ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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.
(a) Abaye queries Rav Dimi, who learns from "Mishras" 'Heter Mitztaref
le'Isur' (like Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan). He suggests - that one
might learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from there instead (as indeed we find in a
(b) Despite the fact that throughout the Sugya, Abaye has disagreed with the
D'rashah of "Mishras", he suddenly appears to have accepted it - because Rav
Dimi answered all his queries.
(c) The case of 'Ta'am k'Ikar' (with regard to a Nazir) is - if grapes were
soaked in water, which he then drank.
(d) Abaye initially maintained that 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' is not
d'Oraysa. This might have a bearing on the text 'le'che'de'Sanya',
introducing his query on Rebbi Yochanan's D'rashah - because, if he could
even think that 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' is not min ha'Torah, then
certainly 'Ta'am k'Ikar' (where the Isur is not really there) is not min
ha'Torah either. Consequently, he cannot have known of the Beraisa which
takes for granted that it is.
(a) Using the Isur of Kil'ayim as an example of Isur, the Chachamim extend
'Ta'am k'Ikar' to all other Isurim from a three point Kal va'Chomer: 1. A
Nazir is not permanently forbidden to drink wine (only for thirty dys [or
for as long as he undertook to be a Nazir]); 2. It does not incorporate an
Isur Hana'ah and - 3. It can become permitted (by releasing the Nazarite
vow through a Chacham); Whereas 'Kil'ayim' is a permanent Isur (once one
sows the forbidden seeds, they remain permanently forbidden); It is Asur
be'Hana'ah and the Isur cannot be revoked.
(b) Orlah is not a permanent Isur, since, in the fourth year, the seeds
become permitted through redemption. Alternatively, one is permitted to
create the Isur (by planting trees), neither of which will apply to
(a) That Talmid-Chacham reconcile Abaye's query from the Beraisa, which
learns 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from "Mishras", with Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan
and Rav Dimi, who learn 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' from there - by
establishing the former like the Rabbanan, and the latter, like Rebbi Akiva.
(b) When we established Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Dimi like Rebbi Akiva who
applies 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' by Nazir, it may not necessarily be the
Rebbi Akiva of the Mishnah in Nazir, who says 'Nazir she'Sharah Pito
ba'Yayin, ve'Yesh Bo Letzaref K'dei k'Zayis, Chayav'
- because his reason there may well be (not because of 'Heter Mitztaref
le'Isur' but) - because it speaks when there is a full k'Zayis of wine, and
he is Chayav because of 'Ta'am k'Ikar'.
(c) Even if Rebbi Akiva is coming to teach us 'Ta'am k'Ikar', he
nevertheless specifically refers to Nazir, and not to other La'avin (to
which 'Ta'am k'Ikar also applies) is - in order to teach us that the Shiur
by Nazir is a k'Zayis, and not a Revi'is, like the Tana Kama.
(d) So we prove that Rebbi Akiva holds of 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' by Nazir
from a Beraisa - where he says that if a Nazir soaked his bread in wine, and
then proceeded to eat a k'Zayis of the bread, he is Chayav.
(a) Since Rebbi Akiva uses "Mishras" for 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' by Nazir,
we ask from where he knows 'Ta'am k'Ikar'. What makes us so certain that he
too, holds that 'Ta'am k'Ikar' is min ha'Torah - is the fact that it is a
more likely D'rashah than 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' (seeing as it comprises
the Isur itself). Consequently, unless he had another source for 'Ta'am
k'Ikar', he would learn it from "Mishras" (rather than 'Heter Mitztaref
(b) Rav Ashi initially cites Basar be'Chalav as Rebbi Akiva's source for
'Ta'am k'Ikar'. The Rabbanan decline to learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from there -
because it is a Chidush (it has unique characteristics), from which we
cannot learn other things.
(a) It is not the fact that the two individual ingredients are permitted,
and only become Asur when they are cooked together that make Basar be'Chalav
unique - since Kil'ayim shares has similar qualities.
(b) What is unique about Basar be'Chalav is - the fact that one can soak
meat and milk together all day without transgressing any Isur (either by
soaking them or by then eating them), yet the moment one cooks them
together, one transgresses.
(c) Rebbi Akiva does not argue with that. In fact, we retract from that
D'rashah, and find another source for 'Ta'am k'Ikar'.
(a) So we cite Rebbi Akiva's source for 'Ta'am k'Ikar' as Gi'ulei
Ovdei-Kochavim. 'Gi'ulei Ovdei-Kochavim' is - the Kashering of vessels
obtained from Nochrim, to remove the T'reifah food that they have absorbed
within their walls. The Torah conveys this lesson in the Parshah of the
vessels of Midyan, which the soldiers brought back with them as war-spoils.
(b) We can learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' with regard to Nazir, from Gi'ulei
Ovdei-Kochavim, despite the fact that most of their vessels do not have a
Heter to their Isur, whereas Nazir does - because the Torah also
incorporates vessels that were only used with wine, which will become
permitted to a Nazir when his Nezirus terminates.
