REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 20
(a) What is the difference between a Shevu'ah and a Neder with regard to a
Korban Oleh ve'Yored?
(b) What does the Beraisa then mean when it says 'Mivta Shevu'ah, Isar
(c) What problem do we have with the continuation of the Beraisa 'Isur Isar,
im Atah Omer Isar Shevu'ah, Chayav'?
(a) How does Abaye explain the Beraisa by substituting 'Isar Shevu'ah' for
'Isar Mitfis bi'Shevu'ah'? What did the Noder say?
(b) What is then the Tana's Chidush? Which principle determines that he has
to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored?
(a) What do we learn initially from the Pasuk ...
(b) What is the problem with this, based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "le'Chol
Asher Yevatei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah"?
- ... in Vayikra "O Nefesh Ki Sishava Le'vatei bi'Sefasayim"?
- ... in Matos "Kol Neder ve'Chol Shevu'as Isar?
- ... there "O Asrah Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah"?
(c) So what does Abaye ultimately learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Im
Hayo Yihyeh le'Ish u'Nedarehah Alehah, O Mivta Sefasehah"?
(d) Why is this source better than the previous one?
(a) Rava interprets the Beraisa differently. According to him, the original
wording 'Mivta Shevu'ah, Isar Shevu'ah' remains intact.
How does he then
interpret the continuation 'Isro Isar, Im Atah Omer Isar Shevu'ah ... '?
(b) How does he hold with regard to 'Mitfis bi'Shevu'ah'? Is it considered a
Shevu'ah or not?
(c) The basis of the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is not a new one.
What is their original dispute?
(a) Two of the cases that the Beraisa gives, to describe Isar are 'she'Lo
Ochal Basar ve'she'Lo Eshteh Yayin ke'Yom she'Meis Bo Aviv, ke'Yom she'Meis
Bo P'loni' (or 'Rabo').
Answers to questions
What are the other two?
(b) How does Shmuel qualify the case?
(c) How does this Beraisa conform with Abaye's opinion?
(d) What problem does it create with that of Rava?
(a) How does Rava amend the Lashon 'Eizehu Isar ha'Amur ba'Torah' to read?
(b) The Chidush of the Beraisa stems from the Pasuk in Matos "Ish Ki Yidor
li'Nedor Neder la'Hashem".
What do we in fact, learn from there?
(c) The Chidush lies, not in the case of 'ke'Yom she'Meis Bo Aviv' (which is
obviously a Davar ha'Nadur), but in 'ke'Yom she'Neherag Bo Gedalyah ben
What is the Chidush there? Why might we have thought otherwise?
(d) On what grounds do we reject the Lashon that attributes the Neder taking
effect to the fact that the prohibition is only mi'de'Rabbanan?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Rava.
What did Ravin quote Rebbi Yochanan
as saying in this regard, when he came from Eretz Yisrael?
(b) What is the basic difference between the Lashon 'Sheker' and that of
(c) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, what did he therefore (quoting
Rebbi Yochanan) refer to as ...
(d) What is the significance of this distinction?
- ... Shevu'as Sheker? What is its Azharah?
- ... Shevu'as Shav? What is its Azharah?
(e) And what does Rav Dimi learn from the Pasuk in Matos "Lo Yachel Devaro"?
(a) We ask on Rav Dimi from the Beraisa 'Shav ve'Sheker Echad Hein'.
both really refer to the past, why would one then be called 'Shav' and the
(b) We conclude that in fact, Shav refers to the past and Sheker, to the
future (like Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explained).
Then what does the
Tana mean when he says 'Echad Hein'?
(c) And we support this answer with a Beraisa.
In which connection does
the Tana say that Hashem 'performed the impossible'?
(a) On what grounds do we query the comparison between "Zachor" and "Shamor"
on the one hand, and 'Shevu'as Sheker' and 'Shevu'as Shav' on the other? Why
do we query the idea that we can learn the latter from the former?
(b) What do we learn from the fact that 'Shamor ve'Zachor be'Dibur Echad
(c) And on what grounds do we reject the answer that here too, we learn
Shevu'as Sheker from Shevu'as Shav regarding Malkos?
(d) So what do we learn from what?
(a) How do we learn Malkos by Shevu'as Shav (see Tosfos DH 'Ka Mashma Lan'),
from the Pasuk in Yisro "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hashem ... "?
Answers to questions
(b) Why is this D'rashah not obvious? How else might we have interpreted the