REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 33
(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where Reuven asks witnesses to testify
that Shimon has a deposit, a loan, theft and a lost article belonging to him, and
they reply with a Shevu'ah ...
(b) What does the Tana say about Reuven who asks witnesses to testify that Shimon has
of his a deposit comprising wheat, barley and spelt?
- ... that they know of no such testimony?
- ... that they are not aware that Shimon has a deposit, a loan, theft and a loss of his?
(c) Why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat the Halachah?
(a) What does the Tana say about a case where Reuven says to two witnesses 'Mashbi'a
Ani Aleichem Im Lo Tavo'u Ve'te'iduni ...
(b) And he says the same about 'Mashbi'a Ani Aleichem Im Lo Tavo'u Ve'te'iduni
she'Hikani B'ni', ve'she'Chaval bi Chaveri ve'she'Hidlik Gedishi be'Yom ha'Kipurim'.
- ... she'Yesh Li be'Yad P'loni Nezek, ve'Chatzi Nezek, Tashlumei Kefel, ve'Tashlumei Arba'ah ve'Chamishah'?
- ... she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti, u'Pitah es Biti'?
Why must 'she'Hikani B'ni' be speaking about a wound that is less than a Shaveh
P'rutah (even though 've'she'Chaval bi Chaveri' speaks about one that is more)?
(c) What Chidush is the last case in the Mishnah 've'she'Hidlik Gedishi be'Yom
ha'Kipurim' coming to teach us?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with payment of a
K'nas) "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim"?
(b) We ask whether Eidei K'nas who deny knowledge of the testimony, are Chayav to
bring a Korban or not.
What is the basis of the She'eilah? Why might they be ...
(c) Why does the She'eilah not even begin according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?
What does he say about witnesses who testify after the defendant has already admitted
that he owes the K'nas?
- ... Patur?
- ... Chayav nonetheless?
(d) Why can the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon not hold like Rebbi Elazar
b'Rebbi Shimon in the previous Sugya ('Mashbi'a Eid Echad, Chayav')?
(a) In rejecting the proof from 'Chatzi Nezek' in our Mishnah, that the witnesses are
Chayav for their denial in cases of K'nas, we initially establish the case according
to those who hold in Bava Kama 'Palga Nizka Mamona'.
How do we then establish it
even according to those who hold 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'?
(b) Why can we not resolve the She'eilah from the cases of K'nas in our Mishnah ...
(c) If the Chidush is not 'K'nas' then what is the Chidush ...
- ... 'Tashlumei Kefel' and 'Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah'?
- ... 'she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti u'Pitah es Biti'?
(d) This comes to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah.
- ... in the Reisha ('Chatzi Nezek, Kefel, Arba'ah va'Chamishah')?
- ... in the Seifa ('she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti ve'she'Pitah es Biti ... ve'she'Hidlik es Gedishi be'Yom ha'Kipurim')?
he say in a case where Reuven lit Shimon's haystack on Yom Kipur?
(a) What do we try and prove from the Beraisa, which obligates witnesses who deny
knowledge that Shimon married Reuven's daughter and then claimed that she had not
been a virgin when he married her, to bring a Korban?
Answers to questions
(b) To reject the proof, who do we establish as the author of the Beraisa?
(c) We query this however, by pointing out that the Seifa 'Hodeh mi'Pi Atzmo, Patur',
seems to go like the Rabbanan.
What makes us say that? How do we initially explain
(d) We finally establish the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.
will we then establish the Seifa?
(a) Why does our Mishnah exempt the witnesses from a Korban where, following Reuven's
claim, they deny knowledge that ...
(b) Why can the Tana not mean that Shimon raped his own daughter and he is Patur
because he is Chayav Misah?
- ... Reuven is a Kohen, or a Levi, not a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah, or that Shimon is a Kohen ... '?
- ... Levi raped Shimon's daughter or enticed her?
(c) The Tana concludes 've'she'Chaval bi B'ni, ve'she'Chaval bi Chaveri ve'she'Hidlik
What is the reason for these three rulings?
(a) Why did the Tana insert the case of 'Ish P'loni Kohen Hu ... ', implying that in
a case of 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yad P'loni (which involves a monetary claim), the
witnesses would be Chayav.
Why is that, bearing in mind that it is (apparently) a
third person who is claiming from the witnesses? How does Shmuel therefore establish
(b) The Neherda'i prohibit writing an Urch'sa on Metaltelin.
What is an 'Urch'sa'?
What is the Neherda'i's reason?
(c) How do we now reconcile Shmuel (who was Rosh Yeshivah in Neherda'a) with the
(a) What does Rebbi Eliezer learn from the fact that the Torah writes "O Ra'ah O
Yada" here (by Shevu'as ha'Eidus), and "O bi'Sesumes Yad O be'Gazel O Ashak"?
(b) We prefer to learn from the 'O'in' of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon rather than from the
'O'in' of Rotze'ach ("O be'Eivah Hikahu O Hishlich Alav bi'Tzedi'ah"), which do not
refer specifically to Mamon, because it is not speaking about Shevu'ah.
But why do
we not learn from the 'O'in' of Sotah ("O Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah O Ish Asher Ta'avor
Alav ... "), which does mention Shevu'ah, and which, like Rotze'ach, is not confined
specifically to Mamon?
(a) And what does ...
Answers to questions
(b) What is a case of ...
- ... Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk (by Shevu'as Oleh ve'Yored) "Vehayah Ki Ye'sham le'Achas *me'Eileh*"?
- ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learn from "ve'Hu Eid O Ra'ah O Nishba"?
(c) In which point does Rebbi Shimon learn Shevu'as Eidus from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon?
- ... Re'iyah without Yedi'ah?
- ... Yedi'ah without Re'iyah?
(d) How does Rebbi Shimon initially back this up with a 'Kal va'Chomer'? Which series
of Chumros does Pikadon have over Eidus?