Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 52

1) "DAVAR SHE'YESH LO MATIRIN" AND "MIN B'MINO"

The Ran discusses at length the topic of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin Eino Batel" (an Isur which has a way for it to become Mutar cannot become Batel if it becomes unidentifiable in a mixture of permitted items). The RAN cites various sources to prove that this rule applies only when a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" becomes mixed up with another object of the same type ("Min b'Mino"), but when it becomes mixed up with an object of a different type ("Min b'she'Eino Mino"), then it *is* Batel even though it is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin."

Based on this premise, the Ran questions the ruling of the RIF. The Rif rules that bread that was baked in the same oven with roasting meat may not be eaten with milk, even though only a minuscule amount of meat was absorbed into the bread. His reasoning is because the bread is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin," since one can simply eat it without milk, and therefore we may not rely on viewing the meat absorbed into it as being Batel. That case, however, is a case of Min b'she'Eino Mino, the meat is mixed into the bread. In such a case the meat *should* be Batel even though it is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin!"

The Ran suggests three answers to this question on the Rif. The most widely- discussed answer is his first answer, in which he explains the underlying reason for why the Chachamim enacted that a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" is not Batel.

He first addresses the question why the Chachamim were Machmir in the case of a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" only when the item becomes mixed with a like object (Min b'Mino). If the logic behind "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin Eino Batel" is -- like RASHI in Beitzah (3b, DH Afilu b'Elef) says -- because a person should not rely on the Bitul of an Isur when he can eat the item when it is completely Mutar, then even when the Isur becomes mixed up with a different Min (Min b'she'Eino Mino), it should also not be Batel!

The Ran explains that Bitul occurs only when there are two opposing entities (Min b'she'Eino Mino), and the majority entity overpowers the minority. When the two components of the mixture are of the same substance (Min b'Mino), there is a Machlokes Tana'im (Menachos 22a) concerning the status of the mixture. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a substance cannot be Mevatel an identical substance. The Rabanan hold that it can, because even though the two substances are physically the same, *Halachically* they oppose each other since one is Heter and one is Isur. However, if the object of the Isur also has some quality of Heter (for example, it is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" and will eventually become Mutar), and, in addition, the two components of the mixture are made of the same substance (Min b'Mino), then since the two are so similar, one cannot be Mevatel the other. That is why the Chachamim enacted that a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" is not Batel in a mixture of Min b'Mino.

The Acharonim discuss at length various aspects and applications of this explanation of the Ran (the Ran's explanation is cited by a number of Poskim -- see TAZ YD 102:5, SHACH YD 299:1, ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN YD 102:26).

1. Applying the principle of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" to a Safek Isur d'Rabanan. The Gemara in Beitzah (4a) says that just like the Chachamim enacted that a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" is not Batel in a mixture, they also enacted that a Safek Isur d'Rabanan which is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" remains Asur, and the normal principle of "Safek d'Rabanan l'Kula" does not apply. The Acharonim (see TESHUVOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER 1:189) point out that the Ran's explanation will not suffice to explain why the stringency of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" applies to a Safek d'Rabanan. A Safek d'Rabanan is an item which *might* be Asur mid'Rabanan; it does not involve any mixture of items. There is no question of Bitul, for Bitul applies, of course, only in a case of a mixture. A Safek Isur d'Rabanan -- even if it is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" should be permitted (because in the case of a Safek, in order to be lenient, we do not need any opposing element to be Mevatel the Isur, because there *is* no definite Isur; rather, the leniency comes on its own accord by virtue of the Safek d'Rabanan).

Apparently, the Ran agrees that the Rabanan were Machmir in such a case because of Rashi's logic that it is better to eat the item when it is completely Mutar than to rely on being lenient when it is a Safek Isur. However, if it is true that the Ran agrees with the logic of Rashi in such a case, then why does he not use the same logic to prohibit a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" that became mixed with an object of Heter of a different substance (Min b'she'Eino Mino)? The Ran should agree that we are Machmir with a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" even in a case of Min b'she'Eino Mino because of this logic!

