Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 26, 2023 | 讛壮 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Nazir 34

This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen for a refuah shleima for Refael Itamar Tzvi ben Devorah Esther. “A doctor who has healed thousands of people with his medical expertise, providing endless care and love at all hours of the day and night. May Hashem give him the same attention and grant him a full and speedy recovery.”

This week’s learning is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in honor of the birth of their two newest granddaughters, Yahav Ahuva bat Shifra and Gal Slomowitz and Keshet Naomi bat Sivan and Ariel Sheleg.

The Mishna stated that if the person they were betting on turned around and was never identified, none of them are nezirim. This implies that if they identified the person, those who are right would be nezirim. The Gemara proves that this opinion must be Rabbi Yehuda who held that if there was a pile and one said, “I will be a nazir if there are 100 kur in the pile,” and the pile gets lost or stolen, the person is not a nazir. A similar, but different Mishna is brought regarding those who bet on a koi, an animal that it is unclear if it is a domesticated on a non-domesticated animal. Six people bet they will be a nazir if it is a domesticated animal or not, is a domesticated animal or not, is both, is neither, and then three people bet on whether any of the previous are or are not or are all nezirim. The Mishna rules that they are all nezirim. There could also be a case where one person took on nine terms of nezirut in this way. How? If a nazir ate an olive bulk of grapes, grape seeds, and skins together, one would get lashes as those can combine for the requisite amount. Is the amount needed for wine different from grapes? The earlier tradition was that the amount was a quarter-log of wine. Rabbi Akiva ruled that if one soaked bread with wine, and ate bread the size of an olive bulk, one would also get lashes. Some think that he disagrees also about the requisite amount and says it is an olive bulk. One can be obligated separate sets of lashes if one eats an olive bulk of grapes and also an olive bulk of grape seeds, etc. but Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria disagrees. He also obligates differently for grape seeds and skins as he does not require an olive bulk but requires two seeds and one skin as per the verse in the Torah. Which word in the Torah means seeds and which skins? There is a tannaitic debate about this. Our Mishna doesn’t follow Rabbi Eliezer who prohibited also the leaves and edible tendrils of the vine. Their debate is based on a different method of extrapolating the verse ribui and miut or prat, klal and prat. The Gemara delves farther into the prat, klal and prat drasha to better understand why they reached the exact conclusion that they reached and also to define the terms mentioned in the drasha.

讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讻讬讜谉 讚讘砖注转讗 讚拽讗 谞讝专 诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讬 讞诇讛 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 谞讝讬专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谞讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛驻诇讗讛


If we say it is the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, even in a case where the individual in question came before us and identified himself, is the one who claimed to know his identity a nazirite? Since at the time when he vowed he did not know whether the subject of their debate is so-and-so or not, does naziriteship take effect with regard to him? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:19) that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: In the case of the mishna not one of the six people is a nazirite, since naziriteship is imposed upon someone only if the vow is stated with explicitness [hafla鈥檃]. The Torah says that a vow must be 鈥渃learly鈥 pronounced, as the verse states: 鈥淲hen either man or woman shall clearly utter [yafli] a vow, the vow of a nazirite鈥 (Numbers 6:2). This verse indicates that his vow is valid only if it is explicit.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻专讬 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬讛讗 讘讻专讬 讛讝讛 诪讗讛 讻讜专 讜讛诇讱 讜诪爪讗讜 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专


Rather, the mishna represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as stated with regard to a heap of grain. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:9): If someone said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that this heap of grain contains one hundred kor, a measurement of volume, and when he went to measure it he discovered that the heap was stolen or lost, so that the amount it held cannot be determined, Rabbi Shimon deems him prohibited in all the halakhot of naziriteship, as the heap might have contained one hundred kor. And Rabbi Yehuda deems him permitted, as he maintains that the halakha is lenient in cases of uncertain naziriteship. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 reasoning applies equally to the case of the mishna.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讙谞讘 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讜 讘讬讛 诪讗讛 讻讜专 讜讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪谉 讜讬讚注讬谞谉 讚驻诇讜谞讬 讛讜讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专:


As for Rabbi Shimon, who disputes the ruling of the mishna, he holds with regard to the heap of grain: Since if the heap had not been stolen perhaps it might have contained one hundred kor and he would have been a nazirite, now too, he is a nazirite due to the uncertainty. And here too, in the case of the mishna, since if that person would have come before us and we would have known that he was so-and-so, the one who took the vow would have been a nazirite, consequently, now too, he is a nazirite as a result of the uncertainty cast by the unknown identity of the individual.


