Today's Daf Yomi
February 28, 2023 | ז׳ באדר תשפ״ג
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.
Nazir 36
Today’s daf is sponsored by Lianne Philipp in honor of her daughter, Nechama Sarah, on the occasion of her first birthday. “We have listened to the podcast together since before she was even born. May we continue to learn Talmud together for years to come. Happy birthday!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Sylvia (Sara Devora) Simmons in memory of her father, Avraham Nachum ben Yisrael Simmons z”l on his yahrzeit. A survivor of Kovno ghetto, “a brand plucked from burning fire.”
Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Moshe ben Amram, Moshe Rabbeinu.
Today’s daf is sponsored in memory of Elan Ganeles who was murdered yesterday.
Rabbi Yochanan says that the concept of heiter mitztaref l’issur, which means that even if there is not a requisite amount of a forbidden item but it is mixed with a permitted item and one ate a requisite amount of the combination, one would be liable by Torah law, is true only in the case of a nazir who eats bread soaked in wine. This is derived from the verse which says it explicitly by the nazir. Zeiri disagrees and brings another case where it is true as well – offering chametz on the altar, based on a drasha on the word “all.” A difficulty is raised against Zeiri as there are more cases as well and why did he not mention them, but that difficulty is resolved. Rav Dimi ruled like Rabbi Yochanan. Abaye raises a question on this ruling from a Mishna in Tvul Yom 2:3 regarding a combination of chulin and truma and Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation of the Mishna where he explains why the ruling is strict there as a non-kohen would be liable for eating an olive bulk. Abaye’s assumption is that Rabbi Yochanan meant an olive bulk of the combination, as per heiter mitztaref l’issur. However, Rav Dimi explains that Rabbi Yochanan meant that if in the mixture, there was an olive bulk of the forbidden item that if eaten together, one would eat an entire olive bulk of the forbidden item in the time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread, that would make one liable on a Torah level as an olive bulk of forbidden item was eaten. Abaye questions whether that halacha is by Torah law and Rav Dimi responds that it is. Abaye brings three tannaitic sources from which to prove that it is not a Torah law. However, Rav Dimi has resolutions to Abaye’s questions.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף-יומי-לנשים): Play in new window | Download
זעירי אמר אף שאור בבל תקטירו כמאן כרבי אלעזר דדריש כל
Ze’eiri says: Permitted and forbidden substances combine with regard to the prohibition against offering leaven on the altar, as well, as it states: “For any [kol] leaven and any [kol] honey shall not be offered as a burnt-offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). This indicates that one is also liable for sacrificing leaven in a mixture in addition to the liability for sacrificing pure leaven. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Ze’eiri issue his ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who derives from the term kol in the verse “You shall eat nothing [kol] leavened” (Exodus 12:20) that a mixture with part leaven is forbidden on Passover.
אי הכי לענין חמץ נמי אין הכי נמי אלא לאפוקי מאביי דאמר יש הקטרה בפחות מכזית קא משמע לן אין הקטרה בפחות מכזית
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then with regard to the matter of leavened bread on Passover, one should also be liable for eating leaven combined with a permitted substance, e.g., less than an olive-bulk of bread soaked in wine, so that the volume is now an olive-bulk. The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so. Rather, when Ze’eiri specifies that the prohibition applies with regard to sacrificing leaven in offerings, he meant to exclude the statement of Abaye, who says: There is significance to sacrificing less than an olive-bulk of leaven on the altar, i.e., one is flogged for sacrificing an offering of that kind. By noting that one is liable due to the fact that permitted substances combine with forbidden substances, Ze’eiri teaches us that there is no significance to sacrificing less than an olive-bulk, and therefore this is not punishable by lashes.
יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה אביי המקפה של תרומה והשום והשמן של חולין ונגע טבול יום במקצתן פסל את כולן מקפה של חולין והשום והשמן של תרומה ונגע טבול יום במקצתן לא פסל אלא מקום מגעו
§ Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha of Rabbi Yoḥanan that a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance except in the case of a nazirite. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:3): In a case where the thick soup was made with produce that had the status of teruma but the garlic and oil therein were of non-sacred produce, and one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched some of the contents, he has disqualified all the contents of the pot from being eaten, as it all is considered teruma soup. However, if the thick soup was made with produce of non-sacred status but the garlic and the oil had the status of teruma produce, and one who immersed himself that day touched some of them, he has disqualified only the contents in the place that he touched.
והוינן בה מקום מגעו אמאי פסול ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מה טעם הואיל וזר לוקה עליה בכזית
Abaye continues: And we discussed this issue: Why are the contents in the place that he touched disqualified? Since the primary ingredients of the dish are of non-sacred produce, it should not be disqualified by contact with one who immersed himself that day. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reason that the contents become disqualified? It is due to the fact that a non-priest is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of the soup, as anything into which teruma is mixed is considered teruma by Torah law.
מאי טעמיה
Abaye concludes his question: What is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reason that one is flogged for eating this mixture?
לאו משום דהיתר מצטרף לאיסור אמר ליה לא מאי כזית דאיכא כזית בכדי אכילת פרס
Is it not due to the fact that the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? This would mean that this principle applies in other areas of Torah law besides naziriteship. Rav Dimi said to him: No; what is the meaning of an olive-bulk in this mishna? It means that there is enough teruma in the mixture so that when one eats from the mixture he will consume an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. In that case one is liable to receive a punishment for eating this olive-bulk, as though he ate the teruma alone.
ואכילת פרס דאורייתא היא אמר ליה אין אי הכי אמאי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אלעזר בכותח הבבלי
Abaye asked him: But is eating an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread prohibited by Torah law, and is one flogged for it? Rav Dimi said to him: Yes. Abaye asked in response: If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ, a dip that contains bread, on Passover? The Rabbis maintain that one is not punished by Torah law for eating a mixture that contains leaven. Although the Rabbis do not derive from the term “nothing [kol],” that leaven in a mixture is forbidden, they should nevertheless hold one liable for eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.
אמר ליה הנח לכותח הבבלי דליכא כזית בכדי אכילת פרס אי דקא שריף ליה מישרף בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם אי מישטר קא שטר לא משכחת כזית בכדי אכילת פרס
Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Leave aside the case of Babylonian kutaḥ, as there is no possibility that one will consume an olive-bulk of the leaven in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If he eats kutaḥ in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing [shareif] it as food, not as a dip, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. It is unusual for a person to eat a pungent dip by itself, and especially so quickly. One receives no punishment for conduct that anomalous. And if he dips [shatar] other food into the kutaḥ and eats it, he will not be found to have consumed an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Due to the pungency of the dip, one typically adds only a small portion of it to his food.
איתיביה שתי מדוכות אחת של תרומה ואחת של חולין ולפניו שתי קדירות אחת של תרומה ואחת של חולין ונפלו אלו לתוך אלו שתיהן מותרות שאני אומר חולין לתוך חולין נפלו ותרומה לתוך תרומה נפלה
Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a baraita: With regard to two spice mortars, one used for teruma spices and one used for non-sacred spices, before which were two pots, one of teruma produce and the other one of non-sacred produce, and the contents of these mortars fell into these pots, but it is unknown which produce fell into which pot, the contents of both pots are permitted; the pot containing the teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the pot containing non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say, with no definitive proof to the contrary, that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma spices fell into the teruma.
ואי סלקא דעתך כזית בכדי אכילת פרס דאורייתא אמאי אמרינן שאני אומר
Abaye explains his objection: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce? If the teruma spices fell into the pot containing non-sacred produce, one who eats from the mixture will consume an olive-bulk of teruma within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and he will thereby violate a Torah prohibition. One is not lenient in a case of this kind.
אלא מאי היתר מצטרף לאיסור אמאי אמרינן שאני אומר אלא הנח לתרומת תבלין דרבנן היא
Rav Dimi said to him: Rather, what will you say? That the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? But if so, one can still ask why we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce. After all, it is possible that the second mortar contained slightly less than an olive-bulk of teruma, and the permitted substance combined with it to form the amount of an olive-bulk. Rather, leave aside the case of teruma separated from spices, which is teruma by rabbinic law. By Torah law one is required to separate teruma only from grain, wine, and oil. The Sages are lenient with regard to teruma by rabbinic law.
