REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 103
(a) What do the following have in common:
1. A torn Man'al that covers most of the foot; a sandal that has come apart
but that still holds the foot; a reed-shoe; the stump of a man who has lost
his foot; light shoes; leather or wooden supports for a man who pulls
himself along with his hands, dragging his legs behind him; leather socks?
(b) Is it permitted for the Yavam to be seated or leaning whilst the
Chalitzah is being performed?
2. A torn Man'al that does not cover most of the foot; a sandal that has
come apart and no longer holds the foot; leather covers to protect the hands
of the man who pulls himself along with his hands; cloth socks?
(c) Is the Chalitzah Kasher if it is performed with ...
- ... a blind Yavam?
- ... a Yavam who is a Katan?
(a) Rebbi Meir permits a footless man to go out with his stub on Shabbos.
What does Rebbi Yossi say?
(b) The author of the Reisha of the Beraisa (which validates Chalitzah on a
footless man's stump, appears to be Rebbi Meir (who considers it a shoe).
What will Rebbi Meir hold regarding using a cloth sock?
(c) Then who appears to be the author of the Seifa, which invalidates a
(a) How does Abaye reconcile the Reisha of the Beraisa with the opinion of
(b) How does Rava refute Abaye's explanation (on the basis of the Seifa,
which goes on to permit a cloth sock)?
(c) So how does Rava reconcile the Seifa with the opinion of Rebbi Meir?
(d) Ameimar requires the Yavam to press his foot on the ground whilst
Chalitzah is being performed.
What did he reply to Rava, who queried him
from the Beraisa (that we just learned), which validates the Chalitzah of
someone who is leaning (considering that it is very difficult to press one's
feet from a leaning position)?
(a) Ameimar also invalidated the Chalitzah of 'Ma'an de'Masgi al Lichsa
What does that mean?
(b) Rav Ashi asked him from the Beraisa quoted above, which validates
Chalitzah from leather or wooden supports for a man who pulls himself along
with his hands and dragging his legs behind him (in which case, the supports
are not on his soles, either).
What did he reply?
(c) Rav Ashi commented that, according to Ameimar, bar Uva and bar Kifuf
were not eligible to perform Chalitzah.
Who were bar Uva and bar Kifuf?
(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim
(with regard to the Mitzvah of Aliyas ha'Regel) "Shalosh *Regalim*"?
(b) How do we reconcile this with our Mishnah, which validates Chalitzah
from a stump provided it is below the knee?
(c) Then why is Chalitzah not valid even from a stump that remains above the
(d) Rav Papa proves from here that there is no joint between the ankle and
the sole; otherwise the calf would be 'me'Al de'me'Al'.
On what grounds
does Rav Ashi refute this proof?
(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, anything above the foot is no
longer considered 'Regel'.
Answers to questions
Then how does he explain the Pasuk which
suggests that even the thigh is still considered 'Regel' ...
(b) We learn from the multiple Lashon of the Pasuk in Shoftim that Sisro
made seven Bi'os with Ya'el. Considering the immense pleasure that Yael
must have derived from all that (see Tosfos DH 've'Ha'), why does the Navi
then praise her (elevating her to even a higher plain than the Imahos)?
- ... "u've'Shilyasah ha'Yotzeis mi'Bein Raglehah" (Ki Savo)?
- ... "Lo Asah Raglo (Shmuel 2.)?
(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai learn from the
Pasuk in Vayeitzei (when Hashem spoke to Lavan) "Hishamer Lecha Pen Tedaber
im Ya'akov mi'Tov ad Ra"?
(a) The evil (inherent in the good) to which the Pasuk refers with regard to
Ya'akov was the fear that he would, even as he attempts to make a treaty
with him, mention the name his god ("Lamah Ganavta es Elohai"?).
the evil inherent in the Bi'ah of Sisra with Yael?
(b) What did Rebbi Yochanan say in this regard (concerning the snake and
(a) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk ...
(b) What did Abaye counter, when Rav Yosef asked him why he gave his *left*
shoe to a Yavam, even though the left shoe is only valid Bedieved?
- ... "Chalutz *ha'Na'al*"?
- ... "ve'Shalaf *Na'alo*"? Which three types of shoe does this come to preclude?
(c) What was Rav Yosef's reply?
(d) According to Shmuel, the author of our Mishnah who permits a wooden
shoe, is Rebbi Meir, who considers a wooden shoe a Na'al.
Shmuel's father say?
(a) Everybody agrees that Lechatchilah, one may not use a shoe that is
stricken with Tzara'as, whether it is a Musgar (one that is locked-up
[pending]) or a Muchlat (conclusively Tamei, and must be burned). According
to Rav Papi quoting Rava, the latter is Pasul even Bedieved.
Why is that?
(b) And why is a Musgar Pasul Lechatchilah, according to Rav Papi?
(c) What does Rav Papa quoting Rava say?
(a) Someone who enters a house that is stricken with Tzara'as (with most of
his body), becomes Tamei, irrespective of whether the house is a Muchlat or
What distinction does the Tana of the Beraisa make between a
Muchlat and a Musgar (regarding someone who touches it) - according to
Rashi's basic explanation)?
(b) Why is this a Kashya on Rav Papi?
(c) How do we resolve it from the words of the Pasuk itself ("ve'ha'Ba el
(a) If most of the body of a Metzora enters a house, he renders Tamei all
the vessels in the house.
How about a garment that has Tzara'as?
(b) We suggest that the Beraisa, which considers the majority of a garment
(should it comprise less than a k'Zayis) that enters a house, as if the
entire garment had entered, speaks about a garment that is a Musgar.
is that? What would be the problem (according to Rav Papi) if it was a
(a) What does the Seifa of the Beraisa say regarding a garment that
comprises many k'Zeisim?
(b) How does this force us to retract and to establish the Beraisa by a
garment that is a Muchlat?
(c) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Saraf es ha'Baged", how are we able to reconcile
Rav Papi's opinion with the Beraisa (despite the fact that the Beraisa
speaks even a Beged that is a Muchlat)?
(d) Why can the above Din not be a source to refute Rav Papi's contention
(regarding a shoe of Chalitzah) that something that stands to be burned is
considered as if it was burned and lacks the required Shiur?
(a) Seeing as Rava holds of the S'vara that something that stands to be
burned lacks the required Shiur (as we shall see immediately), on what
grounds does Rav Papa validate a shoe that is a Muchlat?
Answers to questions
(b) And on what grounds does Rava himself ...
1. ... (apparently vindicating Rav Papa's opinion) validate (Bedieved) a
shoe that is used for idolatry purposes, but invalidate one that was used as
a sacrifice for idols and one belonging to an Ir ha'Nidachas?
2. ... invalidate a shoe that is made specifically to be used as part of the
shrouds of an old man when he dies, but validate a Chalitzah-shoe belonging