ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 52
(a) According to the Tana Kama, someone who is Noder from milk, is permitted
to eats the whey, and vice-versa (because they are considered two different
commodities) - Rebbi Yossi forbids the former.
(b) Aba Shaul says that someone who is Noder from cheese is forbidden to eat
both salted and unsalted cheese. We might otherwise have confined the Neder
to salted cheese, because that is how cheese is usually made?
(c) The Tana Kama permits someone who is Noder from meat, to eat both the
gravy and the Kifah - which is the tiny pieces of meat that one finds at the
bottom of the pot.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah forbids both the gravy and the Kifah.
(a) When Rebbi Yehudah cites Rebbi Tarfon, who even forbade eggs that were
cooked together with meat that was forbidden through a Neder - he is
bringing a proof for Rebbi Yossi, who forbids the whey together with the
milk (see also Tosfos).
(b) The Rabbanan refute Rebbi Yehudah's proof - by establishing Rebbi Tarfon
when the Noder said 'Basar Zeh', specifically including whatever comes from
it (or whatever it is mixed with).
(c) The criterion for Rebbi Tarfon's ruling, according to them is - whether
there is sufficient of the forbidden food to give taste to the secondary one
(which is generally anything less than sixty to one).
(d) The difference whether one is 'Noder min ha'Yayin' or 'Konem Yayin Zeh
she'Eini To'em' is - that in the former case, one is only forbidden to drink
the wine itself; whereas in the latter, whatever comes from the wine or
whatever it is mixed with and absorbs some of its taste is included in the
Neder (like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah).
(a) The problem that we have with the concession of benefiting from
forbidden wine because it is less than a sixtieth - is the principle 'Davar
she'Yesh Lo Matirin, Afilu be'Elef La Bateil'. And Neder is a 'Davar
she'Yesh Lo Matirin', since it is a Mitzvah to have it annulled.
(b) Some restrict the Isur of 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' to when the two
objects are of the same kind (Min be'Mino), but not to Min be'she'Eino Mino
(such as meat and eggs, milk and whey).
(c) The source of this distinction - is the Yerushalmi in this very Perek.
(a) The distinction between 'Min be'Mino' and 'Min be'she'Eino Mino' leaves
us with a Kashya on the Rif, however. According to the Rif, the Gemara
forbids bread that was baked together with roasted meat to be eaten with
Kutach (in spite of the principle 'Reicha La'av Milsa Hi') - because (seeing
as it can be eaten with meat) it falls under the category of 'Davar she'Yesh
(b) The Sugya in Beitzah says - that a dough whose owner borrowed water and
salt can only be taken to areas that lie within the T'chum of both owners.
(c) Despite the fact that the reason given there is because it is a 'Davar
she'Yesh Lo Matirin', there no proof from there for the Rif's ruling (seeing
as flour on the one hand, and water and salt on the other, are Min
be'she'Eino Mino') - because the fact that one cannot make dough without
water and salt, renders them 'Min be'Mino'.
(a) Many commentaries disagree with the Rif (see Tosfos and the Rosh here)
on the basis of our Sugya. It is possible however, to reconcile the Rif with
our Sugya. According to the Rif - the predominant factor in determining the
difference between 'Min be'Mino' and 'Min be'she'Eino Mino', is the
difference in Halachah.
(b) Both of them however - are required in order to become Bateil.
(c) 'Min be'she'Eino Mino' overrides 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' in the case
of Nedarim, but not in the case of ...
1. ... bread that was baked together with roasted meat in the oven -
because, unlike by Nedarim (which are completely forbidden now, and
permitted later), bread that was baked ... can be eaten now too (with meat
or Parev dishes).
(d) In fact, there might be even more reason to be stringent in the first of
the two cases than in the second - because, whereas in the latter case, we
would be stringent in the equivalent case by 'Min be'Mino' (creating the
possibility of being lenient by 'Min be'she'Eino Mino'); in the former case,
which does not have an equivalent by 'Min be'Mino', we will not be lenient
by 'Min be'she'Eino Mino' either.
2. ... dough containing borrowed water and salt - because, like bread that
was baked together with roasted meat in the oven, it can be eaten already
now (within the T'chum).
(a) They considered a joke, Rav Ashi's ruling in Yevamos that a piece of
Chatas that became mixed in a hundred pieces of Chulin is forbidden because
it is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin') - because as far as Kohanim are
concerned, it is always permitted, whereas as far as Yisre'eilim is
concerned, it is always forbidden (so how can he refer to it as a 'Davar
she'Yesh Lo Matirin'?).
(b) We reconcile this with the Rif's ruling in the case of bread which was
baked together with roasted meat in the oven - because in the case in
Yevamos, there is no point in being stringent with regard to the Yisrael
(not to allow the piece of Chatas to become Bateil), because of the fact
that it is permitted to Kohanim; whereas in the case of bread which was
baked together with roasted meat in the oven - we will be stringent now
regarding everybody because the bread can be eaten now (by the same people)
(a) According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, someone who is Noder from
lentils, is forbidden to eat 'Ashishin' (poor quality lentils that can only
be eaten when they are fried in honey) - Rebbi Yossi permits it.