איתיביה שתי קופות אחת של תרומה ואחת של חולין ולפניהן שתי סאין אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ונפלו אלו לתוך אלו שניהן מותרין שאני אומר חולין לתוך חולין נפלו תרומה לתוך תרומה נפלה
Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a similar baraita: There were two baskets, one filled with teruma and one filled with non-sacred produce, and before them were two containers each containing a se’a of produce, one of non-sacred produce and the one of teruma, and these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the containers before them. Although it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, and it is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, the contents of both of the vessels are nevertheless permitted; the container of teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the container of non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma.
ואי סלקא דעתך כזית בכדי אכילת פרס אסור אמאי אמרינן שאני אומר
Abaye explains: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of forbidden food in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say the principle: Because I say the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce? Why are the Sages not concerned that one might eat an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, which is prohibited by Torah law?
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Nazir 36
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
זעירי אמר אף שאור בבל תקטירו כמאן כרבי אלעזר דדריש כל
Ze’eiri says: Permitted and forbidden substances combine with regard to the prohibition against offering leaven on the altar, as well, as it states: “For any [kol] leaven and any [kol] honey shall not be offered as a burnt-offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). This indicates that one is also liable for sacrificing leaven in a mixture in addition to the liability for sacrificing pure leaven. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Ze’eiri issue his ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who derives from the term kol in the verse “You shall eat nothing [kol] leavened” (Exodus 12:20) that a mixture with part leaven is forbidden on Passover.
אי הכי לענין חמץ נמי אין הכי נמי אלא לאפוקי מאביי דאמר יש הקטרה בפחות מכזית קא משמע לן אין הקטרה בפחות מכזית
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then with regard to the matter of leavened bread on Passover, one should also be liable for eating leaven combined with a permitted substance, e.g., less than an olive-bulk of bread soaked in wine, so that the volume is now an olive-bulk. The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so. Rather, when Ze’eiri specifies that the prohibition applies with regard to sacrificing leaven in offerings, he meant to exclude the statement of Abaye, who says: There is significance to sacrificing less than an olive-bulk of leaven on the altar, i.e., one is flogged for sacrificing an offering of that kind. By noting that one is liable due to the fact that permitted substances combine with forbidden substances, Ze’eiri teaches us that there is no significance to sacrificing less than an olive-bulk, and therefore this is not punishable by lashes.
יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה אביי המקפה של תרומה והשום והשמן של חולין ונגע טבול יום במקצתן פסל את כולן מקפה של חולין והשום והשמן של תרומה ונגע טבול יום במקצתן לא פסל אלא מקום מגעו
§ Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha of Rabbi Yoḥanan that a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance except in the case of a nazirite. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:3): In a case where the thick soup was made with produce that had the status of teruma but the garlic and oil therein were of non-sacred produce, and one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched some of the contents, he has disqualified all the contents of the pot from being eaten, as it all is considered teruma soup. However, if the thick soup was made with produce of non-sacred status but the garlic and the oil had the status of teruma produce, and one who immersed himself that day touched some of them, he has disqualified only the contents in the place that he touched.
והוינן בה מקום מגעו אמאי פסול ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מה טעם הואיל וזר לוקה עליה בכזית
Abaye continues: And we discussed this issue: Why are the contents in the place that he touched disqualified? Since the primary ingredients of the dish are of non-sacred produce, it should not be disqualified by contact with one who immersed himself that day. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reason that the contents become disqualified? It is due to the fact that a non-priest is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of the soup, as anything into which teruma is mixed is considered teruma by Torah law.
מאי טעמיה
Abaye concludes his question: What is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reason that one is flogged for eating this mixture?
