REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 34
(a) Rav Ashi, from whom we learnt that wheat kernels must be burnt and
disgusting, said this with regard to Aba Shaul, Rebbi's baker.
the case there?
(b) The Mishnah in Terumos says 'Shesilei Terumah she'Nitme'u, Tehorim
Seeing as the Terumah becomes Tahor, why does the Tana
conclude 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol'? How did Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya
bar Avin explain this?
(c) What is the technical difference between Gidulei Terumah and Gidulei
(d) What is the Halachic difference between them?
(a) Faced with other Mishnahs in Terumos forbidding both Gidulei Terumah and
Gudulei Gidulin (in their respective cases), how does Rav Sheshes explain
'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' (in 1b.), and why is it Asur?
What is the problem with Rav Sheshes' interpretation of 'va'Asurin
mi'Le'echol' (in 2a) from Rebbi Yochanan, who considers Hesech ha'Da'as a
Pesul Tum'ah? (Note: This Kashya will only be answered later in the Sugya.)
(b) According to Resh Lakish, Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul ha'Guf.
mi'd'Oraysa or mi'de'Rabbanan?
(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan hold?
(d) What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?
(a) Why did the Kohanim throw the Pesulei Chatas ha'Of into a small cavity
between the west side of the ramp and the Mizbei'ach? Did it remain there
Answers to questions
(b) Which kind of Pesul is the Beraisa referring to, according to Rebbi
Yochanan, and why is that?
(c) What is the difference between a Korban Pesach whose flesh became
intrinsically Pasul, and one that became Pasul because its blood spilt or
because the owner was Tamei?
(d) How does Resh Lakish refute the proof from the Beraisa of 'Pesulei
Chatas ha'Of' that Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul *Tum'ah*, and not a Pesul
*ha'Guf* (by citing the Beraisa that was quoted in the Beis-Hamedrash of
Rabah bar Avuha)?
(a) Rebbi Eliezer permits the blood of a Korban to be sprinkled, even if the
flesh is no longer available to burn or to eat.
Which three cases (with
regard to an animal that is Kodshei Kodshim) does this incorporate?
(b) What does Rebbi Yehoshua hold?
(c) The Gemara attempts to prove from Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion (in
connection with 'Nifsal ha'Basar') that Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah,
like Rebbi Yochanan. Why does the Gemara equate the Pesul of *Nifsal
ha'Basar* with Hesech ha'Da'as? Why not the Pesul Machshavah of *Chutz
li'Zemano* or *Chutz li'Mekomo'*?
(d) How then, does the Gemara attempt to prove that from there that Hesech
ha'Da'as must be a Pesul Tum'ah?
(a) How does the Gemara establish the case of 'Nifsal ha'Basar' according
to Resh Lakish?
(b) But is that not included in 'Nitma'?
(a) On the previous Amud, we asked on Rav Sheshes (who explained that
'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' in the Mishnah in Terumos, means that the re-planted
Terumah fruits are Asur for the Kohanim to eat because of the Pesul of
Hesech ha'Da'as) from Rebbi Yochanan, in whose opinion Hesech ha'Da'as is a
When Rebbi Yirmiyah (who lived in Eretz Yisrael) heard Rav
Sheshes' explanation, he was not too complimentary about the Bavli'im and
their explanations. What did he say about them?
(b) What is Hashakah?
(c) Resh Lakish quoting Rebbi Oshaya, who rules that if one first made
Hashakah with water for Nisuch ha'Mayim (on Succos) which had become Tamei
and then declared it Hekdesh, it is Tahor (and eligible to be poured on the
Mizbei'ach; but that if they reversed the order, only making Hashakah
*after* the water had been declared Hekdesh, then the water would remain
In which way could the water be sanctified other than by declaring
(d) Why did they not simply draw fresh water from the Spring of Shilo'ach?
(a) In the previous question, why should there be a difference between
whether the water was sanctified *before* the Hashakah or *afterwards*?
(b) How does Rebbi Yirmiyah use this answer to explain the Mishnah in
Terumos, which forbids the re-planted Terumah to be eaten, even though it
really becomes Tahor?
(a) Abaye asked Rav Dimi whether the above Ma'aleh applied specifically to
water that became Hekdesh in a K'li Shares, or whether it also extended to
water that was declared Hekdesh verbally. Rav Dimi cited a precedent from
Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan by someone who was pressing grapes that
had become Tamei.
What was he pressing them for?
(b) Whether or not the wine became Tamei depends on whether they were first
pressed and then declared Hekdesh, or vice-versa.
Which is which, and how
does Rav Dimi resolve Abaye's Sha'aleh from there?
(c) Rav Yosef disagrees with Rav Dimi. He establishes Rebbi Yochanan by
grapes of *Terumah*.
Why would grapes of Terumah be any different than
grapes of Hekdesh?
(a) According to the Gemara's first explanation, when Rebbi Yochanan permits
pressing the Tamei Terumah grapes, he must be speaking about pressing less
than a k'Beitzah at a time, in order to avoid a discrepancy beteen his
statement *here*, and in the one he made *above* (on 33b).
What is the
Gemara's second explanation (which establishes his statement here even when
he pressed *more* than a k'Beitzah at a time)?
(b) Why should there be a difference between grapes that are a *Sheni*
le'Tum'ah and grapes that are a *Shelishi*?
(c) We are talking about Chulin (which he subsequently declares Terumah).
Since when is there even such a thing as a *Shelishi* le'Tum'ah by Chulin?
(a) What is the apparent self-contradiction in the Pasuk in Chukas
"*ve'Nasan* Alav Mayim Chayim *El Keli*"?
Answers to questions
(b) How does the Gemara resolve this, and what does it prove from there?
(c) What further proof does the Gemara bring for the concept of 'Ma'aleh'
from the Din of Ha'arev Shemesh by a Mechusar Kipurim (a Zav, a Zavah or a
Yoledes)? In which way is this Ma'aleh different than all the others?
(d) What do we learn from the 'Vav' in "*ve'ha'Basar*, kol Tahor Yochal
Basar"? What final proof does the Gemara bring for the concept of Ma'alah