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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nazir 36

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


(a) We just quoted Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, in whose opinion Heter combines with Isur to make up the Shiur for Malkos only regarding the Isurim of Nazir.
What does Ze'iri (based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ki Chol Se'or ve'Chol D'vash Lo Saktiru Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem") say?

(b) Like which Tana does Zeiri hold?

(c) Are there any other cases where he holds 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur'?

(a) The reason that Ze'iri added the La'av of burning Se'or on the Mizbei'ach (with regard to 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur'), and not Chametz on Pesach, is to counter Abaye.
What does Abaye say?

(b) Abaye learns this from "Kol".
What does he learn from "*Ki* Chol?

(c) According to Rava (like whom Ze'iri holds), a Kohen who offers less than a k'Zayis is Patur even according to Rebbi Eliezer.
What does he then learn from ...

  1. ... "Kol"?
  2. ... "Ki Chol"?
(d) Why does Abaye Darshen the word "Kol" in connection with Chametz to include 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' and not to include less than a k'Zayis (like he does by the La'av of 'Se'or')?
(a) If a T'vul-Yom (who is a Sheini, and can therefore only affect T'rumah, but not Chulin) touches any part of a T'rumah-stew containing Chulin spices [garlic and oil], he renders the entire stew, Tamei (because the stew is the Ikar, and the spices secondary).
What will be the Din in the reverse case, if he touches the spices in a Chulin-stew containing T'rumah spices?

(b) According to Rashi, we then ask why even *that* is Pasul, seeing as the spices are Batel to the stew. Tosfos (Rabeinu Tam) rejects this text for a number of reasons.
What then is the Kashya, according to them?

(c) On what grounds does Rashi reject Tosfos version?

(d) Why does Rav Dimi not answer that 'Pasal' means mi'de'Rabbanann (which it would in any case be)?

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the fact that he is Chayav for subsequently eating it ([the garlic and the oil] and that the Terumah is not Batel), to the fact that a Zar would receive Malkos for eating a k'Zayis.
What does Abaye attempt to prove from there?

(b) What does 'Lokeh' really mean? Why can it not be understood literally?

(c) How does Rav Dimi refute Abaye's proof? How does *he* explain the 'k'Zayis' referred to by Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan?

(d) What is a 'k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras'? What is the source for the Shiur of 'k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras'?

(a) We just established that the spices do not become Batel in the stew is because one would receive Malkos for eating a 'k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras' of the stew with the spices.
What is the problem with this, according to Rabeinu Tam, who explained the Kashya in connection with the fact that there was less than a k'Beitzah of Tum'ah?

(b) How will Rabeinu Tam deal with this problem?

Answers to questions



(a) Abaye asks whether a k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras is d'Oraysa.
But surely, we already know that it is, from the Mishnah in Kerisus 'Kol ha'Ochlin Mitztarfin bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras'?

(b) How does Abaye know that he is not Chayav because of 'Ta'am k'Ikar' (which Abaye himself will shortly learn from "Mishras"?

(c) Rav Dimi replies that the Chiyuv Malkos of which Rebbi Yochanan speaks is when he eats a 'k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras'. In that case, why do the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer and exempt someone who eats Kutach ha'Bavli (which *does* contain a 'k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras') from Malkos?

(d) Must the author of the Mishnah of 'Mikpeh' (a T'vul-Yom who receives Malkos for touching a T'rumah-stew) also be Rebbi Eliezer?

(a) Will someone who does eat a dishful of Kutach ha'Bavli within the required time limit be Chayav according to the Rabbanan?

(b) Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan by 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', irrespective of how much one eats).
How does he know that the Rabbanan even argue in a case where one ate more than one 'k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras'? Perhaps their Machlokes is confined to where he ate only one k'Zayis of the stew?

(a) If two mortars full of spice, one of Chulin, the other of T'rumah, spilt into two pots, one of Chulin and the other, of T'rumah, we assume that it was the T'rumah that fell into the T'rumah, and the Chulin into the Chulin. Why is that?

(b) But how can the Beraisa say that? Having just established that a 'k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras' is d'Oraysa, how can the Beraisa be lenient by T'rumah, which is an Isur d'Oraysa (which even carries with it the punishment of Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim?

(c) Before replying to Abaye's Kashya, we first point out that the same Kashya would apply if 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' were d'Oraysa (as he maintains), though in Pesachim, this section is omitted.
Why could Abaye not reply that the author of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan (who do not Darshen "Kol")?

(a) Abaye then questions Rav Dimi from a Beraisa, where two Sa'ah of grain, one of Chulin and one of T'rumah, fell into two boxes, one of Chulin and one of T'rumah. Here too (like in the previous Beraisa), the Tana rules 'Tolin'. On what grounds is Abaye happy with this Beraisa?
Why does the Tana permit the two boxes (because of 'Tolin') in face of 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur'?

(b) Then how will we justify the two previous cases ('Kutach ha'Bavli' and the two mortars, neither of which contain a majority of Isur, yet in both cases, the S'vara of 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur is applied'?

(c) And in the case of the two boxes, where there is a majority of Heter, why does the Tana still require 'Tolin'? Why is he not satisfied with the fact that there is a majority of Heter to permit it?

(a) According to the way we just explained Abaye, why does Abaye ask on Rav Dimi from the Beraisa of the two boxes, seeing as there too, there are two S'varos to permit the boxes; Bitul (seeing as they are not mixed and are 'Min be'Mino') and 'Tolin'?

(b) Then why is *Abaye* happy with the Beraisa? Why do we not apply the same S'vara according to him (to apply 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' even to a case where there is more Heter than Isur, on account of when there is not)?

(c) How does Rav Dimi establish the Beraisa of the two boxes, to refute Abaye's Kashya as to how the Tana can rely on 'Tolin' in face of the Isur d'Oraysa (of 'k'Zayis bi'Ch'dei Achilas P'ras')?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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