REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 19
(a) How does the Gemara attempt to prove that Rebbi Akiva, who holds of a
Shelishi le'Tum'ah by Chulin, does not hold like Rebbi Yossi, (who holds of
a Revi'i ba'Kodesh from a Kal va'Chomer)?
(b) On what basis does the Gemara query this proof?
(c) Rav Ashi nevertheless proves it from the Mishnah in Chagigah, which
rules that a. a vessel combines all that is in it by Kodesh, but not by
Terumah; and b. that a Revi'i is Pasul by Kodesh, but not by Terumah.
does the first statement mean?
(d) Rav Ashi's proof is based on Rebbi Yochanan, who connects the above
Mishnah to another Mishnah of Rebbi Akiva.
What does Rebbi Akiva say there
(about a Tevul Yom), and what is the proof?
(a) Why does Rebbi Akiva not hold of Rebbi Yossi's Kal va'Chomer?
(b) How do we find a Revi'i be'Tum'ah d'Oraysa (according to Rebbi Akiva) by
(c) Rebbi Yossi learns a Revi'i ba'Kodesh from a Kal va'Chomer.
d'Oraysa or mi'de'Rabbanan, and how do we know this?
(a) How does Rebbi Yossi (who holds that the fact that liquid can transmit
Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan) find a case of a Shelishi le'Tum'ah d'Oraysa
by Kodesh, and what does he do with the principle of 'Ein Tum'ah Oseh
(b) From where do Rebbi Yossi and his colleagues learn that food renders
liquid Tamei (mi'd'Oraysa), seeing as they do not hold of 'Yitma Yitamei'?
(c) In view of the fact that Rebbi Yossi does not hold of 'Yitma Yitamei'
(and liquid does not transmit Tum'ah) , how could Rebbi Yirmiyah (above, end
of 15b) explain that Rebbi Yossi follows his own reasoning - that liquid
transmits Tum'ah mi'd'Oraysa?
(a) How can frankincense and coal, which are not food, be subject to Tum'as
(b) The proof for Tziruf K'li lies in a Mishnah, which renders all the
ingredients of a vessel (containing flour, incense, frankincense and coal),
Tamei, should a Tevul-Yom touch one of them.
How do we know that that is
because of Tziruf K'li, and not because each one transmits Tum'ah to the
(c) What causes the Gemara to say that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, Tziruf
K'li is only mi'de'Rabbanan?
(d) What does Rav Chanin learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Kaf Achas Asarah
Zahav Melei'ah Ketores"?
(a) What is the difference between a Tamei needle that is found in the flesh
of a Kodshim animal, and one that is found in its dung?
Answers to questions
(b) What does Rebbi Akiva derive from the fact that this Mishnah in Iduyos
renders the hands Tahor in both cases?
(c) Why did Rebbi Akiva use the expression 'Zochim'?
(a) What is wrong with the suggestion that Tum'as Kelim mi'de'Rabbanan had
not yet been decreed when this Mishnah was learnt?
(b) In that case, why did Rebbi Akiva not include Tum'as Kelim in his
statement (see 5b)?
(c) Some say that Chazal did not decree Tum'ah on spittle that is found in
Yerushalayim, others say that they did not decree Tum'ah on vessels that are
found there. How does that present us with a problem from the Mishnah
regarding the needle that was found in the flesh of a Kodshim animal?
(d) The Gemara gives two answers to this Kashya: Rav Yehudah quoting Rav,
answers that the needle, which they recognised, was Tamei Mes.
What is the
(a) Why does an Amora need to inform us that Chazal did not decree Tum'ah on
spittle that is found in Yerushalayim - when we have already learnt this in
a Mishnah in Shekalim?
(b) One can ask a similar Kashya on the other opinion (that they did not
decree Tum'ah on vessels that are found there).
Why can we not infer this
from the Mishnah in Chagiga, which renders vessels found in Yerushalayim on
the way down to the Mikveh, Tamei (suggesting that vessels found elsewhere
(c) Then why does the Tana need to add that vessels found on the way up from
the Mikvah are Tahor.
What can we infer from here, and what does it come
(a) According to Rav, the needle that rendered the flesh of the Kodshim
animal, Tamei, was Tamei Mes.
What does Rebbi Yochanan mean when he adds 'ha'Munach Al Gabei Karka'?
Why did the Gemara initially think that it
should also be Metamei the person and the vessels?
(b) Why then, is this *not* the case?
(c) On what grounds does the Gemara query the inference that, in an
equivalent case in a Reshus ha'Yachid, the person and the vessels would be
(d) We answer this question with a principle of Rebbi Yochanan.
Rebbi Yochanan say?
Answers to questions