REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 35
(a) According to the first Lashon, Resh Lakish assumed that the Pasuk "ve'Lo
Yihyeh Ason, Anosh Ye'anesh" meant literally 'Ason'.
What did he infer
from there to create a Kashya against Rebbi Yochanan (who holds Chayvei
Misos Shogegin and Chayvei Malkos Shogegin, Chayavin')?
(b) How does Rebbi Yochanan explain the Pasuk?
(c) In the second Lashon, it was Rebbi Yochanan who queried Resh Lakish.
What did he ask him?
(d) What did Resh Lakish answer?
(a) What does Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah learn from the Hekesh "Makeh Adam
u'Makeh Beheimah Yeshalmenah"?
According to Abaye, what does Resh Lakish learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Asher Hu *Rasha* la'Mus" (Masei) "ve'Hayah Im Bin Hakos *ha'Rasha"* (Ki
(b) What Kashya does this pose on Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement
(regarding Chayvei Misos Shogegin ... ')?
(c) So we are forced to retract from part of Rebbi Ychanan's statement.
which case does Rebbi Yochanan now agree with Resh Lakish, and in which case
does he still argue with him?
(a) According to Rava.`Resh Lakish learns it from "Makeh" "Makeh". Why can
he not be referring to the Pasuk "u'Makeh Beheimah Yeshalmenah, u'Makeh Adam
Answers to questions
(b) So Rava explained to Rav Papa that he is referring to the Pasuk in Emor
"Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah, Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" ... "ve'Ish Ki
Yiten Mum ba'Amiso Ka'asher Asah Kein Ye'aseh Lo".
What does Rava then
mean by "Makeh" "Makeh" (seeing as "Makeh is not mentioned in the second
(c) But how can Resh Lakish then derive 'Chayvei Malkos Shogegin P'turin'
from Chayvei Misah, when the second Pasuk is talking about Mamon and not
(d) In that case, how can he learn from this Pasuk that Chayvei Malkos
Shogegin is Patur from paying, seeing as there is no obligation to pay?
(a) Rav Chiya asked Rava how he knew that the Pasuk "Makeh Adam u'Makeh
Beheimah ... " refers to when the accident took place a weekday, perhaps it
took place on a Shabbos.
So what if it did?
(b) Rava answered by proving from "Makeh Adam Yumas" that the Pasuk must be
speaking when he was warned.
What was his proof?
(c) How does that answer Rav Chiya's query?
(a) Resh Lakish and Rabah established our Mishnah (of 'Eilu Na'aros she'Yesh
Lahen K'nas') like Rebbi Meir (who holds 'Lokeh u'Meshalem'). According to
Resh Lakish ('based on his interpretation of the Beraisa of 'Ganav ve'Tavach
be'Shabos') there is no problem with the fact that the Tana omits the case
of Bito, whereas according to Rabah there is.
Rebbi Yochanan established our Mishnah when *the rapist was not warned* (and
he is Chayav to pay because 'Chayvei Malkos Shogegin, Chayavin'); Resh
Lakish, when he *was* (because he holds 'Chayvei Malkos Shogegin, Peturin').
In light of this Machlokes, how do we finally establish Rabah to explain why
the Tana includes Achoso and Mamzeres, but not Bito?
Why is that?
(b) Neither can he establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah,
because, according to him, the Tana should have omitted Achoso (even if he
does hold 'Lokeh u'Meshalem').
Why is that?
(c) We suggest that perhaps Rabah will establish the Mishnah like Rebbi
How would that resolve the Kashya?
(d) On what grounds do we reject this answer? Which case in our Mishnah
should nevertheless not have been included?
(a) Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah, who exempts Chayvei Kares from paying
because they are Chayav Kareis, would also omit Achoso from our Mishnah.
According to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Chayvei Malkos Shogegin, Chayavin',
the author of our Mishnah (which includes Achoso) could even be the Rabbanan
of Rebbi Meir, and the Tana will speak when the rapist was not warned.
According to Resh Lakish (who holds Chayvei Malkos Shogegin, Peturin), which
two Tana'im would include Achoso among those who are obligated to pay K'nas?
(b) Why could Rebbi Yitzchak nevertheless not be the author of our Mishnah?
(c) Who could then be the author of the Mishnah in Shavu'os 'Hidlik Gadish
be'Yom ha'Kipurim, Chayav', according to Resh Lakish?
(a) The Beraisa writes 'Arayos u'Sh'niyos la'Arayos Ein Lahen K'nas'.
Answers to questions
can we not explain Arayos and Sh'niyos literally?
(b) So we interpret Arayos to mean Chayvei Misos Beis-Din, and Sh'niyos,
What can we infer from this? Why would the author then
have to be Shimon ha'Teimani?
(c) In the second Lashon, we interpret Arayos as Chayvei Misos Beis-Din and
Chayvei K'riysos, and Sh'niy'os, as Chayvei La'avin.
Who would then be the
author of the Beraisa.