诪转谞讬壮 专讗讛 讗转 讛讻讜讬 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 讘讛诪讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讝讛 讘讛诪讛


MISHNA: Someone saw a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal [koy], and said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a non-domesticated animal; and another individual said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not a non-domesticated animal; and a third person said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a domesticated animal; and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite if this not a domesticated animal.


讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 讞讬讛 讜讘讛诪讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讝讛 诇讗 讞讬讛 讜诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讻讜诇讻诐 谞讝讬专讬谉 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 谞讝讬专讬谉:


The mishna continues: A fifth person added: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal, and a sixth person said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal. Someone who heard all the above statements said: I am hereby a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite, and another one stated: I am hereby a nazirite if not one of you is a nazirite, and a final person said: I am hereby a nazirite if all of you are nazirites. In this case, they are all nazirites.


讙诪壮 转谞讬 讞讚讗 转砖注讛 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 转砖注 谞讝讬专讬讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 转砖注讛 谞讝讬专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讛讜讬 讙讘专讬 讟驻讬 讚讗讬转驻讬住 讜讗讝讬诇 讘讬讛


GEMARA: With regard to the ruling of the mishna that they are all nazirites, it is taught in one baraita that this case involves a total of nine nazirites, and it is taught in the other baraita that there are nine sets of naziriteship here. The Gemara clarifies: Granted, one can understand the baraita that says that there are nine nazirites, for example, if there were many people who associated their naziriteship with the status of this koy, each with one of the statements listed above.


讗诇讗 转砖注 谞讝讬专讬讜转 诇讞讚 讙讘专讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讬转 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讚转谞谉


However, how can you find these circumstances of nine sets of naziriteship in one person? Granted, you find six, as we learned in the mishna that there are six ways in which the nature of a koy can be expressed: It is a non-domesticated animal; it is not a non-domesticated animal; it is a domesticated animal; it is not a domesticated animal; is a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal; it is neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal. One person could associate his acceptance of naziriteship with all of the above possibilities.


讗讘诇 转诇转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜谞讝讬专讜转 讛讻诇 注诇讬:


However, how can you find these circumstances of the other three sets of naziriteship? The statements: If one of you is a nazirite, and: If one of you is not a nazirite, are necessarily expressed by individuals who did not make the initial six statements, as these last three statements address the group of people who made the first six statements. Rav Sheshet said: It is possible in a case where nine people issued the statements mentioned in the mishna, and someone said: I am hereby a nazirite and the naziriteship of all of them are incumbent upon me. Since each of the nine people is obligated to observe a term of naziriteship, this last one is obligated to observe nine terms.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬



砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘谞讝讬专 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛转讙诇讞转 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 讜讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 讻讝讬转


MISHNA: Three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: The contraction of ritual impurity from a corpse, and the shaving of one鈥檚 hair, and eating or drinking any substances that emerge from the vine. The mishna adds: And all products that emerge from the vine combine with one another to the amount that renders a nazirite liable to receive lashes. And he is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk of the grapes.


诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讜诪专转 注讚 砖讬砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖专讛 驻讬转讜 讘讬讬谉 讜讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇爪专祝 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讛注谞讘讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜注诇 讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜注诇 讛讝讙讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讝讙


An initial version of the mishna says that a nazirite is liable to receive lashes only if he drinks a quarterlog of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he soaked his bread in wine and the two together contain enough to combine to the amount of an olive-bulk, he is liable. And furthermore, a nazirite is liable to receive lashes for consuming wine by itself, and for grapes by themselves, and for 岣rtzannim by themselves, and for zaggim by themselves, as each of these is forbidden separately by the Torah. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk that includes at least two 岣rtzannim and one zag, in accordance with the verse 鈥淔rom 岣rtzannim to zag鈥 (Numbers 6:4), where the first term is in the plural and the second in the singular.


讗诇讜 讛谉 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讝讙讬诐 讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讗诇讜 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讛讝讙讬诐 讗诇讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 转讟注讛 讻讝讜讙 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讝讜讙 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬 注讬谞讘诇


The mishna discusses the meaning of these terms: Which parts are 岣rtzannim and which are zaggim? The 岣rtzannim are the outside parts, the skin of the grape, while the zaggim are the inner parts, the seeds. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: The opposite is the case and this is the mnemonic so that you should not err: It is like a bell [zog] worn by an animal, in which the outer part, which corresponds to the skin of a grape, is called zog, and the inner portion of the bell, the clapper, which corresponds to the seeds in a grape, is called inbal.


