Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SUBJECTS FOR HATFASAH (Cont.)

(a) Proof #1 (Rava): The Mishnah said that he can use Nosar and Pigul as the subject of Hatfasah.

1. These are after Zerikah, and it is still binding; hence, the Hatfasah follows the prohibited essence.

(b) Refutation: It could be talking about Nosar of an Olah (which is always prohibited).

1. Question: If so, let the Mishnah have spoken of the flesh of the Olah!?
2. Answer: The Mishnah wants to teach us the added Chiddush of Nosar.

i. One might have thought that he is trying to do a Hatfasah from something prohibited by Issur rather than by Neder, which doesn't work.

(c) Proof #2: We see that the Hatfasah follows the essence:

1. (Beraisa) The prototypical Shavuah of Issur is where someone vows to abstain from meat and wine as on the day of his father's death, teacher's death, Tzom Gedalyah, or when he saw ruined Jerusalem.
2. (Shmuel) It must be that he already once made a Neder to abstain like on that day (and he is using this as the source of the Hatfasah).
3. It seems to be referring to where it is the same day of the week as that which his father died on, and even though there are many such days which are permitted, we say it follows the particular day on which he is prohibited!

(d) Refutation: Shmuel means that it refers to where he took such a vow on every single such day (so there is no permitted target for Hatfasah).
(e) Proof #3 (Ravina): We see that the Hatfasah follows the essence:

1. (Mishnah) If he prohibited it "as the Challos of Aharon and his Terumos" it is permitted.
2. This implies that if he prohibited it as the Terumos Lachmei Todah, it is prohibited.

3. But this is separated only after Zerikah, when it is permitted.
4. So we see that the Hatfasah follows the prohibited essence!

(f) Refutation: The correct implication is instead that if he prohibited it "as the Terumah of the Lishchah" it is prohibited.

1. Question: But if, in a case where he prohibited it as the Terumos Lachmei Todah, it is permitted, why didn't the Mishnah list this case (and all the more so if he prohibited it "as the Challos of Aharon and his Terumos')?
2. Answer: It teaches us that the Terumas Lachmei Todah is included in the category of Terumah.
3. Alternate answer: The Terumas Lachmei Todah could be before Zerikah (when it would be prohibited, and therefore the case was not mentioned);

i. It could be that it was separated during the kneading, which we see is viable:
ii. (R. Tuvi bar Kisna citing Shmuel) Lachmei Todah can be done with four loaves (of four types).
iii. Question: Surely forty are required?
iv. Answer: That is only for the ideal fulfillment of the mitzvah.
v. Question: Surely Terumah must be separated!?
vi. One can't answer that one loaf is separated for the rest, as it must be separated from each type.
vii. One can't say that a chunk is separated from each loaf, as the verse prohibits taking a chunk.
viii.Answer: It is separated during the kneading process.

(g) Suggestion: Let us say that whether the Hatfasah follows the prohibited essence or the permitted aspect is subject to a dispute between Tannaim:

1. (R. Yaakov) If someone prohibits something "as a Bechor," it is binding.
2. (R. Yehudah) It is permitted.
3. This can't be referring to before Zerikah, as why would R. Yehudah permit it.
4. It can't be referring to after Zerikah, as why would R. Yaakov rule that it is binding.
5. So it must be referring to where there is a piece of meat and a piece of Bechor post-Zerikah, and he said that "this is as this," and there is a dispute as to what the Hatfasah follows!