POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi N. Slifkin
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nedarim 12
1) SUBJECTS FOR HATFASAH (Cont.)
(a) Proof #1 (Rava): The Mishnah said that he can use Nosar and Pigul
as the subject of Hatfasah.
1. These are after Zerikah, and it is still binding; hence, the
Hatfasah follows the prohibited essence.
(b) Refutation: It could be talking about Nosar of an Olah (which is
1. Question: If so, let the Mishnah have spoken of the flesh of
(c) Proof #2: We see that the Hatfasah follows the essence:
2. Answer: The Mishnah wants to teach us the added Chiddush of
i. One might have thought that he is trying to do a
Hatfasah from something prohibited by Issur rather than
by Neder, which doesn't work.
1. (Beraisa) The prototypical Shavuah of Issur is where someone
vows to abstain from meat and wine as on the day of his
father's death, teacher's death, Tzom Gedalyah, or when he
saw ruined Jerusalem.
(d) Refutation: Shmuel means that it refers to where he took such a
vow on every single such day (so there is no permitted target for
2. (Shmuel) It must be that he already once made a Neder to
abstain like on that day (and he is using this as the source
of the Hatfasah).
3. It seems to be referring to where it is the same day of the
week as that which his father died on, and even though there
are many such days which are permitted, we say it follows
the particular day on which he is prohibited!
(e) Proof #3 (Ravina): We see that the Hatfasah follows the essence:
1. (Mishnah) If he prohibited it "as the Challos of Aharon and
his Terumos" it is permitted.
2. This implies that if he prohibited it as the Terumos Lachmei
Todah, it is prohibited.
3. But this is separated only after Zerikah, when it is
(f) Refutation: The correct implication is instead that if he
prohibited it "as the Terumah of the Lishchah" it is prohibited.
4. So we see that the Hatfasah follows the prohibited essence!
1. Question: But if, in a case where he prohibited it as the
Terumos Lachmei Todah, it is permitted, why didn't the
Mishnah list this case (and all the more so if he prohibited
it "as the Challos of Aharon and his Terumos')?
(g) Suggestion: Let us say that whether the Hatfasah follows the
prohibited essence or the permitted aspect is subject to a
dispute between Tannaim:
2. Answer: It teaches us that the Terumas Lachmei Todah is
included in the category of Terumah.
3. Alternate answer: The Terumas Lachmei Todah could be before
Zerikah (when it would be prohibited, and therefore the case
was not mentioned);
i. It could be that it was separated during the kneading,
which we see is viable:
ii. (R. Tuvi bar Kisna citing Shmuel) Lachmei Todah can be
done with four loaves (of four types).
iii. Question: Surely forty are required?
iv. Answer: That is only for the ideal fulfillment of the
v. Question: Surely Terumah must be separated!?
vi. One can't answer that one loaf is separated for the
rest, as it must be separated from each type.
vii. One can't say that a chunk is separated from each loaf,
as the verse prohibits taking a chunk.
viii.Answer: It is separated during the kneading process.
1. (R. Yaakov) If someone prohibits something "as a Bechor," it
2. (R. Yehudah) It is permitted.
3. This can't be referring to before Zerikah, as why would R.
Yehudah permit it.
4. It can't be referring to after Zerikah, as why would R.
Yaakov rule that it is binding.
5. So it must be referring to where there is a piece of meat
and a piece of Bechor post-Zerikah, and he said that "this
is as this," and there is a dispute as to what the Hatfasah