REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Horayos 3
HORAYOS 3-4 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for the Torah and for those who study it.
(a) In a Mishnah later, Rebbi Yehudah will rule that if seven tribes sin
be'Shigegas Hora'ah, they bring seven bulls.
Why is that?
(b) Are Beis-Din obligated to bring another Par, according to him?
(c) What conclusion does this force us to consider vis-a-vis the first of
the two Beraisos currently under discussion, which we established like Rebbi
(d) Maybe that is why Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel establishes that Beraisa like
another Tana (and the second Beraisa like the Chachamim).
(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Horu ve'Asu, Rebbi Meir Poter'.
What do the
(b) Why can 've'Asu' not pertain to ...
(c) So to whom do we think the Tana is referring when he says 've'Asu'? What
will then be the basis of their Machlokes?
- ... Beis-Din? What do we learn from "ha'Kahal ve'Asu"?
- ... Rov Tzibur?
(d) Rav Papa refutes this proof however. In his opinion, even the Rabbanan
agree that 'Yachid she'Asah be'Hora'as Beis-Din Patur', and the Mishnah is
speaking about 'Rov Tzibur'.
How does he establish the case in order to
then justify Rebbi Meir?
(a) Alternatively, we establish the case by Rov Kahal, and the Rabbanan are
Rebbi Shimon, who say 'Chayav', and who hold that by Shigegas Hora'as, the
Tzibur is obligated to bring a Par as well as Beis-Din. What does Rebbi
Meir then hold?
(b) Another alternative is when a tribe followed the ruling of its Beis-Din,
and the Chachamim are Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say in such a
(c) What will Rebbi Meir then hold?
(a) Finally, we suggest that the Rabbanan hold like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar
Amar Rebbi Meir.
What does he say about six tribes comprising the majority
of K'lal Yisrael that sinned?
(b) What other case does he include in this ruling?
(c) And what will Rebbi Meir then hold?
(d) What does Rav Asi comment (regarding who is included in Rov Tzibur),
based on the Pasuk in Melachim "Va'ya'as Sh'lomoh ba'Eis ha'Hi es ha'Chag
ve'Chol Yisrael Imo *Kehal Gadol mi'Lavo Chamas ad Nachal Mitzrayim* ... "?
(a) In the Mishnah in the third Perek the Tana Kama holds that a Kohen
Mashu'ach or a Nasi who sins prior to his appointment, brings a 'Kisbah O
Se'irah, even if he only became aware of the sin afterwards.
Rebbi Shimon say?
(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(c) How do we apply that Machlokes here to Rov and Miy'ut Kahal?
(a) We ask whether Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan will also argue in the
reverse case (where a minority of the Kahal sinned, only later they became a
majority. How is this possible?).
What would each Tana then hold?
(b) What is the basis of the She'eilah? Why might we think that they remain
Patur even according to Rebbi Shimon?
(c) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?
(d) And, to prove it, we conclude 'de'im-Kein, Laysi ke'de'Hashta'.
does this mean?
(a) We ask what the Din will be in a case where Beis-Din ruled twice that
Cheilev was permitted, and each time a Miy'ut Kahal followed their ruling.
Why might they not be Chayav?
(b) Assuming that the two Miy'utim do combine (seeing as they committed the
same sin), why might they not do so, in a similar case, only where Beis-Din
first permitted the Cheilev on the stomach, and then the Cheilev on the
(c) On the assumption that they combine there as well, we ask whether a
Miy'ut Kahal who followed Beis-Din's ruling permitting Cheilev, and another
Miy'ut Kahal who followed their ruling permitting blood, will combine, too.
What makes us think that they ...
(d) And assuming that even they combine, why do we suggest that a Miy'ut
Kahal who followed Beis-Din's ruling permitting blood, and another Miy'ut
Kahal who followed their ruling permitting Avodas-Kochavim, will also
combine (even though they require different Korbanos [Kisbah O Se'irah and
Se'irah only, respectively], as well as being different Isurin)?
- ... might not (seeing as they are both Chayav Kareis)?
- ... might nevertheless combine?
