REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 28
(a) What is the Din of a woman who miscarries a cut leg or a cut foot?
The Beraisa say 'ha'Mapeles, ve'Ein Yadu'a Mah Hipilah, Teishev le'Zachar
(b) Why may we have said otherwise?
(c) Why do we not give her the days of Taharah?
(d) According to the above, why does the Beraisa not add 'u'le'Nidah'?
(a) If a baby sticks out its hand from the womb and withdraws it, is the
mother Temei'ah Leidah, and from where do we know that?
A woman who gives birth to a Tumtum or an Androginus must sit the fourteen
days of Tum'ah of a female, and the thirty-three days of Taharah of a male?
(b) How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa, which writes that, if a baby
sticks out its hand, we do not contend with it at all?
(c) What is the problem with this answer, and what does the Gemara
(d) But Rav Huna quoted a Pasuk, so how can he then say that she is
Temei'ah only mi'de'Rabbanan?
(a) Why does the Tana need to repeat this Din in a case where she gave
birth to a Tumtum or an Androginus in addition to a male?
A Tumtum or an Androginus who see Loven and Odem, are not Chayav to bring a
Korban for entering the Beis Hamikdash, yet Terumah which touched them must
(b) What does she sit, if she gives birth to a Tumtum or an Androginus in
addition to a female, and why?
(c) According to the Din of the Mishnah, what is the difference between a
baby that emerges cut up or feet first, and one that is born whole and that
emerges head first?
(d) Which part of the head determines his status of 'born'.
Why the difference, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav?
Answers to questions
Alternatively, the above statement (quoted in 4) could go according to
Rebbi Eliezer, but not according to Rebbi Akiva.
(a) What does that mean?
(b) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, why does one not also exempt Terumah
from being burnt, since the Torah writes "ve'ha'Zov es Zovo, la'Zachar
ve'la'Nekeivah"? - What do we learn from "le'Zachar ve'La'Nekeivah"?
(c) Why can we not also say that we need "mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah
Teshaleichu" to exempt earthenware vessels from being sent out of the
(d) Why can we not say that, had the Torah written "Adam", we would have
also excluded *metal* vessels from being sent out?
(a) Finally, how do we know from "mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah" etc., to
preclude earthenware vessels from needing to be sent out of the Azarah;
maybe the Pasuk comes to teach us Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Din exclusively?
How is it, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, that when it comes to Erchin,
we do not preclude a Tumtum and an Androginus from "Zachar" and "Nekeivah",
only from "*ha*'Zachar" and from "*ve'Im* Nekeivah"?
(b) And how do we know that the Derashah is confined to a Zav or Keri? Why
do we not say that a Tumtum, for example, who became Tamei Meis and then
entered the Azarah, is not Patur?