Previous daf

1)

(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 Beraisa).

(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 Kil'ayim.

(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 le'Isur'.

(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'.

6)

(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 characteristics.

(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 Kodshim.

(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 - Tosfos).

(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 mixed together.

(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.