REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 120
(a) What do we imply from the fact that Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah, permits
the Yevamos to marry le'Shuk only after they have performed Yibum?
(b) How then, do we justify the other Tzad of Rava's She'eilah (that Rebbi
Elazar accepts the testimony of a woman to permit her Tzarah to remarry)? If
that is so, why does he argue specifically in the above case?
(c) What is the Rabbanan's reply? Why do they disagree with him even in the
case of our Mishnah?
(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana Kama forbids the Tzarah of a woman who returns
from overseas and testifies that her husband died, to remarry. Rebbi Elazar
rules 'Ho'il ve'Hutrah Hi, Hutrah Nami Tzarasah'.
How will we explain
Rebbi Elazar's ruling according to the Tzad that he only permits the Tzarah
to marry, if the woman herself has already married?
(b) According to that Tzad, how will we know that she is telling the truth?
Perhaps her husband is still alive, and she married on the basis of a Get
(which she hid from the Tzarah, testifying that her husband died in order to
cause the Tzarah to sin)?
(c) Why do we only ask this Kashya after we have cited the Beraisa? Why is
it not applicable to the case in our Mishnah, where the two women performed
Yibum with the two available Yevamin?
(a) Which two features does the Tana of our Mishnah require in the testimony
of a witness, before he is believed to permit a man's wife to remarry? Is he
believed to testify on Simanim on the man's body or clothes without them?
(b) Is a man considered dead if the witness testifies that he saw the him
(c) According to the Tana Kama, he must testify within three days.
- ... cut-up (seriously wounded, full of sword-wounds)?
- ... hanging?
- ... being eaten by a wild animal?
(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava say?
(a) What does Abaye, to explain a statement in a Beraisa (see Tosfos DH
'Hakaras') learn from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hakaras P'neihem Ansah Bam"?
(b) How did Aba bar Minyumi, who owed money to the Bei Resh Galusa) put this
to the test?
(a) The Mishnah in Gitin rules that a Get that someone discovers tied to his
purse or to a signet-ring is Kasher.
Answers to questions
Why is that?
(b) What is then the problem with our Mishnah?
(c) We suggest that this is a Machlokes between the Chachamim and Rebbi
Eliezar ben Maha'va'i regarding whether one can testify on a wart (Rebbi
Eliezer ben Mahava'i) or not (the Chachamim).
How do we initially
establish the basis of their Machlokes?
(d) We refute this suggestion however. In fact, we conclude, both Tana'im
could hold that Simanim are d'Oraysa, and they could hold that Simanim are
de'Rabbanan. Assuming that Simanim are ...
- ... d'Oraysa, why do the Chachamim not accept the testimony of a wart?
- ... de'Rabbanan, why does Rebbi Eliezer ben Maha'va'i accept it?
(a) According to the Lashon of Rava which holds that everyone agrees that
Simanim are d'Oraysa, why does the Tana of our Mishnah not accept Simanim of
the man's ...
(b) If we suspect that the clothes were borrowed, how will we explain ...
- ... body?
- ... clothes?
(c) What alternative answer do we give to explain why we do not accept
testimony of the man's clothes?
- ... the ruling in Eilu Metzi'os that one returns a donkey to the person who gives Simanim on the saddle?
- ... the Mishnah in Gitin (quoted on the previous Amud) which considers a purse and a signet-ring a good Siman? Why are we not afraid that he may have borrowed them?
(a) what do we infer from the Mishnah in Ohalos '*Adam Eino Metamei* ad
she'Teitzei Nafsho, Afilu Meguyad Afilu Goseis'? Why does that appear to
contradict our Mishnah?
There was a case where an Arab severed the upper-leg of his camel, which did
not stop braying until it died. This appears to disprove Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar's theory (that an animal can survive such a wound). Abaye explains
that the camel there happened to be a weak one.
(b) To resolve this Kashya, we cite a Machlokes Tana'im in a Beraisa. The
Tana Kama there makes a distinction between the testimony that a man was
left hanging (which is insufficient evidence that he is dead), and testimony
that he was cut-up.
What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar say? Who will then
be the author of our Mishnah?
(c) What does the Tana of our Mishnah rule in the Seifa (on the following
Amud), regarding someone who fell into the sea and they found ...
(d) If, as we just concluded, the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar, how will we explain the latter case? Why do we not suspect that he
may have survived, despite the loss of his upper-leg?
- ... his lower-leg?
- ... his upper-leg?
How does Rava resolve the
Kashya? How does he establish our Mishnah which considers a man who is cut
up capable of surviving?
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states that seeing a wild animal eating someone
is, in itself, not sufficient evidence that the person is dead.
Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel qualify the Tana's statement?
(b) And what does he say about someone whose two pipes (the wind-pipe and
the esophagus) have been cut? Do they need to be completely severed?
(c) What did Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about a man whose two pipes were
cut, and who hinted that they should write his wife a Get?
(d) How do we reconcile the second statement of Shmuel with the first?
(a) What does the Tana of a Beraisa rule regarding someone who inadvertently
cuts someone else's two pipes? Is he obligated to run to one of the cities
Answers to questions
(b) To reconcile Shmuel (who considers this to be a death-stroke) with the
Beraisa, we establish the Beraisa when the murdered man was exposed to the
wind, which may have hastened his death.
What is the alternative answer?
(c) One difference between the two answers is - when he killed him inside a
marble room, where no wind could possibly enter, but where he caused his own
death through excessive gasping.
What is the other difference?