prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) What does the Beraisa learn from the fact that the Pasuk in Kedoshim (in connection with Shifchah Charufah) "Bikores Tih'yeh" is written ...
1. ... in the feminine form?
2. ... in the singular?
(b) What does Rebbi Yitzchak learn from the word "Bikores", which he Darshens as "bi'Keri'ah"?
(c) Rav Ashi Darshens the word as 'Bikur Tih'yeh'. What does he mean by that? What sort of examination did Beis-Din make?
(d) Rebbi Yitzchak's D'rashah is based on a Beraisa. If the senior Dayan would read the Parshah, what respective roles did the other two Dayanim play?
(a) What does the Beraisa rule, in a case where the Shifchah does not receive Malkos?
(b) What is the Tana talking about? On what grounds should she not receive Malkos?
(c) How does Rava learn this from the fact that the Pasuk places "Bikores Tih'yeh" in the middle of the Pasuk that deals with the Halachah pertaining to the man ("ve'Ish ki Yishkav es Ishah ... " on one side, and "ve'Heivi es Ashamo la'Hashem" on the other)?
(d) And what do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Heivi es Ashamo la'Hashem" (specifically in the masculine).
(a) How does Rebbi Yitzchak qualify the Din of Shifchah Charufah? In which case will they not be Chayav?
(b) He bases this on his interpretation of "Necherefes le'Ish", which he learns from the Pasuk in Shmuel "va'Tishtach Alav ha'Rifos". What are "Rifos"?
(c) What does this have to do with "Necherefes"?
(d) Commenting on the Pasuk in Ezra "va'Yitnu Yadam Lehotzi Nesheihem va'Asheimim Eil Tzon al Ashmasam, Rav Chisda says that they all had relations with a Shifchah Charufah. From where does he know that?
(a) We already learned in our Mishnah how Rebbi Akiva interprets "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah". How, in the Beraisa, does he interpret "Necherefes le'Ish"?
(b) How does Rebbi Yishmael interpret ...
1. ... "Necherefes le'Ish"?
2. ... "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah"?
3. ... "ki Lo Chufashah" (in the feminine)?
(c) Besides the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, the Beraisa adds that of Acherim, who basically concurs with Rebbi Yishmael. In which point does he disagree with him?
(a) Our Mishnah, as well as the Beraisa, cites the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who concurs with Rebbi Akiva. Why does he find it necessary to echo the opinion of Rebbi Akiva? What does he extrapolate from the Pasuk "ki Lo Chufashah ... ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah"?
(b) Acherim explains "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah" like Rebbi Yishmael. How does he then explain "ki Lo Chufashah"?
(a) Our Mishnah discusses Arayos. What does the Tana say about a case where one of the adulterers is ...
1. ... a Gadol and the other, a Katan?
2. ... awake and the other one, asleep?
3. ... a Meizid and the other one, a Shogeg?
(b) What do we suggest the ruling will be in the equivalent case with regard to a Shifchah Charufah?
(c) On what basis does Rav Yehudah (Amar Rav) refute these suggestions?
(d) How does he therefore interpret the inference from our Mishnah?
(a) On what basis did Rav Sheishes object when a Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa comparing a full Bi'ah to Ha'ara'ah, an intentional act to an unintentional one, a normal Bi'ah to an abnormal one and one performed awake to one performed asleep? What is the problem in establishing this Beraisa in connection with ...
1. ... Shifchah Charufah?
2. ... Arayos?
(b) What is the source for the leniency with regard to the four above cases of Shifchah Charufah?
(c) The Torah specifically forbids Ha'ara'ah by Arayos. What is Ha'ara'ah?
(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with Arayos) "Mishkevei Ishah"?
(a) What was the Beraisa expert's reaction to Rav Sheishes' objection?
(b) Rav Sheishes responded however, by amending the Beraisa to read 'Asu Gomer she'Lo ke'Darkah be'Shifchah Charufah (de'Lo Mechayev) ke'Ma'areh ke'Darkah'. How did he amend ...
1. ... 'Miskaven ke'she'Ein Miskaven'?
2. ... 'Ni'ur ke'Yashen'?
(c) To which case of Arayos does he finally compare ...
1. ... 'Niskaven she'Lo ke'Darkah' and 'Me'areh' by Shifchah Charufah?
2. ... 'Yashen ke'Darkah'?
3. ... 'Ni'ur she'Lo ke'Darkah'?
(d) To what is the Beraisa now comparing the Din of Shifchah Charufah regarding...
1. Niskaven u'Ma'areh?
2. Yashen ke'Darkah?
3. Ni'ur she'Lo ke'Darkah?
(e) What is the source of all of the above leniencies by Shifchah Charufah?
HADRAN ALACH 'ARBA'AH MECHUSREI KAPARAH'
PEREK AMRU LO
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if 'they' told him that he ate Cheilev, he is Chayav a Chatas. What will be the Din if one witness testified that he ate Cheilev and ...
1. ... one claims that he didn't? Will it make a difference if the witnesses are woman?
2. ... he denies having done so?
(b) Rebbi Meir rules that if it his word against that of two witnesses, then he is Chayav to bring a Chatas. What reason does he give for this ruling?
(c) How do the Chachamim counter that?
(a) What distinction does our Mishnah draw between someone who eats Cheilev twice in one Ha'alamah and someone who eats Cheilev, Dam, Pigul and Nosar?
(b) In which case is one species more stringent than many species? When will he be Chayav for eating one species twice, but Patur for many species?
(a) The Reisha of our Mishnah 'Amru Lo Achalta Cheilev' implies that two witnesses told him so. Assuming that he remained silent, what can we infer from there regarding a case where it was only one witness?
(b) What can we infer from the Metzi'asa 'Eid Echad Amar Achalta Cheilev, ve'Hu Amar Lo Achalti, Patur' regarding the Din if he remained silent?
(c) What is now the problem?
(d) If we therefore establish the Reisha where he contradicts the two witnesses and says that he did not eat Cheilev, who will then be the author?
(e) In that case, what does the Seifa 'Shenayim Omrim Achalta Cheilev ... ' then come to teach us?
(a) What does the second Lashon learn from the Mishnah in Yevamos (in connection with a woman whose husband went overseas 'u'Va'u ve'Amru Lah Meis Ba'alech ve'Nis'eis ... Teizei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh'?
(b) And we prove this from the Seifa 'Nis'eis she'Lo bi'Reshus, Muteres Lachzor Lo'. How do we reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa?
(c) If 'Amru Lo' in the Reisha of our Mishnah too, means one witness, why are we forced to say that he remains silent?
(d) What problem do we have with this? Why would we already know it from the Metzi'asa?
(a) So we establish the Reisha where he remains silent. How do we then answer the previous Kashya?
(b) What does the Beraisa extrapolate from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the obligation to bring a Chatas) "O Hoda Eilav Chataso"?
(c) What does the Tana mean when he says "O Hoda Eilav" 'mi'Kol Makom'?
(d) Why must this be talking about one witness and not two?
(e) What have we now proved?