1)

(a)The Beraisa continued "Divrei", 'Eilu ha'Erchin, ha'Charamim ve'ha'Hekdeishos'. The Machlokes by Erchin revolves around a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan. What does Rebbi Meir say about Reuven who promises to give the Erech of a baby less than one month old?

(b)What is his reason?

(c)Assuming that the treasurer of Hekdesh claimed the money from Reuven, how might this involve a Chiyuv Kareis?

(d)How else might it involve a Chiyuv Kareis?

(e)Why, according to the Rabbanan, would Reuven not be Chayav Kareis anyway, if he brought the animal to the Azarah as an Asham Me'ilos?

1)

(a)We learned in the Beraisa "Divrei", 'Eilu ha'Erchin, ha'Charamim ve'ha'Hekdeishos'. The Machlokes by Erchin revolves around a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan. Rebbi Meir rules that if Reuven promises to give the Erech of a baby less than one month old - he is obligated to pay Hekdesh his regular value (Damav).

(b)His reason is - based on the principle 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah' (a person doesn't make declarations for nothing),

(c)Assuming that the treasurer of Hekdesh claimed the money from Reuven, this would involve a Chiyuv Kareis - if someone then used the money to betroth a woman, she would not be Mekudeshes (according to Rebbi Meir [unless he was aware that the money was Hekdesh]), but who would be Mekudeshes according to the Rabbanan, rendering anyone who subsequently married her, Chayav Kareis, but not according to Rebbi Meir.

(d)It might also involve a Chiyuv Kareis - if the person who used it subsequently purchased an Asham Me'ilos for having used Hekdesh, which would be a valid Asham according to Rebbi Meir (to be Mechayev Kareis anyone who ate from it be'Tum'ah), but not according to the Rabbanan ...

(e)... since the animal will be Chulin ba'Azarah (irrespective of his intentions), for which there is no Chiyuv Kareis.

2)

(a)The Machlokes by Charamim is that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan. What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael Kodesh Kodshim Hu la'Hashem"?

(b)What do the Rabbanan say?

(c)How do they explain the Pasuk in Bechukosai?

(d)How does this case then involve Kareis and Chatas?

2)

(a)The Machlokes by Charamim is that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan. Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael Kodesh Kodshim Hu la'Hashem" - that 'S'tam Charamim le'Bedek ha'Bayis' (and are therefore subject to Me'ilah).

(b)The Rabbanan hold - 'S'tam Charamim le'Kohanim' (in which case there is no Me'ilah).

(c)They explain the Pasuk in Bechukosai to mean - that Cherem takes effect even on Kodshei Kodshim and on Kodshim Kalim.

(d)This case involves Kareis and Chatas - according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah (in the way that we explained by Erchin), but not according to the Rabbanan.

3)

(a)And the Machlokes by Hekdeishos is based on that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan (that we discussed in the first Perek). What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say about assessing a golden fork of Hekdesh (in order to redeem it)?

(b)What do the Rabbanan hold?

(c)How will Kareis and Chatas apply to this case?

3)

(a)And the Machlokes by Hekdeishos is based on that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan (that we discussed in the first Perek). Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov rules - that even assessing a golden fork of Hekdesh (in order to redeem) it requires ten people ...

(b)... whereas according to the Rabbanan - only Hekdesh Karka requires ten assessors.

(c)Kareis and Chatas will apply to this case - if less than ten people assessed Metaltelin of Hekdesh, which remains Hekdesh according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, and is therefore subject to Kareis in the way that we explained by Erchin, but not according to the Rabbanan.

4)

(a)The Tana continued "Rivos" 'Zeh Hashka'as Sotah, va'Arifas Eglah ve'Taharos Metzora'. The Machlokes by Hashka'as Sotah is that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, in the Mishnah in Sotah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kinuy (the husband's warning) requires two witnesses, the S'tirah (the seclusion with another man), one, or even the husband himself. What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?

(b)What monetary ramifications does this Machlokes have?

(c)How might this involve Kareis and a Korban Chatas?

(d)The basis of the Machlokes by 'Arifas Eglah' is another Mishnah in Sotah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, they would measure the distance to the nearest town from the murdered man's navel, according to Rebbi Akiva, from his nose. What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say?

(e)And how might this lead to a Chiyuv Kareis and Chatas.

4)

(a)The Tana continued "Rivos" 'Zeh Hashka'as Sotah, va'Arifas Eglah ve'Taharos Metzora'. The Machlokes by Hashka'as Sotah is that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, in the Mishnah in Sotah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kinuy (husband's warning) requires two witnesses, the S'tirah (the seclusion with another man), one, or even the husband himself. Rebbi Yehoshua - requires two witnesses for the S'tirah as well.

