(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI

prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nidah 8

1) 'Rebbi Eliezer Omer, Melamdin es ha'Ketanah she'Tema'en Bo'.

(a) What does this mean?
'Rebbi Eliezer Omer, Af ha'Rodeh ve'Nasan le'Sal, ha'Sal Metzarfan'.
(b) What does that mean?

(c) Why does the Gemara quote these two Mishnahs, and why is the second Mishnah a better proof than the first?

(d) How do we know that when the Mishnah writes in Iduyos 've'she'Mema'anin es *ha'Ketanos*' - in the plural, it refers to the two statements, one of Rebbi Eliezer (mentioned above) and the other of Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamua) - both from Yevamos, and not just to Ketanos of the world (and with reference to Rebbi Elazar only)?

2) 'ha'Vered, ve'ha'Kupar, ve'ha'Latum, ve'ha'Kataf, Yesh Lahem Shevi'is.....ve'Yesh Lahem Biy'ur'.
(a) What are the ramifications of the first Din?

(b) Why does the Mishnah need to add the second Din? Is it not obvious?

(c) Why might we have thought that Shevi'is does not apply to those trees?

3)
(a) Why did Rebbi Elazar ben Pedas say that the author of the previous Mishnah must be Rebbi Eliezer.

(b) What did Rebbi Zeira mean, when he said to Rebbi Pedas (Rebbi Elazar's son) that a combination of his previous statement and the statement made by his father, would permit Kataf in the Shemitah year?

(c) What does the Gemara prove from here?

4) Rebbi Elazar ben Pedas rules like Rebbi Eliezer in only four cases in Shas.
(a) If that is so, how can he rule like him in the case of 'Melamdin es ha'Ketanah?
Rebbi Akiva holds that, on Motzei Shabbos, Havdalah is said as a fourth Berachah (before the Berachah of 'Ata Chonen'); According to Rebbi Eliezer, it is said in the Berachah of 'Modim' (in fact, we practice like neither). Rebbi Elazar rules like Rebbi Eliezer.
(b) But did we not say earlier that Rebbi Elazar rules like Rebbi Eliezer only four times in Shas?

(c) What does Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel hold regarding Ma'ariv on Motzei Yom Kipur, and what do his fathers say?

Answers to questions

8b---------------------------------------8b

5)

(a) How do we reconcile the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Eliezer in Orlah, and say that sap is not considered a fruit, with the Mishnah in Shevi'is, which rules that a Kataf is considered a fruit-tree (because it produces sap)? (two answers)

(b) If the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Shimon, and say 'Yesh le'Kataf Shevi'is Mipnei she'Katfo Zehu Piryo' are Rebbi Eliezer, (like the opinion of Rebbi Pedas), then why did they specifically argue by the Kataf-tree, which has no fruit other than its sap? They could equally well have argued by a tree which has fruit as well as sap?

6) There are three kinds of Besulah: 1. A Besulas Adam; 2. Besulas Karka; 3. Besulas ha'Shikma.
(a) What are the two ramifications of each one?
The Beraisa does not include the fourth Besulah - i.e. that of a Besulas Damim, by whom we say Dayah Sha'atah, because she is not just called 'a Besulah', but 'a Besulas Damim'.
The Gemara, in its fourth answer, at first says that the Beraisa lists only those Besulos where the 'purchaser' is particular about whatever creates the term 'Besulah', which is not the case with 'a Besulas Damim'.
(b) Why does the Gemara reject this answer?

(c) How does the Gemara amend it?

(d) What are the Gemara's two other answers to the original question?

7)
(a) At which stage do we consider a pregnancy to be 'Hukar Ubrah', regarding the Din of 'Dayah Sha'atah'?

(b) Why is there no clear proof from the Pasuk "Vayehi ke'Mishelosh Chodashim" by Tamar?

(c) What will be the Din if a pregnant woman sees blood, and then gives birth to a non-baby? (Is she Temei'ah Mei'es Le'es, or do we nevertheless say 'Dayah Sha'atah', and why?)

(d) Why is there no proof that such a birth is considered a birth from the Pasuk "Hareinu Chalnu Kemo Yaladnu Ru'ach"?

8) If a woman, during her days of Zivus, and after seeing for two consecutive days, gave birth to a non-baby, on the third day of her Zivus - without any relief from her pain, the Beraisa rules that she has the Din of a Yoledes be'Zov. Now if the birth had been considered a good birth, then why would she not be Tehorah, because when a woman gives birth under such circumstances, without relief from her pain, then the blood is considered to be Dam Leidah, and not Dam Zivus?
How do we reconcile the previous Halachah with this Beraisa? (two answers)

Answers to questions

Next daf

Index

For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il