REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 8
SHEVUOS 6-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) We just learned in a Beraisa that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "mi'Tum'os
Bnei Yisrael" (in connection with the Sa'ir Penimi) refers to Tum'as Mikdash
ve'Kodashav, seeing as the Torah has already distinguished it from other
Where does the Torah do this?
(b) In what way does the Korban Olah ve'Yored differ from the Chatas that
one brings for other Tum'os?
(c) In that case, how do we know that it does not pertain to ...
- ... Avodah-Zarah, who brings a goat without the option of bring a lamb (Rav Kahana)?
- ... a Yoledes (a woman who gave birth) who has the option of bringing a Korban Oleh ve'Yored (Rav Hoshaya)?
(a) What did Rav Kahana mean when he said 'Ana Chalak Lehakeil ka'Amrinan,
ve'Hai Chalak Lehachmir'? Which leniency is he referring to?
(b) In that case, what did we mean when we then asked 've'Eima Yoledes'?
(c) How will we answer the Kashya from Yoledes according to Rebbi Shimon,
who holds that a Yoledes is considered a sinner? Which sin is he referring
(a) We then ask 've'Eima Metzora?' Why can the Kashya not be the fact that
he brings birds as a Korban (like we will ask shortly in the case of a Tamei
(b) What is the Kashya?
(c) How does Rav Hoshaya answer this Kashya?
(d) And how will we answer according to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni, who
ascribes Tzara'as to one of seven sins?
(e) Then what is the purpose of the Korban?
(a) We then ask that perhaps "le'Chol Chatosam" refers to a Tamei Nazir.
What leniency pertains to the Korbanos of a Tamei Nazir?
(b) In this case too, we apply Rav Hoshaya's answer, except according to the
opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar.
Of which sin is a Nazir guilty,
according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar?
(c) So how do we know that "le'Chol Chatosam" does not pertain to a Tamei
Nazir according to him?
(a) Rebbi Shimon seems to be right, when he learns from "ve'Chiper al
ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os ... " that the Chatas Penimi comes to atone for Tum'as
Answers to questions
What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from ...
(b) And how does Rebbi Shimon counter Rebbi Yehudah's argument?
- ... there?
- ... the Pasuk there "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" (from which Rebbi Shimon learns Rebbi Yehudah's previous D'rashah)? What might we have thought if not for this Pasuk?
(c) Rebbi Shimon learned from "mi'Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" that the
Sa'ir Penimi does not atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was a
Yedi'ah at the beginning and at the end with a He'elam in the middle.
problem do we have with this D'rashah?
(d) How do we establish the case to solve the problem?
(a) Having established that the Sa'ir Penimi tides over Tum'as Mikdash
ve'Kodashav which is not subject to a Korban, what does the Tana mean when
he asks 'Minayin le'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof
she'Sa'ir Zeh Toleh'? What alternative is there?
(b) What would the Din then be by 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein Bah
(c) But surely, the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz already atones for 'Ein Bah
Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof'?
(d) So what do we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "le'Chol
Chatosam" (by Chatas Penimi) and not "me'Chatosam"?
(a) What objection does Rava raise to Rebbi Zeira's suggestion that 'tides
over' means that, should he die, it will atone for his sin?
(b) Then how does Rava explain it?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir ha'Na'seh ba'Chutz atones for
Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was no Yedi'ah at the beginning but
there was at the end.
Answers to questions
Seeing as the two goats are compared, we ask, how do
we know that the Chatas Penimi does not atone for 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah
bi'Techilah ... ', as well as 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah ba'Techilah ... '?
would be the point of that, seeing as the 'Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz' is
going to be brought anyway, a short while later?
(b) What do we learn from "Ve'chiper Aharon al Karnosav *Achas* ba'Shanah"
(written in connection with the Par ve'Sa'ir ha'Penimi on the Mizbe'ach
(c) And from where do we then learn that conversely, the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh
ba'Chutz does not also atone for 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ', like
the Sa'ir Penimi?
(d) What would be the ramifications if it did? Why would we need two
Korbanos performing the same task?