(c) The Rabbanan decline to learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from Gi'ulei
Ovdei-Kochavim - because generally, 'Nosen Ta'am li'F'gam' (a taste that has
become spoilt) is permitted, whereas here it is forbidden (and as we have
already learned, we cannot learn anything from a Chidush).
(d) Rebbi Akiva counters this by restricting the Torah's prohibition to the
day on which the vessels were captured (when the taste is still fresh).
The source for 'Nosen Ta'am li'F'gam' is - Neveilah, which must be fit for a
Ger to eat (since the Torah writes in Re-ei "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha
Titnenu"), otherwise, it is not considered Neveilah.
(a) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Akiva's argument by pointing out - that even
what comes out of the walls of the vessel that was used that day is slightly
spoilt, in which case we cannot learn from it.
(b) Rebbi Akiva learns 'Heter Nutztaref le'Isur' from "Mishras", and the
Rabbanan learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from "Mishras", too. When Rav Acha b'rei
de'Rav Ivya asked Rav Ashi why Rebbi Akiva did not 'take his cue' from the
Rabbanan, who extend 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' from Nazir to all other
Isurim - he replied that Nazir and Chatas both teach us 'Ta'am k'Ikar'
(c) When Rav Ashi said 'Chatas', he was referring to a Korban with less
Kedushah (a Shelamim say) which it, and which now adopts its more stringent
(d) The Chatas render the Shelamim that touches it Pasul - only if one of
them is hot, thereby enabling the latter to absorb from the former.
(a) A Chatas is more stringent than a Shelamim as regards eating in three
ways: that it is only Kohanim who are permitted to eat it; that it must be
eaten within the hanging of the Chatzer of the Mishkan (or the Beis
Hamikdash); that it can only be eaten for one day, and not two.
(b) According to the text 'Te'achel ke'Chomer she'Bahen', it appears from
the Beraisa that a Shelamim can also have a Chumra over a Chatas - such as
one that was Shechted on the previous day, and whose time-period for eating
was destined to terminate at nightfall, whereas a Chatas that was Shechted
on that day could still be eaten until the morning.
(c) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Akiva's argument (that there are two Pesukim
for 'Ta'am k'Ikar') by pointing out that both Pesukim are necessary. We
could not learn ...
1. ... Nazir from Chatas - because we cannot learn Chulin from Kodshim.
2. ... Chatas from Nazir - because Nazir has the unusual Chumra of
grape-pits (which are not edible) being forbidden.
(a) We dismiss this latter S'vara however (in which case we should be able
to learn Chatas from Nazir, like Rebbi Akiva maintains). We conclude
however, that the Rabbanan require the two Pesukim - one for 'Ta'am k'Ikar'
("Mishras"), the other (Chatas), for 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur'.
(b) We know that the Pasuk by Chatas is refering to 'Heter Mitztaref
le'Isur' and not just to 'Ta'am k'Ikar' - because incorporates a peice of
Chatas fat that bcame absorbed in the Shelamim (Tosfos).
(c) 'Ta'am k'Ikar' extends to other Isurim, whereas 'Heter Mitztaref
le'Isur' is confined to Chatas - because we cannot learn Chulin from
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "*mi'Kol* Asher Ye'aseh
mi'Gefen ha'Yayin me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag" - that the various Isurim of
Nazir combine to make the Shiur for which a Nazir is Chayav.
(b) This does not mean that Rebbi Akiva (who appears to be the author of the
Beraisa - see Tosfos) Darshens "Kol" (like Rebbi Eliezer) - because he might
also Darshen "mi'Kol".
(c) Based on Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah from "Mishras", Rav Ashi ask Rav
Kahana - that seeing as Rebbi Akiva even learns from "Mishras" that *Heter*
combines with Isur, why would he require a Pasuk for one Isur combining with
another? Why is it not obvious?
(d) Rav Kahana replied that whereas Heter only combines with Isur if they
are eaten together, Isur combines with Isur even if one eats them one after
the other (as long as they are eaten within a 'K'dei Achilas P'ras -
(a) Rebbi Shimon, who does not require a Shiur for Isurim anyway, learns
from "*mi'Kol* Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" - that one only becomes a
Nazir if he undertakes all the three aspects of Nezirus.
(b) Rebbi Shimon (who holds that the Torah only forbids a T'reifah pot that
was used that day), will learn from "Mishras" 'Ta'am k'Ikar'. This might
be because he holds like the Chachamim, who do not learn it from Gi'ulei
Ovdei-Kochavim because food spoils slightly even on the first day (as we
explained above). He might however learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from Gi'ulei
Ovdei-Kochavim (like Rebbi Akiva) - in which case he will learn from
"Mishras" that the various Isurim combine to make a Shiur when they are
(c) When he says that he does not require a Shiur for Malkos - that only
pertains to Isurim that are in evidence, but not to those that are mixed
together with other species.