REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 3
(a) Why did Rebbi learn Shevu'os after Makos? What does the
Mishnah of Hakafas ha'Rosh have to do with our current
(b) Seeing as the opening Mishnah in Shabbos, which also
deals with the two Yetzi'os which are four, did not
mention the three other cases of 'Shetayim she'Hein
Arba', why did our Mishnah do so?
(c) And having opened with 'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba',
why does the Tana then go on to discuss Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah
(a) We have a problem with establishing the author of our
Answers to questions
In which point does ...
(b) On what grounds do we reject the initial suggestion that
either Tana could be the author, and two of the cases are
Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, whereas two are indeed
- ... Rebbi Yishmael argue with the Mishnah's 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Shevu'os?
- ... Rebbi Akiva argue with the Mishnah's 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Tum'ah?
(c) So how do we establish the case of Chayav le'she'Avar, to
establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael?
(a) What is the definition of ...
(b) What do we learn from the fact that in Yisro, the Torah
writes "la'Shav" twice?
- ... a Shevu'as Shav?
- ... a Shevu'as Sheker?
(c) How does Rava qualify this?
(d) What is the Chidush? Why would we have thought that he is
Patur from Malkos in that case?
(a) What problem does establishing 'Shevu'os Shetayim
she'Hein Arba' by Malkos, with regard to the case of
'Shevu'os Shetayim' in the future, where one made a
Shevu'ah to eat something, and then failed to do so?
(b) How do we establish Rebbi Yishmael, to answer this
(c) How do we reconcile this with the Sugya in 'Eilu Hein
ha'Lokin' which rules that, according to Rebbi Yishmael,
Chayvei Asei are not subject to Malkos because the Torah
writes "La'asos" (implying that he holds 'La'av she'Ein
Bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin')?
(a) In Makos we cited a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and
Resh Lakish in connections with someone who takes an oath
to eat a loaf of bread on that day and fails to keep it.
According to Resh Lakish, he does not receive Malkos
because it is a Hasra'as Safek.
What does Rebbi
(b) In what way does this statement of Rebbi Yochanan clash
with his current interpretation of Rebbi Yishmael?
(c) We answer that Rebbi Yochanan found another S'tam Mishnah
that holds 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Ein Lokin Alav'.
On what grounds do we refute the initial suggestion that
the Mishnah concerned is the Mishnah in Makos 'Aval
ha'Mosir be'Tahor ... Eino Lokeh'? If the reason there is
not because 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh Ein Lokin Alav',
then what might it be?
(a) So we cite another S'tam Mishnah in support of Rebbi
Instead of leaving us with two contradictory S'tam Mishnah's, why
did Rebbi not take out the first S'tam?
What does the Tana in the Mishnah in
Shevu'os Shetayim Basra rule with regard to someone who
declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo
Ochlenah'? How many sets of Malkos will he receive if he
subsequently eats the loaf?
(b) What do we extrapolate from the Tana's following
statement 'Zu Hi Shevu'as Bituy she'Chayavin al Zedonah
Makos ve'Al Shigegasah Korban Oleh ve'Yored'?
(c) How do we counter the Kashya why Rebbi Yochanan sees fit
to rule like the later S'tam and not like the earlier
(d) How do we therefore answer both Kashyos with one stroke?
Answers to questions