(b)The monetary ramifications of this Machlokes - concern the woman's Kesuvah, which, assuming there was only one witness for the S'tirah, she will lose should she refuse to drink the water (in the Beis ha'Mikdash) according to Rebbi Eliezer, but not according to Rebbi Yehoshua.

(c)This will involve Kareis and a Korban Chatas in the event that she sells her Kesuvah, and the purchaser seizes it from her husband. Should he then betroth a woman with the Kesuvah, she is betrothed to him according to Rebbi Yehoshua, but not according to Rebbi Eliezer, with the obvious ramifications of Kareis that we have already discussed.

(d)The basis of the Machlokes by 'Arifas Eglah' is another Mishnah in Sotah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, they would measure the distance to the nearest town from the murdered man's navel, and according to Rebbi Akiva, from his nose. Whereas Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds - that they measure from his neck (from which he generally becomes a Chalal).

(e)This will lead to a Chiyuv Kareis and Chatas - if for example, the Zakein measured from his navel and the Beis-Din from his nose, and they each brought a calf (which is Asur be'Hana'ah according to the opinion that considers it valid). If two people then betrothed a woman with the two calves, the Kidushin of each would be valid according to the one opinion, but not according to the other.

5)

(a)A Mishnah in Nigmar ha'Din serves as the source of the Machlokes regarding 'Taharas Metzora'. The Tana Kama holds that if the Metzora has no right thumb or big toe (on which to place the blood of the Asham), he can never become Tahor, whereas according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kohen places it on the spot where they ought to have been. What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(b)And how might this Machlokes lead to Kareis and a Chatas?

5)

(a)A Mishnah in Nigmar ha'Din serves as the source of the Machlokes regarding 'Taharas Metzora'. The Tana Kama holds that if the Metzora has no right thumb or big toe (on which to place the blood of the Asham), he can never become Tahor, whereas according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kohen places it on the spot where they ought to have been. Rebbi Shimon says - that if the Metzora has no right thumb or big toe, then they place the blood on his left right thumb or big toe.

(b)And this Machlokes will lead to Kareis and a Chatas - if for example, the Kohen places the blood on the Metzora's left thumb ... like Rebbi Shimon, and the latter subsequently enters the Beis-Hamikdash or eats Kodesh, in which case he will be Chayav Kareis according to the Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Shimon.

6)

(a)Finally the Tana Darshens "bi'She'arecha", 'Zeh Leket, Shikchah u'Pe'ah'. The first two revolve around a Machlokes Tana'im in a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where the Tana Kama considers two grains Leket, and two sheaves, Shikchah, whereas three, remain the owner's. What do Beis Shamai say?

(b)The Machlokes by Pe'ah is based on a Machlokes in another Mishnah there, where the Tana Kama permits the owner to separate Pe'ah even from the sheaves, from the pile, and even after Miru'ach (the flattening of the pile), if need be. What must the owner be careful to do in the latter case, before separating Pe'ah?

(c)What does Rebbi Yishmael say? On what grounds do the Chachamim disagree?

(d)In all three cases, how might this lead to a Chiyuv Kareis or Chatas?

(e)On which principle are these two rulings based?

6)

(a)"bi'She'arecha", 'Zeh Leket, Shikchah u'Pe'ah'.= The first two revolve around a Machlokes Tana'im in a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where the Tana Kama considers two grains Leket, and two sheaves Shikchah, whereas three remain the owner's. According to Beis Shamai in both cases - three is still considered Leket and Shikchah, and it is only four that still belongs to the owner,

(b)The Machlokes by Pe'ah is based on a Machlokes in another Mishnah there, where the Tana Kama permits the owner to separate Pe'ah even from the sheaves, from the pile, and even after Miru'ach (the flattening of the pile), if need be. Before separating Pe'ah, the owner must be careful to separate Ma'asros.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael adds - that the owner can separate Pe'ah even after it has been made into a dough - despite the fact that the owner acquires the dough with Shinuy Ma'aseh (for which reason the Chachamim's disagree).

(d)Should the Ani seize the dough as Pe'ah or take three grains as Leket and Shikchah and the owner take it back from him and then betroth a woman (see Maharsha), the woman will be Mekudeshes according to the Tana Kama and the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yishmael respectively (but not according to Beis Shamai and Rebbi Yishmael) ...

(e)... due to the principle 'he'Mekadesh be'Gezel Einah Mekudeshes).

