REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf MENACHOS 54
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, one is not permitted to render the Sh'tei ha'Lechem or the Lachmei Todah Chametz ,using apples. Why not?
(b) What does Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel (or, according to Rav Kahana, Rebbi Chanina ben T'radyon) say?
(c) What does the Mishnah in Terumos mean when it says 'Tapu'ach she'Risko ve'Nasno be'Soch ha'Isah ve'Chimtzah, Harei Zu Asurah'?
(d) How do we reconcile this Mishnah with the Tana Kama of the Beraisa?
(a) Rebbi Ila maintains that the most difficult Minchah from which to take Kemitzah is the Minchas Chotei. Why is that?
(b) What does Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi say?
(c) How do we initially explain the basis of their Machlokes? Why does Rebbi Ila'a forbid adding water to a Minchas Chotei?
(d) We conclude that both opinions go after the way the flour is now, and the basis of their Machlokes lies in the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah va'Shemen va'Chareivah". How does each one explain the Pasuk? What does "va'Chareivah" refer to?
(a) What does the Mishnah in Uktzin mean when it refers to ...
1. ... 'Basar ha'Eigel she'Nispach'?
2. ... 'u'Basar Zekeinah she'Nisma'ech'?
(b) The Tana concludes 'Mishta'arin li'Kemos she'Hein, which Rav, Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Yochanan interpret to mean 'Mishta'arin K'mos she'Hein'. What does this mean?
(c) What do Shmuel, Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi and Resh Lakish say?
(a) The Beraisa rules that if the flesh of a calf that did not have a Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah, but which subsequently expanded to a k'Beitzah, it is Tahor retroactively, but Tamei from now on. What does this prove?
(b) How will Resh Lakish explain this Beraisa?
(c) What problem do we have with that, from the Seifa of the Beraisa 've'Chein be'Pigul ve'Chein be'Nosar'?
(d) We answer by amending the Seifa to 've'Chein be'Tum'as Pigul ve'Chein be'Tum'as Nosar'. How does that answer the Kashya?
(e) What is then the Tana coming to teach us? Why might we have thought that Tum'as Pigul and Tum'as Nosar are different than other Tum'os?
(a) Another Beraisa says that the flesh of an old animal that originally had a Shi'ur, but contracted to less than the Shi'ur is Tamei retroactively, but not from now on. What does this prove? On whom does it pose a Kashya?
(b) Rabah therefore concludes that there is no Machlokes there where the animal originally had a Shi'ur but no longer has, or where it originally had no Shi'ur, but now has. What will be the Halachah ...
1. ... in the former case?
2. ... in the latter case?
(a) In which case do Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish then argue?
(b) How is the Tana, in the source Mishnah in Uktzin, then speaking, when he refers to ...
1. ... 'Basar ha'Eigel she'Nispach'?
2. ... 'u'Basar Ziknah she'Nisma'ech?
(c) And what is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d) What does 'Y1esh Dichuy be'Isurin' mean?
Answers to questions54b-------------------54b
(a) The Shi'ur Tum'ah of food is a k'Beitzah. What is the Shi'ur Tum'ah of ...
1. ... Meis and Neveilah?
2. ... Sheretz?
(b) What does the Mishnah in Taharos say about a case where someone places ...
1. ... a k'Beitzah of food, a k'Zayis from a Meis or a Neveilah, or a k'Adashah from a Sheretz in the sun and they contract?
2. ... a k'Zayis of Pigul, Nosar, Tamei or Cheilev in the sun and they contract?
(c) What does the Tana then say if one subsequently placed them in the sun and they expanded again?
(d) What does this prove?
(a) What is the difference between Te'einim and G'rogros?
(b) What does the Beraisa say regarding 'Tormin Te'einim al ha'Gerogros'? What does 'Tormin' mean?
(c) What is the reason for this ruling?
(a) How do we try to prove from the Beraisa that the Tana holds 'li'K'mos she'Hayu' (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan [see Shitah Mekubetzes 2)? What will be the problem if he hold 'K'mos she'Hu'?
(b) How do we counter this from the Seifa of the Beraisa 'G'rogros al ha'Te'einim, be'Midah'? What problem will that create if we hold 'li'K'mos she'Hayu' (as we just suggested)?
(a) So we try to establish the Beraisa by Terumah (as the Lashon implies). How will that alleviate the problem? What is the basic difference between Terumah and Ma'aser in this regard?
(b) What is the Mishnah then coming to teach us?
(c) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of the Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi cited his father, who used to take ten G'rogros from the Miktzo'a (the vessel in which they had been dried) on ninety Te'einim in the basket. What is the problem with that?
(d) On the one hand, we now have a problem with establishing the Beraisa by Ma'aser, and on the other, we have a problem with establishing it by Terumah. So how do we finally establish it?
(a) And the author of the Beraisa is Aba Elazar ben Gomel, who Darshens the Pasuk in Korach "Ve'nechshav Lachem Terumaschem". What does he mean when he says ...
1. ... 'bi'Shetei Terumos ha'Kasuv Medaber"?
2. ... 'Terumas Ma'aser Niteles a. be'Omed'; b. be'Machshavah'?
(b) These two constitute two of the three things that Aba Elazar ben Gomel learns with regard to Terumas Ma'aser from Terumah Gedolah. What is the third?
(c) What do we nevertheless try to prove from Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi's testimony (regarding his father taking ten G'rogros from the Miktzo'a on ninety Te'einim in the basket)?
(d) On what grounds did Rav Dimi (when he came from Eretz Yisrael) citing Rebbi Elazar, refute the proof from there? In what way are G'rogros different than meat (regarding expansion and contraction)?
Answers to questions