ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
only combines with Isur to make up the Shiur for Malkos regarding the Isurim
of Nazir. Based on the Pasuk "Ki Chol Se'or ve'Chol D'vash Lo Saktiru Mimenu
Isheh la'Hashem" - Ze'iri holds that it also applies to the La'av of Se'or
(burning yeast on the Mizbei'ach).
(b) Ze'iri holds like Rebbi Eliezer (who Darshens "Kol", wherever it appears
in the Torah).
(c) He also holds 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' - with regard to Chametz on
(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 that of
Chametz on Pesach, is to counter Abaye - who says that one is Chayav for
burning even less than a k'Zayis of yeast on the Mizbei'ach.
(b) Abaye learns this from "Kol". From "*Ki* Chol he learns - that one is
even Chayav on a mixture of Matzah that contains yeast (We are learning all
the D'rashos according to the opinion of Tosfos).
(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. He learns from ...
1. ... "Kol" - that one is also Chayav for burning less than the entire
fistful of yeast (i.e. two k'Zeisim, provided it is at least a k'Zayis).
(d) Abaye Darshens 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') is - because the Torah uses the term 'Achilah'
by Chametz (and 'Achilah' always implies at least a k'Zayis).
2. ... "Ki Chol" - that one is even Chayav in a case of 'Heter Mitztaref
(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,
he renders the entire stew, Tamei (because the stew is the Ikar, and the
spices secondary). In the reverse case, if he touches the spices in a
Chulin-stew containing T'rumah spices - he only renders the location which
he touched, Pasul (i.e. a Sh'lishi, which cannot transmit Tum'ah further by
(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. According to them - the Kashya is why the spices should
become Tamei, seeing as they comprises less than a k'Beitzah, which is not
subject to Tum'ah.
(c) Rashi rejects Tosfos version - because, in his opinion, although less
than a k'Beitzah of food cannot transmit Tum'ah, it is itself subject to
(d) Rav Dimi does not answer that 'Pasal' means mi'de'Rabbanann (which it
would in any case be) - because the Lashon 'Pasal' (unqualified) implies
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the fact that he is
Chayav for subsequently eating it (and that the Terumah is not Batel), to
the fact that a Zar receives Malkos for eating a k'Zayis. Abaye, who
explains this to mean that he receives Malkos for eating an overall k'Zayis
(incorporating Heter and Isur), a proof that 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur'
applies even to other Isurim too (and is not confined to a Nazir [a Kashya
on Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan and Ze'iri).
(b) 'Lokeh' really means - that he would receive Malkos if the basic Terumah
were d'Oraysa (which is fact, it is not, because the Terumah of garlic is
(c) Rav Dimi refutes Abaye's proof by interpreting Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar
Rebbi Yochanan to mean - that he would be Chayav Malkos for eating a k'Zayis
(not because of 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', but) because there was a 'k'Zayis
bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' (for which he is Chayav according to the Rabbanan
no less than according to Rebbi Eliezer). A 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas
P'ras' - is a ratio of at least one k'Zayis of Isur per four k'Beitzim of
mixture. (The time it takes to eat four egg-volumes is also the maximum time
period within which one must eat a k'Zayis of any Isur in order to be
(d) The source for the Shiur of 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' - is
'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(a) We just attributed the spices not becoming Batel in the stew to the fact
that one would receive Malkos for eating a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras'
of the stew with the spices. 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 is - that, since we are not talking about
eating, only rendering the spices Tamei, this has nothing to do with 'K'dei
Achilas P'ras', but with 'Heter Mutztaref le'Isur', for which according to
Rav Dimi, one does not receive Malkos (even if one were to eat them
(b) Rabeinu Tam will answer - that although 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur will
not be effective to make up the Shiur (according to Rav Dimi), it will
however, be effective to obligate him, if he were to eat an entire Shiur of
a k'Zayis together with a P'ras (four k'Beitzim) of Heter. This is because,
without the Heter, he would not be Chayav for eating spices only (which one
does not tend to eat that way) on their own.
(a) Abaye asks whether a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras is d'Oraysa. We
already know from the Mishnah in Kerisus that 'Kol ha'Ochlin Mitztarfin
bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' - but only when the two species concerned are
separate, and not when they are mixed such as in our case (Tosfos).