The Acharonim (see EINAYIM LA'MISHPAT) answer that the Ran holds that Rashi's logic cannot be applied to a mixture. We cannot be Machmir and say that one should wait until the item is completely Mutar and not rely on the Bitul of the Isur, because, in a mixture, the minority becomes *entirely Batel*, as if it was not there. There is no point in waiting until the Isur becomes Mutar, because the Isur already *is* Mutar because of the Bitul! That is why the Ran needs the other line of reasoning, that the Bitul itself cannot occur when the Isur is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" because the mixture is then like Min b'Mino. (The REMA in TORAS CHATAS (see TAZ YD 101:12 and 102:5) gives a similar reason to explain -- without using the Ran's logic -- why, according to Rashi's logic that it is better to eat the item when it is completely Mutar, a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" *is* Batel in a mixture of Min b'she'Eino Mino. He explains that in a mixture of Min b'she'Eino Mino the Isur is completely Batel and it loses its independent identity. In contrast, in a mixture of Min b'Mino, even though the Isur becomes Batel mid'Oraisa in the Heter, the Isur still maintains its original identity, and that is why the Rabanan were Machmir and required one to eat it b'Heter and not rely on Bitul.)

2. The NODA B'YEHUDAH (2:186) questions the Ran's hypothesis that when two substances that are both Mutar get mixed in with each other (Heter b'Heter) the mixture is considered Min b'Mino. The Mishnah (Kela'im 9:1) says that only sheep's wool can become Kela'im. If sheep's wool becomes mixed together with camel's wool, then when the Rov of the mixture is camel's wool, it is permitted to weave the mixture with linen. According to the Ran, though, we should say that the sheep's wool is not Batel, because the mixture is one of Heter b'Heter, and the mixture of the sheep's wool in the camel's wool is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" because it can be used by itself without linen. The Acharonim ask a similar question from the Mishnah in Nega'im (11:2).

The Noda b'Yehudah answers that according to the Rambam (Hilchos Kela'im), the Mishnah is discussing threads that were spun from a mixture of sheep's wool and camel's wool. It is not discussing separate threads of sheep's wool and separate threads of camel's wool that became mixed together. Hence, even if the fibers of the sheep's wool is not Batel in a mixture with camel's wool, when the thread that is made from that mixture is spun and complete, it gets a new title -- "thread" and not "fibers" -- and the title applies only to the majority of fibers that constitute the thread, and not to the minority of fibers. Therefore, as a *thread*, it can only be called a thread of *camel's wool*. As fibers, it can be called fibers of sheep's wool since they are not Batel, but fibers that are not spun into thread are not Asur b'Kela'im! Therefore, the Isur of Kela'im cannot apply to such thread because there is no spun threads of the sheep's wool. (The same approach answers the question from Nega'im.) (The Noda b'Yehudah cites the TASHBETZ 2:4 who gives a similar answer.)

3. The ROSH cites the Yerushalmi that questions the very notion that a Neder is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin." The Yerushalmi says that when a Chacham is Matir a Neder, the Neder is retroactively removed such that there never was an Isur. Why, then, should a Neder be considered a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin?" It is not an object that is presently Asur that can be made Mutar. Rather, it is a Safek whether it is Asur right now or Mutar right now (since perhaps a Chacham will be Matir the Neder in the future, making the object of the Neder Mutar right now)!

The Yerushalmi answers that when a Chacham is Matir a Neder, his Hatarah does not uproot the Neder absolutely retroactively, but rather his Hatarah uproots the Neder "mi'Kan u'l'ha'Ba l'Mafrei'a." This means that at the time that the Chacham is Matir the Neder, the Neder becomes annulled from then on, and although until that point it was indeed Asur, it is viewed from now on as if there never was a Neder. Until the time of the Hatarah, the object certainly was prohibited. The Chacham, by being Matir, removes the Isur from now on *as if* it was never there before. Therefore, a Neder is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin." (The Ran and other Rishonim had the opposite Girsa in the Yerushalmi, as the RASHASH and the commentators to the Yerushalmi point out.)

The Yerushalmi's question, according to the Rosh, is not clear. How did the Yerushalmi understand why the Rabanan were Machmir in the case of a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin?" If the Rosh learns like Rashi that the logic behind the Chumra is that it is better to eat the food when it is completely Mutar than to rely on Bitul of an Isur, then that logic still applies even if Hataras Nedarim works completely retroactively! Accordingly to Rashi's logic, the person who made the Neder can simply be Matir the Neder before eating the item, so that he is eating the item in a state of complete Heter and not with a Safek Isur! The Ran's logic, on the other hand, certainly applies, because if there is a Safek that the Neder might be Mutar right now, then it is even more of a reason to say that it is Heter b'Heter (just like Basar b'Chalav)!

