(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 37

NAZIR 36 & 37 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for Torah and those who study it.


QUESTION: Abaye challenges Rav Dimi and asks how do we know that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" applies for the Isurim of Nazir altogether? If the only source is the verse of "Mishras" (Bamidbar 6:3), perhaps that verse teaches the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" and not "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur."

The Gemara immediately questions why Abaye should ask such a question on Rav Dimi. Earlier, Abaye attempted to prove to Rav Dimi that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" applies for all Isurim, and now he wants to ask that it should not apply even for Nazir! The Gemara answers that after Rav Dimi answered all of Abaye's questions and showed that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" does not apply in all cases, Abaye reacts and asks that perhaps it does not apply anywhere.

When Abaye originally asked that perhaps "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" applies for all Isurim, Tosfos emphasized in a number of places that Abaye only proposed that according to Rebbi Eliezer, who derives the rule of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" from "Kol Machmetzes" (Shemos 12:20). According to the Rabanan who derive "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" from "Mishras," Abaye was willing to accept that it applies only to Nazir (TOSFOS 36b, DH Iy Hachi and DH Is Sefarim; this explanation of Tosfos depends on the Girsa in the Gemara on 36b -- according to some texts, the Gemara asks on Abaye's question from the case of "Shtei Maduchos" by saying "u'l'Didach," as Tosfos in Pesachim 44a, DH Ela Mai, points out). If so, why is the Gemara perplexed with Abaye's question that "Mishras" might be teaching "Ta'am k'Ikar" and not "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur?" This question does not contradict his earlier statement! His earlier statement was that *according to Rebbi Eliezer* "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" applies to all Isurim, but perhaps Abaye held that according to the Rabanan, "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" does not apply to all Isurim because "Mishras" teaches "Ta'am k'Ikar!" (ARZEI HA'LEVANON, fn. 109)

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Ta'am k'Ikar) explains that Abaye's question that "Mishras" might be teaching "Ta'am k'Ikar" is based on the premise that "Ta'am k'Ikar" is a much easier Halachah to accept than "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." If we have only one verse that can be used to teach either "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" or "Ta'am k'Ikar," we would use the verse to teach "Ta'am k'Ikar" and not "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." Since Abaye apparently had no other source for "Ta'am k'Ikar" aside from "Mishras," Abaye asked that perhaps it is teaching "Ta'am k'Ikar" and not "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." Accordingly, the Gemara's question is that if this is Abaye's approach, then he must be bothered by the same question according to Rebbi Eliezer. When Rebbi Eliezer teaches in a Beraisa (Pesachim 43a) that he learns from "Kol Machmetzes" that the "Kutach ha'Bavli" is considered Chametz and is Asur, how do we know that he means to prohibit "Kutach ha'Bavli" because of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur?" Perhaps he means to prohibit it because of "Ta'am k'Ikar," and if so, we have no source for the principle of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" even according to Rebbi Eliezer! How, then, could Abaye say earlier that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" applies to every Isur according to Rebbi Eliezer? (Rebbi Eliezer should learn that the verse of "Kol Machmetzes" teaches "Ta'am k'Ikar," and the verse of Nazir teaches "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur," and we cannot learn that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" applies to other Isurim from Nazir either because Nazir is a Chidush or because of "Shnei Kesuvin ha'Ba'in k'Echad," like the Gemara (37b) says, and like we see that Abaye holds since he admits that according to the Rabanan "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" does not apply to other Isurim.) (See Insights to Pesachim 44:1.)


QUESTION: The Gemara learns from Chatas either the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" or the principle of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." How can the Gemara learn from Chatas these Halachos? The verse regarding Chatas teaches that when the meat of a Chatas touches another Korban and the other Korban absorbs the taste of the Chatas, the other Korban becomes Asur just like the Chatas. However, the taste of both Korbanos is the taste of meat, and thus when one absorbs the taste of the other, it should be a mixture of "Min b'Mino" -- to which the laws of "Ta'am k'Ikar" and "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" do not apply (see Insights to 46b)! (KEREN ORAH, ARZEI HA'LEVANON in the name of RAV SHMUEL ROZOVSKY (Chidushim to Pesachim))


(a) The KEREN ORAH suggests that according to those opinions who consider Chelev and fats to be different Minim with different tastes, the answer is clear: one Korban absorbs the taste of the Chelev from the other Korban which goes into its meat. However, the SHACH (YD 98:1) cites Rishonim who argue with this point of whether Chelev and meat (Basar) have the same taste.

(b) We could suggest a simple answer. The verse teaches that if any two Korbanos (of different types, such as a Chatas and a Shelamim) touch, each one absorbs the taste of the other, even if one Korban is a goat and the other is a sheep or a cow. We know that these different animals have different tastes, like the Gemara says in Pesachim (88b) and like the BEIS YOSEF (YD 98) rules. Therefore, the absorbed taste is considered "Min b'she'Eino Mino."

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,