(b) Abaye knows that he is not Chayav because of 'Ta'am k'Ikar' (which he
himself will shortly learn from "Mishras" - because he currently holds that
'Ta'am k'Ikar' only applies where one eats the entire k'Zayis in one gulp
(e.g. if he swallowed a k'Zayis of wine absorbed by two k'Zeisim of bread),
but not if he ate it bit by bit.
(c) Rav Dimi replies that the Chiyuv Malkos of which Rebbi Yochanan speaks
is when he eats a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras'. Nevertheless, the
Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer and exempt someone who eats Kutach
ha'Bavli (despite the fact that it contains a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas
P'ras') from Malkos - because Kutach ha'Bavli is a sharp condiment, which
one tends to eat in small quantities (in which case one would not normally
eat a k'Zayis within a K'dei Achilas P'ras).
(d) The author of the Mishnah of 'Mikpeh' (which declares the spices in a
T'rumah-stew touched by a T'vul-Yom Pasul) however - could also be the
Rabbanan, who will agree with Rebbi Eliezer for the reason stated by Rebbi
Yochanan ('Ho'il ve'Zar Lokeh Alehah bi'k'Zayis') Tosfos.
(a) Even if someone does eat a dishful of Kutach ha'Bavli within the
required time limit - will not be Chayav (because this is not the normal way
of eating it, and the principle of 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel B'nei Adam' will
(b) Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan
by 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', irrespective of how much one eats). He knows
that the Rabbanan even argue in a case where one ate more than one 'k'Zayis
bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' (and not specifically where he ate only one k'Zayis
of the stew) - because of their statement in Pesachim 'Al Chametz Dagan
Gamur Anush Ka'res, al Eiruvo, *be've'Lo K'lum*', implying that one is
Patur, irrespective of how much however much he ate.
(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 the
T'rumah fell into the T'rumah, and the Chulin into the Chulin - because by
Isurim d'Rabbanan, we apply the principle of 'Tolin' (meaning that we place
each one on its Chazakah, assuming that it remained as it was).
(b) Irrespective of the fact that a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' is
d'Oraysa (as we just established), the Beraisa is lenient by T'rumah, to
rely on 'Tolin' - because it is speaking about spices, whose basic status of
T'rumah is only mi'd'Rabbanan.
(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). Abaye could not reply that the author of the Beraisa is the
Rabbanan (who do not Darshen "Kol") - because he assumes that, if the author
of the Beraisa of 'Mikpeh' is (also) Rebbi Eliezer, so is this one.
(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.
Abaye is happy with this Beraisa - because he only holds 'Heter Mitztaref
le'Isur' when the majority is Heter (but not when the Heter and the Isur are
in equal proportions, as they are here).
(b) Nevertheless, in the two previous cases ('Kutach ha'Bavli' and the two
mortars, neither of which contain a majority of Isur), the S'vara of 'Heter
Mitztaref le'Isur' applies - because, unlike the case of the two boxes
(where the Isur is immediately Batel in the majority), the S'vara of 'Nosen
Ta'am' applies (since in both cases, the Heter and the Isur are mixed,
thereby preventing Bitul from taking place) Tosfos.
(c) In the case of the two boxes, where there is a majority of Heter, the
Tana still requires 'Tolin', and is not satisfied with the fact that there
is a majority of Heter to permit it - because by an Isur d'Oraysa, he
requires two S'varos in order to permit the Isur (Tosfos).
(a) In spite of the way we just explained Abaye, the Tana nevertheless
requires the S'vara of 'Tolin' in the case of the two boxes (rather than
rely on that of Bitul alone) - because, if 'K'dei Achilas P'ras' were
d'Oraysa, Chazal would have been stringent and forbidden the boxes on the
basis of 'Bitul' alone (a decree because of 'Min be'she'Eino Mino').
(b) Abaye is nevertheless happy with the Beraisa. He in any case, will not
apply the same S'vara (to apply 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' even to a case
where there is more Heter than Isur, on account of when there is not) -
because 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' never ever applies to a case where there
is more Heter than Isur (unlike 'K'dei Achilas P'ras', which can sometimes
apply to 'Min be'Mino' (seeing as he is eating Isur, which would be
forbidden if it was recognizable).
(c) To refute Abaye's Kashya as to how the Tana can rely on 'Tolin' in face
of an Isur d'Oraysa - because it is speaking about T'rumah bi'Zeman ha'Zeh,
which is only d'Rabbanan.