7)

(a)According to Rav Kahana, the Zakein Mamrei is not Chayav Misah if both he and the Beis-Din say that they received their respective rulings from their Rebbes, or if they both said it from a 'S'vara'. In which case then, is he Chayav?

(b)And he proves this from Akavya ben Mahalalel. What did Akavya ben Mahalalel instruct his son to do before he died?

(c)Then why did he himself not retract?

(d)What do we prove from there?

7)

(a)According to Rav Kahana, the Zakein Mamrei is not Chayav Misah if both he and the Beis-Din say that they received their respective rulings from their Rebbes, or if they both said it from a 'S'vara' - only if he states his opinion from a S'vara, and the Beis-Din, from their Rebbes.

(b)And he proves this from Akavya ben Mahalalel - who instructed his son before he died, to retract from the four rulings in which he disagreed with the Chachamim in the Lishkas ha'Gazis (and who was not considered a Zakein Mamrei).

(c)He himself did not retract, he told his son - because he, like the Chachamim, had heard the rulings from his Rebbes (unlike his son, who had heard it from him, who was only a Yachid).

(d)We prove from here - that even if both the Zakein Mamrei and the Beis-Din received their respective rulings from their Rebbes, he is not sentenced to death.

8)

(a)Rebbi Elazar disagrees. On what grounds does he maintain that a Chacham has the Din of a Zakein Mamrei even if he received his ruling from his Rebbe?

(b)Why is that?

(c)Then why did they not sentence Akavya ben Mahalalel to death?

(d)Like which of the four above cases do we initially establish our Mishnah 'Kach Darashti ve'Kach Darshu Chaverai, Kach Limadti ve'Kach Limdu Chaverai'? On whom is this a Kashya?

(e)So how do we establish our Mishnah even like Rav Kahana?

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Elazar - a Chacham has the Din of a Zakein Mamrei even if he received his ruling from his Rebbe ...

(b)... in order to minimize Machlokes in Yisrael.

(c)And the reason that they did not sentence Akavya ben Mahalalel to death, according to him was - because he only argued with the Chachamim in theory, but did not issue rulings to conform with his theories.

(d)Initially, we establish our Mishnah 'Kach Darashti ve'Kach Darshu Chaverai, Kach Limadti ve'Kach Limdu Chaverai' - like the last case, where he quoted his Rebbes and they ruled from a S'vara, a Kashya on Rav Kahana.

(e)We finally establish our Mishnah - in the opposite case, when he ruled from a S'vara and they quoted their Rebbes, to conform with Rav Kahana.

9)

(a)We query Rav Kahana from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yashiyah quotes three things that he heard from Ze'iri of Yerushalayim. What did he say about Mechilah, with regard to ...

1. ... a husband and the Kinuy of his Sotah wife?

2. ... the parents of a ben Sorer u'Moreh (even after he has already received Malkos) and Beis-Din and a Zakein Mamrei?

(b)With which of the three rulings did his colleagues in the south disagree? What reason did they give for this?

(c)How do we finally prove Rav Kahana wrong from there?

9)

(a)We query Rav Kahana from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yashiyah quotes three things that he heard from Zeiri of Yerushalayim. He said that ...

1. ... a husband cannot be Mochel (forego) the Kinuy of his Sotah wife, but that ...

2. ... the parents of a ben Sorer u'Moreh can be Mochel their son (even after he has already received Malkos) and that Beis-Din can be Mochel a Zakein Mamrei.

(b)His colleagues in the south disagreed - with the latter ruling. They deny Beis-Din the right to be Mochel a Zakein Mamrei 'in order to minimize Machlokes in Yisrael'.

(c)The reason of the Rabbanan in the Beraisa - indicates that the Zakein Mamrei is sentenced to death in all cases (like Rebbi Elazar), leaving us with a Kashya on Rav Kahana.

88b----------------------------------------88b

10)

(a)We cite a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi discusses the early generations until that of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. What advantage did they enjoy over subsequent generations?

(b)How was this ensured?

(c)Who accompanied the Zakein Mamrei to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, besides the Beis-Din of his town?

(d)How would the Beis-Din ha'Gadol decide the Halachah in the event that they had not heard it from their Rebbes?

10)

(a)We cite a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi discusses the early generations until that of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. The advantage they over subsequent generations was - the fact that their conclusions in Halachah were unanimous (free of Machlokes).