(e) What is the outcome of these She'eilos, and of the next one?
(a) We then ask, assuming that 'Cheilev ve'Cheilev' combine, whether they
will combine even if the two rulings were issued by two consecutive
Answers to questions
According to which opinion is this She'eilah not applicable?
(b) On what grounds might they not combine?
(a) What does Rebbi Yonasan learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Im *Kol Adas
(b) Based on the principle 'Rubo ke'Kulo', how does Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav
Yehoshua prove it from the Lashon of the Pasuk?
(c) Our Mishnah obligates member of Beis-Din or a Talmid who knows that
Beis-Din erred, to bring a Korban, because he did not rely on Beis-Din's
What can we infer from there that will pose a Kashya on Rebbi
(d) How do we establish the Mishnah to answer the Kashya?
(a) What will the next Mishnah rule in a case where one member of Beis-Din
informed the others that they had erred?
(b) This implies that if he had remained silent, they would have been Chayav
(even though one of the Dayanim does not agree with their ruling).
will Rebbi Yonasan refute the proof from there that not all members of
Beis-Din need to rule, to be considered 'Shigegas Hora'ah'?
(a) What did Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok say
with regard to issuing a decree on the community?
(b) Rav Ada bar Aba learns this from the Pasuk in Malachi "bi'Me'eirah Atem
Ne'arim, ve'Osi Atem Kov'im ha'Goy Kulo".
How does he learn it from there?
(c) How does Rav Mesharshaya finally prove Rebbi Yonasan wrong from there?
(d) So how will we interpret "Kol Adas Yisrael" in the Pasuk in Vayikra?
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that if ten people sit to judge, they are
all responsible for the outcome (and punishable should they err). This is
obvious! What is he coming to teach us?
(b) Why would Rav Huna take ten Talmidei-Chachamim with him when he went to
Beis-Din to adjudicate?
(c) Rav Ashi did a similar thing.
Whom would he call when people brought
Safek T'reifos before him to inspect?
(a) If Beis-Din erred and retracted, but meanwhile, a Yachid acted on their
ruling, Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah exempts him from a Korban.
Why is he
not included in the Korban that the Tzibur bring (the Par He'elam Davar)?
(b) Will it make any difference whether Beis-Din had already brought their
Korban or not?
(c) Rebbi Elazar says 'Safek'.
What does he mean? What are the
ramifications of his ruling?
(d) Under which circumstances will Rebbi Elazar agree that he is Patur from
(a) How did Rebbi Akiva explain to ben Azai the difference between a Yachid
who was sitting at home and one who went overseas?
(b) What does our Mishnah say about Beis-Din who erred in saying that there
is no Isur of Nidah, Shabbos or Avodas-Kochavim min ha'Torah?
(c) What example do they give of 'Levatel Miktzas regarding ...
(d) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk "Ve'ne'elam Davar"?
- ... Nidah?
- ... Shabbos?
- ... Avodas-Kochavim?
(a) According to the first Lashon of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, Rebbi Shimon
exempts the Yachid from a Korban, because he acted with the sanction of
What does he say in the second Lashon?
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, the Par of the Tzibur was
purchased with money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah (part of the funds donated
annually by the people).
What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(c) What problem does this create with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (in Rebbi
(d) We answer this Kashya in three ways. 1. that they claimed from him S'tam
(without explaining what the money was for); 2. that he was out of town when
the Gaba'im claimed from all the residents.
What is the third answer
(based on another Beraisa which cites the opinions of Rebbi Yehudah and
Rebbi Shimon differently)?
(a) Our Mishnah cited the opinions of Rebbi Shimon, who exempts the Yachid
(who acted on the Beis-Din's ruling after they had retracted) from a Korban,
and Rebbi Elazar, who holds 'Safek'. The Beraisa cites two additional
opinions, one of them, Rebbi Meir.
Answers to questions
What does Rebbi Meir say?
(b) They cite Sumchus who says 'Taluy'.
How does Rebbi Yochanan explain
this, to distinguish between Sumchus and Rebbi Elazar?