and his sons, slow.
this Beraisa prove that 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa'?
(a) Seeing as a person may act in favor of his friend even without his
consent ('Zachin le'Adam she'Lo Befanav') - why might Reuven not be
permitted to separate Terumah from his own crops on behalf of Shimon without
(b) Why would this She'eilah not even come into question regarding Reuven
taking Terumah from *Shimon's* crops without his knowledge?
(c) We try to resolve this She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Torem es Terumaso'.
We have just explained why the Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder took
Terumah from the Mudar's crops *without* his knowledge.
Why can he not be
speaking when he took from the Mudar's crops *with* his knowledge?
(d) How do we then attempt to resolve our She'eilah from there?
(a) According to the Rashba, the Mishnah will hold like Chanan, who also
permits the Madir to pay the Mudar's debt, but not according to the
Rabbanan, who forbid that.
On what grounds do we nevertheless establish
our Mishnah even according to the Rabbanan?
(b) We refute this proof however, by reinstating our Mishnah when the Madir
separates the Terumah from the *Mudar's* crops. And we dispense with the
Kashya that he is then his Sheli'ach (and is therefore giving him Hana'ah by
carrying out his Shelichus by quoting Rava).
What did the Mudar announce,
according to Rava? What do we achieve by saying this?
(c) What would be the Din if he announced ...
- ... 'Kol ha'Shomei'a Koli, Yitrom'?
- ... 'Kol ha'Torem, Eino Mafsid'?
(a) Presuming that Reuven may separate Terumah from his crops on behalf of
Shimon, Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira who will receive the Tovas Hana'ah.
What are ...
(b) Rebbi Zeira replied with the Pasuk "es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa -ve'Nasata".
What did he prove from this Pasuk?
- ... the two sides of the She'eilah?
- ... its ramifications?
(c) How does Rava (whose name does not appear in our texts) establish our
Mishnah, which states 'Torem es Terumosav ... le'Da'ato', to avoid having to
disprove Rebbi Zeira from there?
(a) We nevertheless prove Rebbi Zeira wrong from a statement by Rebbi Avahu
Amar Rebbi Yochanan. According to Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who ...
Answers to questions
(b) He also says that it is the one who *separates* the Terumah who has the
Tovas Hana'ah, and not the owner of the crops.
- ... adds the extra fifth, should Reuven declare his animal Hekdesh on behalf of Shimon, and the animal develops a wound?
- ... has the right to declare a Temurah?
How does he then explain
the Pasuk "Aser Te'aser ... es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa ... ve'Nasata"?