(b)This was ensured - by means of the various Sanhedriyos that we discussed in the Mishnah, which passed on all their doubts to the Sanhedrin of the nearest town, until they reached the Sanhedrin which sat at the entrance to the Har ha'Bayis, and from their, they were passed on to the Sanhedrin which at at the entrance of the Azarah and from there to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol in the Lishkas ha'Gazis (the ultimate authority).

(c)Besides the Beis-Din of his town - the Beis-Din which sat at the entrance to the Azarah accompanied the Zakein Mamrei to the Beis-ha'Din ha'Gadol.

(d)In the event that they had not heard it from their Rebbes, the Beis-Din ha'Gadol would decide the Halachah - by taking a vote based on their own S'varos, and by following the majority.

11)

(a)When would the Beis-ha'Gadol convene each day?

(b)Where would they convene on Shabbos and Yom-Tov?

(c)Why (besides the possible reason that there were a lot of visitors then and it would have been too squashed in the Lishkas ha'Gazis), might they have changed their location on those days?

(d)What caused the increase in Machlokes among Talmidei-Chachamim from the time of Beis-Shamai and Beis Hillel? What does 'two Toros' (an off-shoot of those Machlokos) mean?

11)

(a)The Beis-ha'Gadol would convene each day - from the time of the Korban Tamid shel Shachar until that of the Korban Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.

(b)On Shabbos and Yom-Tov - they would relocate to the Chil.

(c)Besides the possible reason that there were a lot of visitors then and it would have been too squashed in the Lishkas ha'Gazis, they might have changed their location on those days - to convey the message that they were not actually judging (since Chazal forbade judging on Shabbos and Yom-Tov).

(d)The increase in Machlokes among Talmidei-Chachamim from the time of Beis-Shamai and Beis Hillel - was caused by the Talmidim not serving their Rebbes (incorporating learning from them) with sufficient diligence). 'Two Toros' (an off-shoot of those Machlokos) means - that some said 'Chayav', and others 'Patur', some said 'Asur', and others said 'Mutar' ... (i.e. their rulings were no longer unanimous).

12)

(a)We have already learned that the Beis-Din ha'Gadol was responsible for appointing the members of the Sanhedriyos in the towns. What quality, besides wisdom and humility, did candidates for that post require?

(b)What procedure did they follow regarding the appointment to the Beis-Din of Har ha'Bayis, of the Azarah and of the Lishkas ha'Gazis?

12)

(a)We have already learned that the Beis-Din ha'Gadol was responsible for appointing the members of the Sanhedriyos in the towns. Besides wisdom and humility, candidates for that post - needed to be well-liked by the people.

(b)The procedure regarding the appointment to the Beis-Din of Har ha'Bayis, of the Azarah and of the Lishkas ha'Gazis - would follow the death of a member of one of them, following which the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol, would appoint someone from the Beis-Din immediately below that one, to take his place (and a new Dayan from the lower-Beis Din, to fill his.

13)

(a)In which connection did they point out Rav Ula bar Aba in Eretz Yisrael?

(b)Besides constantly learning, he was also 'Lo Machzik Tivusa le'Nafsheih'. What does this mean?

(c)Which other qualities did he possess?

13)

(a)They pointed out Rav Ula bar Aba in Eretz Yisrael - as being a ben Olam ha'Ba.

(b)Besides constantly learning, he was also 'Lo Machzik Tivusa le'Nafsheih', meaning - that he thought that he owed Hash-m more than Hash-m owed him.

(c)He also possessed the qualities of - internal and external humility.

14)

(a)The Beraisa requires either that the Zakein Mamrei puts his theories into practice or that others do. What problem do we have with the first possibility?

(b)How do we partially solve the problem?

(c)On what grounds do we query the suggestion that had he not been a Zakein Mamrei, he would have required a warning, which is not now necessary?

(d)So how do we finally answer the Kashya?

14)

(a)The Beraisa requires either that the Zakein Mamrei puts his theories into practice or that others do. The problem with the first possibility is - that seeing as he goes on to perform a Chiyuv Misas Beis-Din, he would be Chayav even if he was not a Zakein Mamrei.

(b)There is no problem - if we are speaking about a Zakein Mamrei who ruled on Cheilev or blood - since these are not subject to Misas Beis-Din (only Kareis).

(c)We query the suggestion that had he not been a Zakein Mamrei, he would have required a warning, which is not now necessary - from a case of a Meisis (which is not precluded from our Mishnah and) for which he would be Chayav Misah anyway (even without a warning).

(d)We finally answer the Kashya - by pointing out that, since he went against the explicit ruling of Beis-Din, he is denied the right to present any arguments in his own favor, something which he would have been able to do had he not been a Zakein Mamrei.