The answer is that it seems that the Rosh argues with a basic point of the Ran. The Ran says that the Chumra of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" applies not only to an object that could become Mutar later, but it even applies to an object that is Asur but which has a way, at present, to be used in a permitted fashion (such as meat that can be eaten with other meat and not with milk). From the Rosh it is clear that this is not so -- "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" applies only to an object that is Asur which can become Mutar (see what the Ran writes about the Gemara in Yevamos 81b with regard to Terumah). The reason for this is because the Rabanan are only Machmir in the case of a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" when doing so does not limit the person's use of the object by anything other than time. If the person can use the tomorrow b'Heter in the exact same way that is Asur today mi'Safek, then we tell him to wait until tomorrow. But if it is permitted to be used right now in a different way than the person wants to use it, the Chumra of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" does not apply and we do not limit his usage of the item and tell him that he may only use it in the permitted fashion.

The Rosh holds that Basar b'Chalav is not a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin," because if a person wants to eat with milk his bread that has absorbed the taste of meat, we do not tell him to eat his bread with something else, since he wants to eat it with milk. Similarly, regarding a Neder, the Torah says that if the Heter would be completely retroactive, then we could not tell a person to be Matir his Neder, because he wants to eat the mixture without having to undo the Neder that he created (because he had a reason to make the Neder and he does not want to forfeit it). The Yerushalmi answers that Hataras Nedarim is "mi'Kan u'l'ha'Ba l'Mafrei'a." The Neder, in essence, is uprooted only from now on. Therefore, when he is Matir the Neder, the person is not entirely uprooting and forfeiting the Neder that he made. Consequently, we may tell him that instead of eating the item in a state of Safek Isur now, he should be Matir the Neder and then eat it, and by doing so he will not be canceling the original Neder that he made.

52b

QUESTION: In the Mishnah (51b), Rebbi Yosi says that one who makes a Neder prohibiting himself from "Chalav" (milk) is also prohibited from "Kum" (whey), because Kum is also referred to as "milk." The Gemara asks that in the Mishnah later (53b) Rebbi Yosi contradicts his view. There he says that one who makes a Neder prohibiting himself from "Adashim" (lentils) is *permitted* to eat "Ashishim." The Ran, based on the Yerushalmi, explains that Ashishim are lentils that have been cooked, ground, and roasted in honey. Why does Rebbi Yosi permit the Ashishim when one prohibited lentils upon himself, while he prohibits Kum when one prohibited Chalav upon himself?

The Gemara answers that where Rebbi Yosi lived, they called whey "milk" (milky whey), but they did not call Ashishim "lentils."

Although this explains why Ashishim are not Asur as a result of being called lentils, since they are *not called* lentils, Ashishim should still be Asur for a different reason -- Ashishim are *made* from lentils! Since he may not eat lentils, he should be prohibited from eating Ashishim which contain lentils!

While the Chachamim in the Mishnah say that if someone prohibits himself from meat, he is permitted to eat the sauce that is derived from the meat, Rebbi Yehudah prohibits eating the sauce since he holds that the Neder prohibits not only the object that the person mentions in the Neder, but also any object that is produced from it. The Ran's Girsa in that part of the Mishnah is not "Rebbi Yehudah" but "Rebbi Yosi" (see first two lines of Ran on 52a, and Rashash)! Accordingly, Rebbi Yosi should be consistent with his own opinion and should certainly prohibit Ashishim, which not only derive from lentils but is made entirely of ground lentils!

ANSWER: The Gemara at the end of the Daf quotes Rava who says that there is a difference between something that is derived from the object of the Neder *before* the Neder was made, and something that is derived from the object of the Neder *after* the Neder was made. Rebbi Yosi prohibits only what was derived from the object *after* it was prohibited by the Neder. When Rebbi Yosi says that one who makes a Neder prohibiting himself from lentils is permitted to eat Ashishim, he means that one is permitted to eat any Ashishim that were made before his Neder, since it is not called "Adashim" but "Ashishim."