REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Horayos 4
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) To what does Rebbi Zeira compare Rebbi Elazar (who refers to a Yachid
who acted by the Beis-Din's ruling after they had retracted as 'Safek'?
(b) What does he mean when he says that this even speaks according to those
who hold that it is the Beis-Din (and not the Kahal) who brings the Korban?
(c) If it is not considered common knowledge, why do we not consider the
Yachid 'Toleh be'Beis-Din'?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Yom Tzavoso"?
(b) Rebbi Yossi bar Avin (or Rebbi Yossi bar Z'vida) compares the ruling of
Sumchus (in the same connection) to someone who brought his Korban during
the period of Bein ha'Shemashos.
What do these two have in common?
(c) And this speaks even according to those who hold that it is the Kahal
who bring the Korban.
Why is that? Seeing as the mistake is public
knowledge, and anybody would have told him why they are bringing a Korban,
why is he not considered 'Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo'?
(a) When ben Azai asked Rebbi Akiva why a Yachid who went overseas is Patur
any more than one who stayed at home, Rebbi Akiva replied that whereas the
latter might have heard about the error, the former was too preoccupied with
his travels to have heard about it. Rebbi Akiva's answer seems obvious.
which case are they actually arguing?
(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(a) After informing us that if Beis-Din negate an entire Mitzvah, they are
Patur from a Chatas, the Beraisa continues (in connection with where they
only negated part of the Mitzvah) 'Yachol Yehu Peturin'.
What is strange
about this suggestion?
(b) We answer that what the Tana really means is that perhaps "Ve'ne'elam
Davar" refers to the whole Mitzvah and not to part of it (the reverse of the
way we actually learn). Ula rejects this proposition by referring to the
same words "Ve'ne'elam Davar".
How does he learn from there that the Pasuk
is talking about part of the Mitzvah?
(c) Chizkiyah learns it from the latter part of the Pasuk "Achas mi'Kol
Mitzvos", implying 've'Lo Kol Mitzvas'.
How can he make such a D'rashah,
bearing in mind that the Torah writes "Mitzvos" in the plural?
(d) According to Rav Ashi, the Tana learns it from Zakein Mamrei, where the
Torah writes in Shoftim "Ki Yipalei Mimcha Davar, Lo Sasur min ha'Davar
Asher Yagidu Lecha ... ".
How does he learn it from there?
(a) In defining part of a Mitzvah, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains that
Beis-Din are not Chayav unless they negate something which the Tzedokim do
not agree with.
Why is that?
(b) We query this from our Mishnah, which gives the example (with reference
to Nidah) of Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, which even the Tzedokim agree with.
Which Pasuk in Tazri'a is the source for Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom?
(c) We also reject the suggestion that they ruled that Ha'ara'ah or she'Lo
ke'Darkah (an unnatural Bi'ah) is permitted.
What is 'Ha'ara'ah'?
(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim ...
- ... "es Mekorah He'erah"?
- ... "Mishkevei Ishah"?
(a) What objection do we raise to the suggestion that the 'part of the
Mitzvah' of a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom refers to Ha'ara'ah by Bi'ah she'Lo
ke'Darkah (which Beis-Din permitted)?
(b) So we revert to the first suggestion.
Why is the ruling that Ha'ara'ah
is permitted by a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom not so obvious? Why would the
Tzedokim not agree with it?
(c) Alternatively, we explain the case, based on the Pasuk "Kol Yemei
How does that explain why the Tana refers specifically to Shomeres
Yom Keneged Yom?
(d) Does it also preclude a Zavah?
(a) We also query Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel from our Mishnah, which gives the
example of part of a Miztvah of Shabbos as when Beis-Din permitted carrying
from one domain to the other.
Answers to questions
Why does the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Lo Sotzi'u
Masa mi'Bateichem" pose a Kashya on Shmuel?
(b) How do we answer the Kashya ...
(c) Our Mishnah also gives as an example of part of a Mitzvah by
Avodah-Zarah as prostrating oneself in front of an Avodah-Zarah.
Considering that the Torah in Ki Sisa specifically writes "Lo Sishtachaveh
le'Eil Acher", why might the Tzedokim not agree that Hishtachavayah is
- ... based on the wording of the Pasuk itself?
- ... even if the Pasuk incorporates Hachnasah (carrying from the street into the house)?
(d) Why might they not even agree by ke'Darkah either?
(a) Rav Yosef asked what the Din will be if Beis-Din permit plowing on
What is the She'eilah? Why should it *not* be considered part of
(b) They queried Rav Yosef from Nidah in our Mishnah, which the Tana
established by 'Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom' (and Shabbos, by 'carrying ... ',
and Avodas-Kochavim, by 'Hishtachavayah').
Why should the negation of
plowing on Shabbos be any worse than the negation of these three?
(a) Rebbi Zeira asked whether it would be considered a partial negation or a
complete one if Beis-Din issued a ruling that Shabbos did not take effect in
the Sh'mitah year.
What would be the source of such an error?
(b) What are the two sides of the She'eilah?
(a) Ravina cites a Beraisa regarding a Navi who prophesies to uproot a
How can we prove anything from a Navi Sheker? Who would take him
(b) What distinction does the Tana there draw between a Navi who prophesies
to uproot an entire Mitzvah and one who prophesies to negate part of one?
(c) What is the exception to this rule?
(d) What are the ramifications of 'Chayav' in the case of a Navi Sheker?
(e) Ravina resolves the She'eilah from the Tana's example of part of a
Mitzvah by Avodah-Zarah.
What example does the Tana give? How does that
solve our She'eilah?
(a) If a member of Beis-Din warned his colleagues that their ruling was in
error, our Mishnah exempts Beis-Din from bringing a Chatas.
Why is that?
(b) What does the Tana say about a case where the most learned sage was not
present (even though all seventy members were)?
(c) The Tana also considers the Beis-Din ha'Gadol deficient in this regard,
if one of the Dayanim was a Ger.
What else would disqualify someone from
sitting on the Beis-Din?
(d) How do we learn this from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Ve'shaftu ha'Eidah,
(a) Why are Beis-Din Patur for issuing an erroneous ruling if the wisest
Chacham was not present?
(b) Rav Chisda learns that the faults mentioned in our Mishnah disqualify a
Dayan from joining the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha
"Ve'hisyatzvu Sham Imach". How does he learn it from there?
(c) We ask on this Limud however 've'Eima Imach li'Shechinah', which might
mean that it was only because they were going to experience Hashra'as
ha'Shechinah that the above were disqualified (but not otherwise).
else may it mean?
(d) So from where does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally learn it?
(e) How can we also learn from here that the current Halachah is confined to
the Beis-Din ha'Gadol?
(a) Our Mishnah obligates Beis-Din to bring a Par He'elam Davar if both the
Beis-Din ruling and the Tzibur's actions were be'Shogeg.
Answers to questions
What will be the
Din assuming that Beis-Din ruled ...
(b) We try to extrapolate from the case in our Mishnah 'Shogegin ve'Asu
Meizidin Patur' that in a case of 'Shogeg Dumya de'Meizid, Chayav'.
- ... be'Meizid and the Tzibur acted be'Shogeg?
- ... be'Shogeg and the Tzibur acted be'Meizid?
is the case?
(c) What do we mean when we say that Beis-Din permitted Cheilev?
(d) How will Rami bar Chama, who asked earlier whether one is Chayav in such
a case or not, reject the proof from here that the Yachid is Chayav?