(b) There is no contradiction between this Halachah and their ruling in our
Mishnah permitting the whey - because whey and milk are completely different
commodities, whereas lentils and Ashishin are not.
(c) But if Rebbi Yossi does not consider Ashishin to be lentils - then how
much more so should he not consider whey to be milk.
(d) We reconcile the two statements of Rebbi Yossi - by repeating what we
said earlier, that in Rebbi Yossi's town, they referred to whey as 'Kuma
de'Chelba', whereas they did not refer to Ashishin as lentils (since they
have been changed from what they originally were by having honey added to
(a) A Neder forbidding ...
(b) 'Konem Zeisim va'Anavim Eilu she'Eini To'em, Asur Bahen u'Vayotzei
Bahen'. The two possible reasons for this are - either because he added the
word 'Eilu', or because he added 'she'Eini To'em'.
- ... milk - does not incorporate whey, nor vice-versa.
- ... gravy - does not incorporate Kifa, nor vice-versa.
- ... grapes - do not incorporate wine.
- ... olives do not incorporate oil.
(c) We ask that if 'Eilu' was Dafka, then why would the Tana need to mention
'she'Eini To'em'? We could just as well have asked the other way round - but
chose to ask this way because 'Eilu' appears first in the Mishnah.
(d) We answer - that the Tana mentions 'she'Eini To'em' to teach us that
even though he added that, it will not incorporate other foods, unless he
(a) In spite of the Mishnah later, which forbids Chilufin and Gidulin when
the Noder said 'Eilu', but not when he said 'she'Eini To'em', Rami bar Chama
suggests that 'she'Eini To'em' might be stronger than 'Eilu' - because that
Mishnah speaks specifically about Chilufin and Gidulin, which are included
only because 'Eilu' is considered as if he had declared the fruit Hekdesh,
where Chilufin and Gidulin are forbidden too; whereas 'she'Eini To'em'
(which does not have such connotations), if anything precludes Chilufin and
Gidulin, seeing as that is not what he forbade.
(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana says 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Alai ... Asur
be'Chilufeihen u've'Giduleihen' - from which we might infer that what comes
from the fruit is permitted (otherwise the Tana should rather have said
'Asur be'Yotze Meihen', which is a bigger Chidush, because it is not the
same object as the one that he forbade.
(c) In fact, there is no proof from there that 'Eilu' does not include what
comes from the fruit - because we can say the opposite: that Chilufin and
Gidulin is a bigger Chidush, seeing as it did not come from the original
object (and that in fact, whatever comes from the forbidden object is
(d) We could have resolved our She'eilah from the Beraisa, which says 've'Im
Amar Basar Zeh Alai, Asur Bo u've'Rotvo u've'Kifo'. We did not do so -
because we are looking to resolve it from a Mishnah.
(a) We cannot resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa 'she'Eini Ochel,
ve'she'Eini To'em Mutar be'Chilufeihen ve'Giduleihen', from which we can
infer 'Ha ba'Yotzei Meihen, Asur' - because we can say that really,
'ba'Yotzei Meihen, Mutar. However, since the Tana did not mention in the
Reisha that 'ba'Yotzei Meihen, Asur' (like Chilufin ve'Gidulin), he did not
mentions it in the Seifa either.
(b) We finally conclude from Rebbi Yehudah (quoting Rebbi Tarfon) in our
Mishnah (who forbade eggs that were cooked with the forbidden meat when the
Noder said 'Konem Basar Zeh' (which is like 'Eilu') Alai' - that Eilu is
Dafka, and that it includes whatever comes out of the fruit or receives
taste from it.
(c) We try to resolve the second half of the She'eilah from the Mishnah that
we learned earlier 'Dag Dagim she'Eini To'em Asur Bahen ... *u'Mutar
bi'T'ris T'rufah u'be'Tzir'*. Rava refutes the proof from there however - by
establishing the Mishnah when the juice had already been extracted and the
fish chopped, before he made the Neder (but if it was done only afterwards,
it would indeed be forbidden.
(d) The Halachah is that ...
- ... 'Eilu' - is definitely Dafka.
- ... 'she'Eini To'em' - is a Safek, and S'feika d'Oraysa le'Chumra.
(a) The case of 'she'Eini Ochel' presents a problem - because what
alternative did he have? 'Konem Alai' would have implied an Isur Hana'ah,
and not just the Isur Achilah that he wanted to create.
(b) We resolve this problem - by pointing out that he could have said 'Konem
Peiros ha'Eilu ba'Achilah', rather than 'Konem Peiros she'Eini Ochel'.
(c) In that case, by She'vu'ah, 'she'Eini Ochel' will definitely not include
anything (e.g. what comes from the fruit) - because 'ba'Achilah Alai' is not
an alternative, seeing as it is a Lashon of Neder and not of Shevu'ah, in
which case 'she'Eini Ochel' is not superfluous.
(d) The Rambam says otherwise - because, in his opinion, the Leshonos under
discussion do not include because they superfluous, but because the Lashon
itself is inclusive. In that case, there is no difference between Neder and