REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 16
(a) What do we extrapolate from the Beraisa’s ruling ...
(b) What will then be the procedure when he declares Hekdesh, the babies
that are born after the mother’s Pidyon?
- ... ‘Ein Nifdin Temimin’?
- ... ‘ve’Ein Matfisan le’Chol Zevach she’Yirtzeh’?
(c) What problem does this create with Rav Huna?
(d) To reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa, how will the latter explain
the Tana’s use of the expression ‘Ein Nifdin *Temimin*’ and that of ‘Ein
Matfisan *le’Chol Zevach she’Yirtzeh’*?
(a) We learned in the Reisha of the Beraisa (see Rabeinu Gershom) ‘ve’ha’
Shochtan ba’Chutz, Patur’ (because it is unfit to go on the Mizbe’ach).
what grounds does Rav Huna amend the Beraisa to read ‘Chayav’? Who will then
be the author of the Beraisa?
(b) Why is ‘Dukin she’be’Ayin’ Kasher Bedi’eved, according to Rebbi Akiva?
(c) Dukin she’be’Ayin might mean a disease (called ‘eye’s-web’) that effects
the membrane of the eye.
What else might it mean? Why is it called by
(a) We learned in the Seifa ‘Bein Lifnei Pidyonan Bein le’Achar Pidyonan,
Osin Temurah’. What does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah say about a
Temurah after the baby’s mother has been redeemed? Why is that?
(b) Rebbi Amram asked why this should be any different than the Temurah of
Bechor and Ma’aser.
What does the Mishnah in Temurah say about the Temurah
of Bechor and Ma’aser, their children and their grandchildren?
(c) What did Abaye answer? What distinction did he draw between the Temurah
of blemished Kodshim and that of Bechor and Ma’aser?
(a) We support Rav Nachman’s ruling with a Beraisa, which rules that Temuras
Pesulei ha’Mukdashin must die.
Under which circumstances does the Tana
issue this ruling?
(b) How does he extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection
with animals that have one of the Simanei Kashrus) “ ... mi’Ma’alei ha’
Geirah ... Tamei Hu”?
(c) From where does he then learn the Din of the five Chata’os ha’Meisos
(one of them, a Temurah)?
(a) We query this latter source for the five Chata’os ha’Meisos.
the original source for that?
(b) If, as we suggest, we learn from the Pasuk the Din of Asham, how will
we interpret “Tamei Hu”?
(c) On what grounds do we refute this latter suggestion too? From where do
we know the Din of Asham?
(d) And we conclude that the Pasuk comes for Chata’os ha’Meisos after all.
Why do we need both the Pasuk and the ‘Halachah’? What would we have
thought, if we only had ...
- ... the Pasuk and not the Halachah?
- ... the Halachah and not the Pasuk?
(a) What do we mean when we say that alternatively, the Pasuk comes to
compare what we derive from “mi’Ma’alei ha’Geirah” to what we derive from
Answers to questions
(b) What is the advantage of this explanation (see Rabeinu Gershom)?
(a) Our Mishnah exempts the V’lados of Tzon Barzel that one receives from a
Nochri, from the Bechorah, should they give birth.
What are ‘Tzon Barzel’?
(b) What does the Tana say about the ‘V’ladei V’lados’?
(c) What is the reason for this difference?
(d) Under which circumstances will even the V’ladei V’lados be Patur?
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues with the Tana Kama.
What does he say?
(b) Under which circumstances does the Tana declare a firstborn goat that is
born to a sheep or vice-versa, a Bechor?
(c) What do we initially extrapolate from the fact that the Tana exempts the
sheep of Tzon Barzel from the Bechorah?
(a) What does the Mishnah in Bava Metzi’a say about accepting Tzon Barzel
from a Yisrael?
(b) Why is that?
(c) Why does the Mishnah in Bava Metzi’a appear to clash with our Mishnah?
(d) What distinction does Abaye therefore draw, based on who accepts the
liability for any losses?
(a) What logical objection does Rava raise to Abaye’s distinction?
(b) In addition, besides querying Abaye’s source for such a distinction,
what does he also ask him from the Seifa of the Mishnah there ‘Aval Mekablin
Tzon Barzel min ha’Nochrim’? According to Abaye, what should the Tana have
(c) Rava therefore establishes our Mishnah too, where the owner did not
accept liability for loss, and in fact, he holds, the sheep belongs to the
In that case, why does the Tana exempt him from the Bechorah?
(a) Rav Huna learns ‘V’lados Peturin, V’ladei V’ladoseihen, Chayavin’ (as
the Tana states in our version of the Mishnah).
What does Rav Yehudah say?
(b) What do we ask on Rav Yehudah from the Seifa ‘He’emid V’lados Tachas
Imoseihen ‘V’ladei V’lados Peturin ... ‘?
(c) How do we answer that?
(d) Why does the Tana then mention ‘He’emid’ at all?
(a) What problem do we have with Rav Huna from Raban Shimon ben Gamliel,
who says ‘Afilu ad Asarah Dari’?
(b) What ought Raban Shimon ben Gamliel to have said, according to him?
(c) Why is this not problem according to Rav Yehudah?
(d) What do we answer? Which statement in the Mishnah is Raban Shimon ben
Gamliel referring to?
(e) What will he hold with regard to the eleventh generation V’lados and
(a) How will Rav Yehudah explain the Reisha of our Mishnah ‘ha’Mekabel ... V
’lados Peturim’? How does he amend it to read?
Answers to questions
(b) According to the second Lashon, our Mishnah reads ‘Hein u’V’lados
Peturim’, and it is Rav Huna whom we are querying.
What does he answer?
How does *he* amend the Mishnah?