REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 54
(a) Rav Yehudah cites another Beraisa which explains the Pasuk in Chukas (in
connection with touching) "ve'al ha'Noge'a ba'Etzem O be'Chalal O ba'Meis O
What does the Tana learn from ...
(b) Like whom do we initially establish Resh Lakish, who learns from "O
ba'Kaver" that graves from before Matan Torah are Metamei hold, the Rabbanan
(according to whom graves of Nochrim are Metamei), or Rebbi Shimon (who says
they are not)?
- ... "ba'Etzem"?
- ... "be'Chalal"?
- ... "ba'Meis"?
(c) Considering that even Rebbi Shimon agrees that their graves are Metamei
through touching (which is what we are currently dealing with), the Kashya
How does the Riva explain Resh Lakish even by Jewish graves?
(a) What problem do we have with the D'rashah from "O ba'Meis", 'Zeh Eiver
ha'Nechlal min ha'Meis'?
(b) What does Resh Lakish therefore extrapolate from there?
(c) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa even by a bone that is the size
of a barley.
How does he then resolve the problem from "ha'Nogei'a
(d) What Kashya do we ask on the Lashon of the Beraisa according to Rebbi
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah concludes 'u'Mazeh ba'Shelishi u'va'Shevi'i
ve'Soser, ve'Eino Maschil Limnos ad she'Yit'har'. We ask whether he holds
like Rebbi Eliezer or like the Rabbanan.
To which Machlokes are we
(b) We resolve this She'eilah from the next Mishnah, which states (regarding
the cases where a Nazir does not shave) 'u'Maschil u'Moneh Miyad'.
we infer from there?
(a) What do 'Sechachos, Pera'os, Beis ha'P'ras, Eretz ha'Amim, ve'ha'Golel,
ve'ha'Dofek, u'Revi'is Dam, ve'Ohel (ha'Meis), ve'Rova Atzamos, ve'Keilim
ha'Nog'im be'Meis, u'vi'Yemei Sifro, u'vi'Yemei Gamro' all have in common?
(b) 'Beis ha'P'ras' is a field in which a grave was dug up.
Up to what
distance from the grave constitutes a Beis ha'P'ras?
(c) Why did the Rabbanan enact this decree?
(d) What is meant by 'Eretz ha'Amim'?
(a) According to Rashi in Kesuvos, 'Golel' is the cover of the coffin, and
'Dofek' is the sides. Rabeinu Tam disagrees on the basis of a Sugya in
Chulin, where it appears that they are both visible at ground level.
does Rabeinu Tam therefore define them?
(b) With regard to Revi'is Dam, Ohel (ha'Meis) and Rova Atzamos, why did the
Tana choose to say 'Revi'is rather than 'Pachos me'Chatzi Log'?
(c) From where do we learn that a Nazir does not need to shave on 'Keilim
(d) Why strictly speaking, does the ruling 'al Eilu Ein ha'Nazir Megale'ach'
not pertain to Yemei Sifro and Yemei Gomro?
(a) The list in our Mishnah includes 'Yemei Sifro' and 'Yemei Gamro'.
(b) Having listed ...
- ... 'Yemei Gamro'?
- ... 'Yemei Sifro'?
(c) What problem do we nevertheless have with the fact that the Tana
mentions Yemei Gamro?
- ... 'Yemei Sifro', why does the Tana need to add 'Yemei Gamro'?
- ... 'Yemei Gamro', why does he need to add 'Yemei Sifro'?
(d) 'u'Mazeh pertains to 'Revi'is Dam', 'Golel' and 'Dofek'.
Why can it
not pertain to ...
- ... 'Keilim ha'Nog'in be'Meis'?
- ... 'Yemei Gamro' and 'Yemei Sifro'?
(a) In all of these cases, the days of Tum'ah do not count in the thirty
days of Nezirus.
Answers to questions
Do they demolish the days that the Nazir already counted
prior to his becoming Tamei?
(b) Does he bring the Korbanos that a Nazir Tamei normally has to bring?
(c) What problem does Rashi have with the fact that, in the case of 'Keilim
ha'Nog'im be'Meis', the Nazir does not count the days of Tum'ah in the days
that he already counted?
(d) What does the Tana say about a Nazir who became a Zav, a Zavah or a
Metzora Musgar? What is the case of a Metzora Musgar?
(a) We have already discussed the explanation of 'Sechachos' which
describes it as 'a stone wall'.
Why is this not considered a Tum'ah
(b) What is the other description of 'Sechachos'?
(c) Why is this not an Ohel d'Oraysa?
(d) According to the interpretation of stone wall, where is the stone wall
situated? Who is buried underneath one of the projecting stones?
(a) Included in the list of things on which a Nazir does not shave is
've'Eretz ha'Amim'. Assuming that Chazal decreed even on the air of Eretz
ha'Amim, then it would even be forbidden to enter it in a wagon or a boat,
or to stand on a bridge there.
What would be the alternative decree?
(b) Assuming that they decreed on the earth of Eretz ha'Amim, what condition
would a 'Shidah, Teivah or Migdol' (various kinds of large box-like
contraptions) have to meet, before one would even be able to travel in them
without becoming Tamei?
(c) Why would Chazal have decreed Tum'ah on ...
(d) According to Rebbi Ya'akov from Orleans, the Mishnah in Ohalos, which
(in spite of our Sugya) implies that there is no Tum'as *Ohel* on the earth
of Chutz la'Aretz, speaks about loose earth that was imported from Chutz
la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael. How does Rabeinu Tam explain it ...
- ... on the air of Chutz la'Aretz (a decree that is even more stringent than Tum'as Ohel)?
- ... on the ground (with the same specifications as Tum'as Ohel)?
- ... initially?
- ... in his second answer (which establishes the Mishnah after the decree)? What distinction does he draw between Tum'as Ohel and Tum'as Eretz ha'Amim?
(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah (on which did Chazal decree) from our
Mishnah, which, after including 'Tum'as Eretz ha'Amim' in the list,
concludes 'u'Mazeh ba'Shelishi u'va'Shevi'i'.
What do we try to prove from
(b) How do we refute that proof? How could the Tana hold 'Mishum Avira' in
spite of the Mishnah?
(c) How do we substantiate this from 'Keilim ha'Nog'im be'Meis', which the
Tana also includes in his list?
(d) How do we know the Tana is not referring to metal vessels, which would
render whoever touched them Tamei for seven days, and require him to be
sprinkled on the third and seventh days?
(a) In which of these latter point does Rebbi Chayim Kohen disagree with
Answers to questions
(b) According to Rebbi Chayim Kohen why do we not then refute the proof and
establish our Mishnah by metal vessels (which do require Haza'ah)?
(c) The Sifri learns from the Pasuk in Chukas "ve'Chibastem Bigdeichem
ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i that clothes that touch a person who touched a Meis are
Tamei for seven days.
Does this mean that the Torah equates clothes with
metal vessels as regards Tum'as Ohel?