REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 138
CHULIN 137-140 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dapim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) How does the Beraisa interpret the statement in our Mishnah requiring
the Yisrael to give the Kohen five Sela'im in Yehudah *bleached*?
(b) Our Mishnah requires that one gives the Kohen five Sela'im of wool from
which he can manufacture a small garment.
What sort of garment is the Tana
referring to? What is the source of this ruling?
(c) How will five Sela'im of wool suffice to manufacture the Avneit?
(a) How does the Tana know that the Pasuk is referring to a Avneit and not
to the Me'il (the cloak worn by the Kohen Gadol)?
(b) How do we query the Tana's Shi'ur? What garment did the Kohen Gadol wear
that was smaller than the Avneit?
(c) What do we answer, based on the Pasuk (following "La'amod Leshareis")
"Hu u'Vanav Kol ha'Yamim"?
(d) What problem does that create, even if the garment is the Avneit?
(a) What do we mean when we confine the problem to those who equate the
Avneit of the Kohen Hedyot with the Avneit of the Kohen Gadol? What is then
(b) Why is there no problem according to those who hold that the Avneit of
the Kohen Hedyot did not resemble that of the Kohen Gadol?
(c) How do we solve the problem?
(a) According to Rav Chisda, if the owner sheared one sheep at a time and
sold it, he is Chayav Reishis ha'Gez.
Why is that?
(b) What does Rebbi Nasan bar Hoshaya say?
(c) What do we extrapolate from our Mishnah, which exempts someone who
purchases the wool from a Nochri from Reishis ha'Gez?
(d) Why does this pose a Kashya on Rebbi Nasan bar Hoshaya?
(e) How does Rav Chisda answer the Kashya (on behalf of his disputant)?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven sells his wool, but retains a
Shi'ur Reishis ha'Gez, he alone remains Chayav to give Reishis ha'Gez.
According to which Tana does Rav Chisda establish the Mishnah?
(b) The source for this is a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where, in a case where Reuven
sells Shimon 'Kalchei Ilan' (some trees together with the fruit) in his
field, Shimon is obligated to leave Pe'ah on each tree.
Why is that? Why
does the Tana mention 'Kalchei Ilan'?
(c) How does Rebbi Yehudah qualify the Tana Kama's ruling? In which case
will Reuven remain obligated to leave Pe'ah on the entire field, even on the
trees that he sold?
(a) On what grounds does Rava query Rav Chisda? What did Rav Chisda say
about this very Mishnah (in Pe'ah) that explains why Reuven is Chayav?
(b) Then why is he not Chayav even if he did not retain any trees?
(c) Why can we not apply the same S'vara to Reishis ha'Gez in our Mishnah?
What is the difference between the Pasuk "u've'Kutzrechem es K'tzir
Artz'chem" and that of "Gez Tzoncha" (and not 'bi'Gezazchem")?
(a) Rava therefore establishes our Mishnah like the Tana in 'ha'Zero'a
ve'ha'Lechayayim' 'Amar Lo M'chor Li B'nei Me'ehah ... Nosnan le'Kohen
ve'Eino Menakeh Lo min ha'Damim ... '.
***** Hadran Alach 'Reishis ha'Gez' *****
Based on that Mishnah, why, where
(b) Why, in the latter case, can we not attribute Shimon's Chiyuv to the
fact that the Mitzvah lies with him?
- ... retained the Shi'ur Chiyuv, is he obligated to give the Kohen Reishis ha'Gez?
- ... did not retain the Shi'ur, is Shimon obligated to do so?
(c) What is the basic difference between Rav Chisda's explanation and that
Answers to questions
***** Perek Shilu'ach ha'Kein *****
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Shilu'ach ha'Kein, like Matanos and
Reishis ha'Gez, applies in all circumstances.
What is the one exception?
(b) Which Chumrah does Kisuy ha'Dam have over Shilu'ach ha'Kein, besides the
fact that it applies to Chayos as well as birds,?
(c) What kind of geese and chickens are subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein?
(d) And which kind of ...
- ... doves are not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein?
- ... birds are not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein?
(a) What do a Tamei bird sitting on the eggs of a Tahor one, and a Tahor
bird sitting on the eggs of a Tamei one, have in common?
(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer, a male Korei is subject to Shilu'ach
What is a 'Korei'?
(c) What is the reason for his ruling?
(d) What do the Chachamim say?
(a) Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meyashe state that in all the Mishnahs of Kisuy
ha'Dam, Oso ve'es B'no, Gid ha'Nasheh, Matanos, Reishis ha'Gez and Shilo'ach
ha'Kein except for one, the Mishnah's insertion of 'ba'Aretz u've'Chutz
la'Aretz' and 'bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis' is
superfluous. One of them said it of one case, the other, of the other case.
What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(b) Why is 'ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz' superfluous in most of the cases?
(c) Then why does the Tana need to insert it by Reishis ha'Gez? Whose
opinion is he coming to preclude?
(d) Seeing as Rebbi Ilai learns Matanos from Reishis ha'Gez in this regard,
why do we only mention the latter?
(a) And what makes it necessary to mention 'bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo
bi'Fenei ha'Bayis' by Oso ve'es B'no? Why might we have thought otherwise?
(b) However, both Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meyashe stated that wherever the Tana
inserts 'be'Chulin u've'Mukdashin' (i.e. by Oso ve'es B'no) it is necessary
to do so, except by Gid ha'Nasheh.
Why is it ...
(c) But did we not establish the latter case by V'lados Kodshim, which does
teach us a Chidush, as we explained in 'Gid ha'Nasheh', so how can Rebbi
Avin and Rebbi Meyashe describe it as superfluous?
- ... necessary to insert it by Oso ve'es B'no? Why might we have thought otherwise?
- ... not necessary to insert it by Gid ha'Nasheh? What would we have otherwise thought?
(a) In connection with our Mishnah ('be'Chulin Aval Lo be'Mukdashin'), what
do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Shale'ach Teshalach es ha'Eim ...
Answers to questions
(b) What does Ravina extrapolate from there regarding a Tahor bird that
killed a person?
(c) What problem do we have with Ravina's case? Why is it not practically
(d) So how do we establish it?