לאו משום דהיתר מצטרף לאיסור אמר ליה לא מאי כזית דאיכא כזית בכדי אכילת פרס
Is it not due to the fact that the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? This would mean that this principle applies in other areas of Torah law besides naziriteship. Rav Dimi said to him: No; what is the meaning of an olive-bulk in this mishna? It means that there is enough teruma in the mixture so that when one eats from the mixture he will consume an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. In that case one is liable to receive a punishment for eating this olive-bulk, as though he ate the teruma alone.
ואכילת פרס דאורייתא היא אמר ליה אין אי הכי אמאי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אלעזר בכותח הבבלי
Abaye asked him: But is eating an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread prohibited by Torah law, and is one flogged for it? Rav Dimi said to him: Yes. Abaye asked in response: If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ, a dip that contains bread, on Passover? The Rabbis maintain that one is not punished by Torah law for eating a mixture that contains leaven. Although the Rabbis do not derive from the term “nothing [kol],” that leaven in a mixture is forbidden, they should nevertheless hold one liable for eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.
אמר ליה הנח לכותח הבבלי דליכא כזית בכדי אכילת פרס אי דקא שריף ליה מישרף בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם אי מישטר קא שטר לא משכחת כזית בכדי אכילת פרס
Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Leave aside the case of Babylonian kutaḥ, as there is no possibility that one will consume an olive-bulk of the leaven in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If he eats kutaḥ in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing [shareif] it as food, not as a dip, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. It is unusual for a person to eat a pungent dip by itself, and especially so quickly. One receives no punishment for conduct that anomalous. And if he dips [shatar] other food into the kutaḥ and eats it, he will not be found to have consumed an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Due to the pungency of the dip, one typically adds only a small portion of it to his food.
איתיביה שתי מדוכות אחת של תרומה ואחת של חולין ולפניו שתי קדירות אחת של תרומה ואחת של חולין ונפלו אלו לתוך אלו שתיהן מותרות שאני אומר חולין לתוך חולין נפלו ותרומה לתוך תרומה נפלה
Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a baraita: With regard to two spice mortars, one used for teruma spices and one used for non-sacred spices, before which were two pots, one of teruma produce and the other one of non-sacred produce, and the contents of these mortars fell into these pots, but it is unknown which produce fell into which pot, the contents of both pots are permitted; the pot containing the teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the pot containing non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say, with no definitive proof to the contrary, that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma spices fell into the teruma.
ואי סלקא דעתך כזית בכדי אכילת פרס דאורייתא אמאי אמרינן שאני אומר
Abaye explains his objection: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce? If the teruma spices fell into the pot containing non-sacred produce, one who eats from the mixture will consume an olive-bulk of teruma within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and he will thereby violate a Torah prohibition. One is not lenient in a case of this kind.
אלא מאי היתר מצטרף לאיסור אמאי אמרינן שאני אומר אלא הנח לתרומת תבלין דרבנן היא
Rav Dimi said to him: Rather, what will you say? That the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? But if so, one can still ask why we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce. After all, it is possible that the second mortar contained slightly less than an olive-bulk of teruma, and the permitted substance combined with it to form the amount of an olive-bulk. Rather, leave aside the case of teruma separated from spices, which is teruma by rabbinic law. By Torah law one is required to separate teruma only from grain, wine, and oil. The Sages are lenient with regard to teruma by rabbinic law.
איתיביה שתי קופות אחת של תרומה ואחת של חולין ולפניהן שתי סאין אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ונפלו אלו לתוך אלו שניהן מותרין שאני אומר חולין לתוך חולין נפלו תרומה לתוך תרומה נפלה
Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a similar baraita: There were two baskets, one filled with teruma and one filled with non-sacred produce, and before them were two containers each containing a se’a of produce, one of non-sacred produce and the one of teruma, and these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the containers before them. Although it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, and it is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, the contents of both of the vessels are nevertheless permitted; the container of teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the container of non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma.
ואי סלקא דעתך כזית בכדי אכילת פרס אסור אמאי אמרינן שאני אומר
Abaye explains: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of forbidden food in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say the principle: Because I say the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce? Why are the Sages not concerned that one might eat an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, which is prohibited by Torah law?