讙诪壮 砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘谞讝讬专 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讻讜壮: 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 讗讬谉 讙驻谉 注爪诪讜 诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讬谉 讜诇讜诇讘讬谉 讘诪砖诪注


GEMARA: The mishna taught that three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: Contracting ritual impurity, shaving, and consuming products of the vine. The Gemara infers: That which emerges from the vine, yes, it is included in the prohibition; however, any part of the vine itself, other than its fruit, no, this is not forbidden. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Even the leaves and tendrils of the vine are included in the prohibitions of naziriteship.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讛讙驻谉 注爪诪讜 诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讬谉 讜诇讜诇讘讬谉 讘诪砖诪注


Some say this statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: He is liable to receive lashes only if he eats an olive-bulk of the grapes. The Gemara infers: If he eats from the grapes, yes, he is liable, but if he eats from the vine itself, no, he is not liable. If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Even the leaves and tendrils are included in the prohibition.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚专讬砖 专讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专 诪讬注讟 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 专讬讘讛


The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis disagree; what is the basis of their dispute? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar interprets the verses employing the hermeneutical principle of amplifications and restrictions, while the Rabbis interpret them employing the hermeneutical principle of generalizations and details. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Elazar interprets the verses employing the principle of amplifications and restrictions, as the phrase: 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3), restricts the prohibition to wine and strong drink, and the subsequent phrase: 鈥淎nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (Numbers 6:4), amplifies the prohibition.


诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讛讻诇 诪讗讬 专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 诪讗讬 诪讬注讟 诪讬注讟 砖讘讬砖转讗


The Gemara elaborates: In this manner, the Torah restricts and amplifies, which, according to the principles of exegesis, amplifies and includes virtually all substances. What does it amplify and include? It amplifies and includes all matters and substances that come from the vine. What does it restrict? After all, the phrase 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 must be excluding something. According to this interpretation, the verse restricts only one part of a vine, the branches. A nazirite who eats the branches of the vine has not committed a transgression.


讜专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专 驻专讟 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 讻诇诇 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 讞讝专 讜驻专讟 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 讜驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 讜驻住讜诇转 驻专讬


And conversely, the Rabbis interpret the verses employing the principle of generalizations and details, as the phrase 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3) is an example of a detail, the phrase 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (Numbers 6:4) is a generalization, and when the verse continues: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin,鈥 it has given an example of a detail again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail. According to this exegetical method, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a fruit or fruit waste, i.e., grape seeds or skins, so too, everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit or fruit waste, but not leaves or tendrils, as maintained by Rabbi Elazar.


讗讬 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 讙诪讜专 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 讙诪讜专 讗诪专转 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛谞讬讞 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪砖诪注讜 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 讛讗 讻转讬讘讬 讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 讛讗 讻转讬讘讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讱 诇讚讜谉 讻诇砖讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉


The Gemara asks: If so, one can suggest an alternative derivation: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a complete, i.e., ripe, fruit, so too, everything forbidden must be a complete fruit, excluding unripe fruit. Why, according to the Rabbis, are unripe grapes included in the prohibition? You will say the following counterargument: If so, what has the verse left you to derive from its meaning that it has not stated? If you say grapes and raisins, these are explicitly written; if you say wine and vinegar, these are also written. What, then, does the generalization come to add? Evidently, you cannot learn in accordance with the last version, which excludes unripe fruit; rather, you must learn in accordance with the first version, which includes this fruit and excludes only leaves and tendrils.


讜诪讗讞专 砖住讜驻讬谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇诪砖讻讜 讜诇讚讜谞讜 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟


The Gemara asks: And as we eventually include everything that is similar to the detail of fruit and the waste of fruit, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥? This serves to tell you a general principle of exegesis that applies throughout the Torah: Wherever you find only a detail and a generalization, you cannot broaden it and learn that the generalization is limited to be like the detail, by saying that the generalization merely clarifies the previous detail.


讗诇讗 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讻讚专讱 砖驻专讟 诇讱 讘谞讝讬专


Rather, the generalization becomes added to the detail so that it includes all matters, even those dissimilar to the detail, until the verse specifies and adds another detail after the generalization, in the manner that it specified with regard to a nazirite, by inserting the phrase 鈥渇rom pits to grape skin鈥 after 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine.鈥 The exegetical method of: A detail, a generalization, and a detail, means that the generalization includes only something that is similar to the detail. In this particular example, leaves and tendrils are excluded.