15)

(a)Our Mishnah states 'Chomer be'Divrei Sofrim mi'Divrei Torah'. What, in this context, is the definition of 'Divrei ...

1. ... Torah'?

2. ... Sofrim'?

(b)How does the Mishnah go on to explain its statement? Which case does the Tana present?

(c)Which two details does Rebbi Alazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya add to 'Ikro mi'Divrei Torah, u'Pirusho mi'Divrei Sofrim'?

(d)The only possible case is that of Tefilin according to Rebbi Yehudah. What did Rebbi Yehudah say?

(e)Why can Rebbi Elazar not be referring to Rebbi Yehudah in Menachos, who says 'Tzarich Le'hadbik (to stick together the Parshiyos of the shel Yad, in the event that one wrote the four Parshiyos on different pieces of parchment)?

15)

(a)Our Mishnah states 'Chomer be'Divrei Sofrim mi'Divrei Torah'. In this context, the definition of 'Divrei ...

1. ... Torah' is - what the Torah writes specifically.

2. ... Sofrim' is - what the Chachamim extrapolate from the Pasuk).

(b)The Mishnah therefore goes on to explains that - if he teaches that there is no such thing as Tefilin, he is Patur; and that he is only Chayav if he teaches that there are five Parshiyos instead of four.

(c)Rebbi Alazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya adds to 'Ikro mi'Divrei Torah, u'Pirusho mi'Divrei Sofrim' are - that it is possible to add to the Mitzvah, and that, if he does, it is as if had subtracted (because the addition invalidates the rest).

(d)The only possible case is that of Tefilin according to Rebbi Yehudah - who stated on the previous Daf 'ad de'Ika Torah ve'Yorucha' (as opposed to Rebbi Meir ['Zedono Kareis ve'Shigegaso Chatas'] and Rebbi Shimon ['Afilu Dikduk Echad mi'Divrei Sofrim']) See Tosfos DH 've'Ein Lanu Ela ... '.

(e)Rebbi Elazar cannot be referring to Rebbi Yehudah in Menachos, who says 'Tzarich Le'hadbik (to stick together the Parshiyos of the shel Yad, in the event that one wrote the four Parshiyos on different pieces of parchment instead of one) - because our Mishnah, which mentions "Totafos", is clearly speaking about the shel Rosh (and not the shel Yad), and this is corroborated by the Sugya which mentions four Batim (compartments), which can only refer to the shel Rosh.

16)

(a)We query Rebbi Elazar's statement that the four requirements of Rebbi Yehudah pertain exclusively to Tefilin, by asking 've'ha'Ika Lulav (if one added a fifth species)?' How do we refute this Kashya on the basis of the ruling ...

1. ... 'Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged'?

2. ... 'Lulav Tzarich Eged'?

(b)And we ask exactly the same set of questions on Tzitzis (assuming that one added a fifth thread). What is the criterion there?

(c)We ask that by Tefilin too, adding a fifth compartment afterwards (without actually affixing it) ought not to invalidate the other four, whereas if he initially made five compartments, 'Garu'a ve'Omed Hu'. In answer to this Kashya, we cite Rebbi Zeira. What does Rebbi Zeira say about the outer compartment?

(d)How does this answer the Kashya?

16)

(a)We query Rebbi Elazar's statement that the four requirements of Rebbi Yehudah pertain exclusively to Tefilin with the Kashya 've'ha'Ika Lulav (if one added a fifth species)' We refute this Kashya however, on the basis of ...

1. ... 'Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged' - because one would be holding the extra species independently of the others, which would therefore not be affected by it.

2. ... 'Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged' - because then they would be Pasul from the outset (and would conform with the last two requirements 've'Yesh bo Le'hosif ... '.

(b)And we ask exactly the same set of questions on Tzitzis (assuming that one added a fifth thread). The criterion there is - whether the top knot is d'Oraysa or not (depending on which, the four threads are either independent of the fifth thread, or Pasul at the outset, like we asked on Lulav).

(c)We ask that by Tefilin too, adding a fifth compartment afterwards (without actually affixing it) ought not to invalidate the other four, whereas if he initially made five compartments, 'Garu'a ve'Omed Hu'. In answer to this Kashya, we cite Rebbi Zeira, who says - that if the outer compartment is not open to the air, it is Pasul.

(d)Consequently, we will establish the case by Tefilin - where one initially made four compartments and adding a fifth one later, thereby invalidating the Tefilin (like Rebbi Zeira) even though he did not affix the extra compartment to the other four.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF