REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 114
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Rove'a, Nirva ... ' are precluded from
Ha'ala'as Chutz from "Lehakriv Korban Lifnei Mishkan Hashem", and we ask why
the Tana does not learn it from "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" (like it
did the previous group ['Paras Chatas ... ']).
What difference does it
make whether we learn it from the one or from the other?
(b) How do we answer the Kashya with regard to Rove'a and the Nirva?
(c) Why initially, do we not accept this answer with regard to Muktzah
(a) We get round this problem however, by quoting Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.
What does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili say about Kodshim Kalim?
(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is referring to a case where, after denying under
oath, having Shimon's animal in his possession, Reuven admits that he swore
falsely, for which he is then Chayav an Asham Gezeilos.
What does Rebbi
Yossi Hagelili now Darshen from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'kichesh ba'Amiso,
(c) How does this solve our problem with Muktzah ve'Ne'evad?
(a) It is clear why the above answer to our initial Kashya (that the animal
only became disqualified after being declared Hekdesh), does not apply to a
Kil'ayim or to a Yotzei Dofen.
Having taught us the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon
(regarding Mechusar Z'man) by ...
But why can we not answer Esnan and Mechir
in that way?
(b) So how do we answer the Kashya with regard to all four cases?
(c) If Esnan and Mechir cannot take effect on the mother, how can it take
effect on the fetus?
- ... 'Ba'alei-Mumin Ovrin', why did the Tana see fit to present it again in the case of 'young Torin'?
- ... 'young Torin', why did the Tana see fit to present it again in the case of 'Ba'alei-Mumin Ovrin'?
- ... 'Ba'alei-Mumin Ovrin' and 'young Torin', why did the Tana find it necessary to present it again in the case of 'Oso ve'es B'no'?
(a) According to Rebbi Ila'a Amar Resh Lakish, Rebbi Shimon's source is the
Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sa'asun" (in connection with their arrival in Eretz
Answers to questions
What do we learn from the Pasuk ...
(b) Rebbi Shimon extrapolates from there that Mechusar Z'man ba'Chutz is
subject to a La'av.
- ... "Lo Sa'asun ke'Chol Asher Anachnu Osin Poh ha'Yom ... "?
- ... "Ish Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav"?
- ... "Ki La Ba'sem ad Atah el ha'Menuchah"?
What makes us think that, based on this source, one
ought to be Chayav for Mechusar Z'man bi'Fenim, too?
(c) What did Rebbi Yirmiyah ask Rebbi Zeira on his statement in Chulin
(regarding 'Oso ve'es B'no').
What did Rebbi Zeira say about receiving a
second set of Malkos for the La'av of 'Oso ve'es B'no' (for Mechusar Z'man
(d) What did Rebbi Zeira reply?
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that Gilgal cannot be considered
(b) Rabah disagrees with Rebbi Ila'a (who cites Rebbi Shimon's source as "Lo
Sa'asun"). He cites a Beraisa where Rebbi Shimon Darshens the Pasuk in Re'ei
(in connection with Shechutei Chutz) "Lo Suchal Lizbo'ach es ha'Pasach".
What does he learn from "be'Achad She'arecha"?
(c) What do we think he means when he precludes 'be'Sha'as Heter Bamos' from
(d) What problem do we have with establishing the Pasuk after Chatzos?
(a) In that case, it must be speaking before Chatzos.
What does Rabah
prove with this?
(b) We refute Rabah's explanation however, by establishing the La'av by
Sha'as Heter Bamos.
What problem do we have with that?
(c) We answer 'Isur Bamah Lo, Heter Bamah la'Chavero'.
What is the
significance of 'Lo' and 'la'Chavero'?
(d) Bearing in mind that a Pesach before Chatzos is a Shelamim, what is the
Beraisa now coming to teach us?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Zav, Zavah or Yoledes who bring their
Chatas or Asham ba'Chutz, are Patur.
How does Ze'iri amend our Mishnah to
answer the Kashya, that none of these bring an Asham?
(b) And how does Rav Sheishes amend our Mishnah to answer the Kashya on the
Seifa (obligating them if they bring their Olah or Shelamim), that none of
them bring a Shelamim either?
(c) What is the significance of the statement 'di'Zeiri Kav'uhu Tana'i,
de'Rav Sheishes Lo Kav'uhu Tana'i'?
(a) According to Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi, the P'tur ba'Chutz (which the
Tana writes with regard to Chatas and Asham) is confined to where the
Shechitah ba'Chutz was performed 'li'Shemo', but if it was performed 'she'Lo
li'Shemo', the Shochet is Chayav.
Answers to questions
Why is that?
(b) What does he mean by ...
(c) To which Korban does Rebbi Chilkiyah bar Tuvi refer?
- ... 'li'Shemo'?
- ... 'she'Lo li'Shemo'?
(d) Why can we not then apply this with regard to li'Shemo, and say that he
is Chayav, since it is fit to sacrifice bi'Fenim she'Lo li'Shemo?