REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 25
(a) Rav Chananyah bar Shalmayah concurs with Rav Huna, who in the name of
Rav, just permitted preparing the neck for Shechitah in the way prescribed
by our Mishnah (even though it may result in Tolesh). We query this however,
from another ruling of Rav. What does Rav Shimi bar Chiya Amar Rav say
about wrapping flax shavings and rags round a leaking tap of a barrel
containing liquid on Yom-Tov?
(b) We answer by citing Abaye and Rava. Why, according to them, will even
Rebbi Shimon (who permits ‘Davar she’Ein Miskaven’ on Shabbos and Yom-Tov)
concede to the latter ruling of Rav?
(c) We have another problem however. Shmuel rules like Rebbi Shimon
regarding Davar she’Ein Miskaven.
How does Rav hold? What is then the
(d) So we conclude that Rav holds ‘Davar she’Ein Miskaven Asur’ even though
he holds ‘Tolesh La’av Haynu Gozez’.
Then why does he permit preparing the
neck of the animal in the way prescribed by our Mishnah, on Shabbos?
(a) We have a problem with the last ruling too, however, from a Beraisa
which discusses someone who plucks a feather from the wing of a bird, clips
off the end and trims it on Shabbos.
How many Chata’os is he Chayav to
(b) According to Resh Lakish, which Melachah does he perform when he ...
(c) How do we reconcile this with Rav, who declines to equate Tolesh with
- ... plucks it?
- ... clips off the end?
- ... trims it?
(a) We assume that since Rav holds like Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam (that
Tolesh is not the same as Gozez), the reverse is also true (with regard to
Davar she’Eino Miskaven).
What does Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam rule in a
case where a Parah Adumah has two hairs which are red at the roots, but
black on top?
(b) What problem do we now have with this?
(c) How do we counter it? Why do we think that a cow is different?
(d) We reject this answer however, from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana
learn from the ‘Vav’ of “Lo Sa’avod bi’Vechor Shorecha *ve*’Lo Sagoz Bechor
(a) So we suggest that Parah Adumah is different and the Isur of shearing
does not apply to it.
What makes Parah Adumah different than Bechor?
(b) And we refute this suggestion on the basis of a statement by Rebbi
What did Rebbi Elazar say about Kodshei Bedek ha’Bayis?
(c) We therefore conclude that Parah is different, because it is not common.
So what if it is isn’t?
(a) We ask why the Parah Adumah should not be redeemed and shorn, before
declaring it Hekdesh a second time.
Why is it not practical to do that?
(b) What does Shmuel say about Hekdesh worth a Manah that one redeemed for a
(c) Then why not do that in the current case?
(d) What final answer to we give, to explain why Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam
permits shearing the Parah using shears, even though Rav holds like him
(a) Rav Asi Amar Resh Lakish confines the preparation of the Bechor’s to
doing it by hand. How does he then amend the words ‘Oseh Lo Makom *be’
Answers to questions
(b) We ask whether, when our Mishnah says ‘ve’Chein Tolesh es ha’Sa’ar Lir’
os Mum’ the Tana means that one is permitted to do it Lechatchilah, like one
is by the Shechitah of a Bechor.
What else might ‘ve’Chein’ mean?
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah resolves the She’eilah from a Beraisa.
What does the
Tana say about someone who takes his blemished animal to a Chacham for
(d) How does Rav Mari prove this from the Mishnah itself? Why can ‘ve’Chein’
not pertain to the subsequent prohibition of moving the wool from its place?
(a) Our Mishnah discusses the hair of a Bechor Beheimah Ba’al-Mum that fell
out, and that one placed on the window-sill. According to Rebbi Yehudah,
Akavya ben Mahalalel permits it once the animal has been Shechted (see
Tosfos Amud 1 DH ‘Sa’ar’).
On what grounds do the Chachamim forbid it?
