POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on 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.
1) AN OLIVE'S WORTH (OF FORBIDDEN FOOD) WITHIN A HALF LOAF OF THE MIXTURE
(a) This is not difficult according to the opinion that permitted food joins
to forbidden food - the case is, there is more than 1 Se'ah of Chulin (so
even if the Terumah fell into the Chulin, the majority is Chulin, and we do
not say that permitted food joins to forbidden food).
2) HOW THE LAW WAS LEARNED
1. But if you say that an olive's worth (of forbidden food) within a half
loaf of the mixture is forbidden mid'Oraisa - this applies even if the
majority is Chulin!
(b) Answer: The Beraisa speaks nowadays, that Terumah is only mid'Rabanan,
therefore we are lenient.
(c) Question (Abaye): Why do you say that "Soaked" teaches that permitted
food joins to forbidden food - perhaps it only comes to forbid a food which
absorbed the taste of forbidden food!
1. Question: Abaye asked all the above questions, to prove that permitted
food joins to forbidden food by all prohibitions - and now he comes to say,
even by Nazir it does not?!
2. Answer: Abaye accepted Rav Dimi's answers; he then asked, perhaps even by
Nazir, we only learn that a food which absorbed the taste of forbidden food
i. (Beraisa): "Soaked" - this teaches that a food which absorbed the taste
of forbidden food is forbidden;
ii. If one soaked grapes in water, and the water has a taste of wine, a
Nazir is liable for drinking it.
iii. We learn from here to all Torah prohibitions (many texts read - all
prohibitions of Nezirus).
iv. The prohibitions of Nezirus are not permanent, they do not forbid
getting any benefit, and the prohibitions can be permitted - still, the
Torah said that a food which absorbed the taste of forbidden food is
v. Kil'ayim (crossbreeds) in a vineyard, which are permanently forbidden,
and are forbidden from getting any benefit, and the prohibitions cannot be
permitted - all the more so, the Torah said that a food which absorbed the
taste of forbidden food is forbidden;
vi. On 2 of the 3 counts, we can say that Orlah (fruits of a tree before its
4th year) is likewise more severe than Kil'ayim, and a food which absorbed
the taste of forbidden food is forbidden.
(a) Question: Where did R. Avahu learn that R. Akiva says that permitted
food joins to forbidden food?
1. Suggestion: From our Mishnah.
(b) Answer: He learned from this Beraisa.
i. (Mishnah): R. Akiva says, even if he soaked his bread in wine, and there
is enough to join to an olive's worth, he is liable.
2. Rejection: Perhaps he is only liable if there is an olive's worth of
3. Question: If so, what does R. Akiva teach us?
4. Answer: That one is liable for an olive's worth, unlike the 1st Tana who
says that one is only liable for a Revi'is.
1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): A Nazir that soaked his bread in wine and ate an
olive's worth of bread and wine is liable.
(c) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Avi): Since R. Akiva uses the verse "And
all soaked" to teach that permitted food joins to forbidden food - what is
his source that a food which absorbed from a forbidden food is forbidden?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): He learns from meat and milk.
1. The meat only absorbs a taste of milk (or vice-versa), and it is
forbidden - we learn to all cases!
(e) Rejection: For this reason, also R. Akiva should not learn from meat and
2. Chachamim say that we cannot learn from meat and milk, because it is
3. Question: Why is it exceptional?
i. Suggestion: Because each is permitted by itself, but together they are
4. Answer: If one soaks them together they are permitted, but if they are
cooked together, they are forbidden.
ii. Rejection: This is not exceptional - it also applies to Kil'ayim (mixing
seeds of or grafting diverse species of vegetation, working with different
species of animals, wearing a garment of wool and linen)!
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rather, he learns from absorbed tastes in vessels
3) CAN WE LEARN TO OTHER CASES?
1. "Whatever vessels are used with fire (must be Kashered before usage) -
this teaches that absorbed tastes in vessels of non-Jews are forbidden.
(g) Question (Rav Acha): Why don't Chachamim learn from this?
2. Even though it is merely taste, it is forbidden - we learn from this to
(h) Answer (Rav Ashi): Because it is exceptional.
1. In all other cases, the Torah permits absorbed unfavorable tastes;
regarding absorbed tastes in vessels of non-Jews, they are forbidden.
(i) Question: Since it is exceptional, why does R. Akiva learn from it?
(j) Answer (Rav Huna bar Chiya): The Torah only forbids a vessel used in the
last 24 hours, and the taste imparted is not unfavorable.
1. Chachamim say that even within 24 hours, the taste imparted is slightly
(a) Question (Rav Acha): We should learn from Chachamim to R. Akiva!
1. Chachamim say that "Soaked" teaches that wine absorbed in bread forbids
the bread, and we learn that any food which absorbed from a forbidden food
(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): The Torah taught that permitted food joins to
forbidden food in 2 places - by Nazir and by a sin-offering.
2. R. Akiva, who learns from "Soaked" that permitted food joins to forbidden
food (by a Nazir), should also learn to all cases!
1. Whenever the Torah teaches something in 2 places, we do not learn to
(c) The case of Nazir is as above.
(d) The case of a sin-offering is as follows.
1. (Beraisa): "Any food that touches (a sin-offering's) skin will become
Kodesh" - one might think, even if the food did not absorb - "In its skin"
teaches, only if it absorbs.
(e) Objection (Chachamim): This is not considered something taught in 2
places, since we could not have learned either from the other!
2. "It becomes Kodesh" - if the sin-offering is invalid (and may not be
eaten), the food may not be eaten; if the sin-offering is Kosher, the food
may be eaten with the stringencies of the sin-offering.
1. Because Nazir is Chulin, we cannot learn it from a sin-offering, which is
(f) Response: R. Akiva admits that we cannot learn Chulin from Kodshim.
2. We cannot learn from Nazir to a sin-offering, because the Torah was extra
stringent by Nazir, and forbade even Chartzanim.
1. However, he holds that we could have learned a sin-offering from Nazir,
just as we learn in general from Nazir.
(g) Chachamim agree that we learn from a sin-offering that permitted food
joins to forbidden food; we cannot learn Chulin from Kodshim.
1. We learn from Nazir ("Soaked") that a food which absorbed from a
forbidden food is forbidden; this principle is learned to all cases.
(h) R. Akiva says that both teach that permitted food joins to forbidden
food; since this was taught in 2 places, we do not learn to other cases.
(i) Question (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): "From all that comes from the
grapevine" - this teaches that prohibitions of a Nazir join up.
1. According to R. Akiva, even permitted food joins to forbidden food - all
the more so, forbidden foods join!
(j) Answer (Rav Kahana): Permitted food joins to forbidden food only when
eaten simultaneously; forbidden foods join even when eaten one after the