REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 52
(a) According to the Tana Kama, someone who is Noder from milk, is permitted
to eats the whey, and vice-versa (because they are considered two different
What does Rebbi Yossi say?
(b) Aba Shaul says that someone who is Noder from cheese is forbidden to eat
both salted and unsalted cheese.
Why might we have thought otherwise?
(c) The Tana Kama permits someone who is Noder from meat, to eat both the
gravy and the Kifah.
What is 'Kifah'?
(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(a) What is Rebbi Yehudah trying to prove when he cites Rebbi Tarfon, who
even forbade eggs that were cooked together with meat that was forbidden
through a Neder?
(b) How do the Rabbanan refute Rebbi Yehudah's proof? How do they qualify
(c) What is the criterion for Rebbi Tarfon's ruling, according to them?
(d) What is the difference whether one is 'Noder min ha'Yayin' or 'Konem
Yayin Zeh she'Eini To'em'? Who is the author of this statement?
(a) What problem do we have with the concession of benefiting from forbidden
wine because it is less than a sixtieth?
(b) What answer do some give, based on the category of mixture which is
(c) What is the source of this distinction?
(a) The distinction between 'Min be'Mino' and 'Min be'she'Eino Mino' leaves
us with a Kashya on the Rif, however.
How does the Rif (in Perek Gid
ha'Nasheh) explain the Gemara, which forbids bread that was baked together
with roasted meat to be eaten with Kutach (in spite of the principle 'Reicha
La'av Milsa Hi')?
(b) What does the Sugya in Beitzah say (in connection with Eruv) with regard
to a dough whose owner borrowed water and salt?
(c) Considering that the reason given there is because it is a 'Davar
she'Yesh Lo Matirin', why is there no proof for the Rif's ruling from there
(seeing as flour on the one hand, and water and salt on the other, are Min
(a) Many commentaries disagree with the Rif (see Tosfos and the Rosh here)
on the basis of our Sugya. It is possible however, to reconcile the two.
According to the Rif, which is the predominant factor in determining the
difference between 'Min be'Mino' and 'Min be'she'Eino Mino', the difference
in taste or the difference in Halachah?
(b) Are both required in order to become Bateil, or will one of the two
(c) In that case, why will 'Min be'she'Eino Mino' override 'Davar she'Yesh
Lo Matirin' in the case of Nedarim, but not in the case of ...
(d) Why might there be even more reason to be stringent in the first of the
two cases than in the second?
- ... bread that was baked together with roasted meat in the oven?
- ... dough containing borrowed water and salt?
(a) Why did they consider to be a joke, Rav Ashi's ruling in Yevamos that a
piece of Chatas that became mixed in a hundred pieces of Chulin is forbidden
because it is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'?
Answers to questions
(b) How do we reconcile this with the Rif's ruling in the case of bread
which was baked together with roasted meat in the oven?
(a) According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, someone who is Noder from
lentils, is forbidden to eat 'Ashishim' (poor quality lentils that can only
be eaten when they are fried in honey).
What does Rebbi Yossi say?
(b) Why is there no contradiction between this Halachah and their ruling in
our Mishnah permitting the whey?
(c) What is the problem with Rebbi Yossi however, who permits Ashishim?
(d) How do we reconcile the two statements of Rebbi Yossi?
(a) Does a Neder forbidding ...
(b) 'Konem Zeisim va'Anavim Eilu she'Eini To'em, Asur Bahen u'Vayotzei
- ... milk incorporate whey, and vice-versa?
- ... gravy incorporate Kifa, and vice-versa?
- ... grapes incorporate wine?
- ... olives incorporate oil?
What are the two possible reasons for this?
(c) We ask that if 'Eilu' was Dafka, then why would the Tana need to mention
Why do we ask specifically this way, and not vice-versa?
(d) How do we answer the Kashya?
(a) In view of the Mishnah later, which forbids Chilufin and Gidulin when
the Noder said 'Eilu', but not when he said 'she'Eini To'em', how can Rami
bar Chama suggest that 'she'Eini To'em' might be stronger than 'Eilu'?
(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana says 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Alai ... Asur
What might we infer from this?
(c) Why is there in fact, no proof from there that 'Eilu' does not include
what comes from the fruit?
(d) We could have resolved our She'eilah from the Beraisa, which says 've'Im
Amar Basar Zeh Alai, Asur Bo u've'Rotvo u've'Kifo'.
Why did we not do so?
(a) Why can we not then resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa 'she'Eini
Ochel, ve'she'Eini To'em Mutar be'Chilufeihen ve'Giduleihen', from which we
can infer ha'Yotzei Meihen, Asur?
(b) Which part of the She'eilah do we finally conclude from Rebbi Yehudah
(quoting Rebbi Tarfon) in our Mishnah?
(c) We try to resolve the second half of the She'eilah from the Mishnah that
we learned earlier 'Dag Dagim she'Eini To'em, Asur Bahen ... *u'Mutar
bi'T'ris T'rufah u'be'Tzir'*.
How does Rava refute the proof from there?
(d) What is the Halachah with regard to ...
- ... 'Eilu'?
- ... 'she'Eini To'em'?
(a) Some ascribe the reason for the prohibition of what comes out of the
fruit to the fact that the Lashon 'Eilu', 'she'Eini Ochel' or 'she'Eini
To'em' is superfluous.
Answers to questions
Why does the case of 'she'Eini Ochel' present a
(b) How do we resolve this problem?
(c) In that case, why by She'vu'ah, will 'she'Eini Ochel' definitely not
include anything (e.g. what comes from the fruit)?
(d) Then why does the Rambam say otherwise?