(b) Rebbi Yossi maintains that it is not the hair of an Bechor Ba’al-Mum
that was Shechted that Akavya permitted.
What then did he permit?
(a) What is ‘Tzemer ha’Meduvlal’?
(b) What distinction does the Tana draw between Tzemer ha’Meduvlal that
looks like it is part of the wool that was shorn after the Shechitah and
Tzemer ha’Meduvlal that does not?
(c) Why does the Mishnah cite this ruling here? Like which of the above Tana
’im does it go?
(a) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yossi’s statement ‘Lo ba’Zeh Hitir
Akavya ... ‘?
(b) How do we therefore amend it?
(c) On what grounds do the Chachamim then agree with Akavya by ‘va’
(d) Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish qualifies the Machlokes between Akavya and
the Chachamim, by restricting it to where a Chacham had already examined the
Mum before the hair fell out.
What does he say in a case where he had not?
(a) Rav Sheishes queries Rebbi Asi from a Beraisa.
How do we initially
interpret the word/s of ...
(b) What problem do we have with this?
- ... the Tana Kama ‘Ba’alei Mumin Osrin be’Chol-Shehu’?
- ... Rebbi Yossi ‘Yevukar’?
(c) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah therefore establishes the Machlokes by
wool of a Bechor Ba’al-Mum which fell out before the Shechitah and which was
placed on the window-sill before it became mixed up with Chulin wool.
do we now interpret ‘Yevukar’?
(d) What is then the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi
Yossi? Who is the Tana Kama?
(a) What do we extrapolate from Rebbi Yossi?
(b) Why does this present Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish with a problem?
(c) To resolve the problem, how does Rava reinterpret ‘Yevukar’?
(a) What did Rebbi Yirmiyah comment about Rav Nachman and Rabah bar Avuhah,
based on the fact that they (the Bavli’im) lived in a rather dark
environment (since Bavel was surrounded by mountains)? What did he refer to
(b) He disagreed with the Rav Nachman’s interpretation of the previous
Beraisa (‘be’Gizas Bechor Ba’al-Mum Askinan’), citing Rebbi Chiya bar Aba
Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who connected the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and
Rebbi Yossi to a Mishnah in Nidah, where Rebbi Meir learns that if a pile
containing a k’Zayis min ha’Meis got lost, then all the piles in the field
are Tamei (even if they searched for it but failed to find it).
the Chachamim say?
(c) Based on that Machlokes, how does Rebbi Yochanan now interpret Rebbi
Yossi’s ‘Yevukar’? With whose opinion does ...
- ... Rebbi Yossi concur?
- ... the Tana Kama concur?
(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan interprets ‘Yevukar’ to mean that they
search for the Ba’al-Mum and, should we find it, the rest of the herd is
permitted. He connects this Machlokes with a Machlokes between Rebbi and
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa. With regard to the case that is
discussed in the Mishnah in Nidah (but where they searched and *did* find a
Rebbi rules that one assumes the grave that is found to be the
lost one, and one does not need to continue searching.
What does Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel say?
(b) How does Rebbi Yochanan then interpret ‘Yevukar’?
(c) In that case, with whose opinion does ...
- ... Rebbi Yossi concur?
- ... the Tana Kama concur?
(a) On what grounds does ...
Answers to questions
(b) How does
- ... Rebbi Asi disagree with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba? If Rebbi Yossi will hold like the Chachamim and make do with a search of the field for the Tum’ah, why will he not automatically say the same in the case of a Bechor Ba’al Mum that got lost.
- ... Rebbi Chiya bar Aba disagree with Rebbi Asi? If the Tana Kama holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a field in which they found a grave, why will he not necessarily hold the same in the case of the Bechor Ba’al Mum that got lost?
- ... Rebbi Chiya bar Aba counter Rebbi Asi’s argument? Why might even a blemish disappear?
- ... Rebbi Asi counter Rebbi Chiya bar Aba’s argument? How is it easily possible for an animal to become blemished?