讗诪专 诪专 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 讜驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 讜驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 驻专讬 注讬谞讘讬 驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讞讜诪抓


The Gemara analyzes the details of this baraita. The Master said above: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a fruit or fruit waste, so too everything forbidden to the nazirite by the Torah is a fruit or fruit waste. The Gemara clarifies: The fruit mentioned by the Torah is grapes. What is fruit waste? Vinegar, as in the verse: 鈥淗e shall drink no vinegar of wine or vinegar of strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3).


讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讙讜讛专拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讚驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 注讬谞讘讬 讚讻专讬谉 讜注讚 讝讙 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讚讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐


What is the statement: So too everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit, serving to include? It serves to include unripe grapes. And what is the statement: So too everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit or fruit waste, stated with regard to fruit waste, serving to include? Which fruit waste unspecified by the verse is added by means of this derivation? Rav Kahana said: This serves to include grapes that have become wormy. With regard to the phrase 鈥渇rom pits to grape skin,鈥 Ravina said: This serves to include the part of the fruit that is in between the seeds and the skin.


讗诪专 诪专 [讗讬] 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 讙诪讜专 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 讙诪讜专 讗诪专转 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛谞讬讞 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪砖诪注讜 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 讛讗 讻转讬讘讬 讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 讛讗 讻转讬讘讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讱 诇讚讜谉 讻诇砖讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讗讞专 砖住讜驻讬谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜砖讻讜 讜诇讚讜谞讜 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 讗诇讗 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘


The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita, which it cites at length. The Master said above: If so, just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a complete fruit, so too everything is a complete fruit. You say: If so, what has the verse left you to derive from its meaning that it has not stated? Grapes and raisins, these are written; wine and vinegar, these are written. You cannot learn in accordance with the last version; rather, you must learn in accordance with the first version. And as we eventually include everything, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淔rom pit to grape skin鈥? This serves to tell you that wherever you find a detail and a generalization, you cannot broaden it and learn that the generalization is limited to be like the detail; rather, the generalization becomes added to the detail, until the verse specifies for you


  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 30-36 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the concept of 鈥渢he taste of forbidden food is prohibited鈥 and how it relates to...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 34: Grapes: Skins, Seeds, Twigs, and All

The Koi. A halakhic conundrum - is this animal a behamah (domesticated) or chayah (wild)? Plus, the context of people...

Nazir 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 34

讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讻讬讜谉 讚讘砖注转讗 讚拽讗 谞讝专 诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讬 讞诇讛 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 谞讝讬专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谞讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛驻诇讗讛


If we say it is the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, even in a case where the individual in question came before us and identified himself, is the one who claimed to know his identity a nazirite? Since at the time when he vowed he did not know whether the subject of their debate is so-and-so or not, does naziriteship take effect with regard to him? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:19) that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: In the case of the mishna not one of the six people is a nazirite, since naziriteship is imposed upon someone only if the vow is stated with explicitness [hafla鈥檃]. The Torah says that a vow must be 鈥渃learly鈥 pronounced, as the verse states: 鈥淲hen either man or woman shall clearly utter [yafli] a vow, the vow of a nazirite鈥 (Numbers 6:2). This verse indicates that his vow is valid only if it is explicit.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻专讬 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬讛讗 讘讻专讬 讛讝讛 诪讗讛 讻讜专 讜讛诇讱 讜诪爪讗讜 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专


Rather, the mishna represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as stated with regard to a heap of grain. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:9): If someone said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that this heap of grain contains one hundred kor, a measurement of volume, and when he went to measure it he discovered that the heap was stolen or lost, so that the amount it held cannot be determined, Rabbi Shimon deems him prohibited in all the halakhot of naziriteship, as the heap might have contained one hundred kor. And Rabbi Yehuda deems him permitted, as he maintains that the halakha is lenient in cases of uncertain naziriteship. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 reasoning applies equally to the case of the mishna.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讙谞讘 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讜 讘讬讛 诪讗讛 讻讜专 讜讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪谉 讜讬讚注讬谞谉 讚驻诇讜谞讬 讛讜讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专:


As for Rabbi Shimon, who disputes the ruling of the mishna, he holds with regard to the heap of grain: Since if the heap had not been stolen perhaps it might have contained one hundred kor and he would have been a nazirite, now too, he is a nazirite due to the uncertainty. And here too, in the case of the mishna, since if that person would have come before us and we would have known that he was so-and-so, the one who took the vow would have been a nazirite, consequently, now too, he is a nazirite as a result of the uncertainty cast by the unknown identity of the individual.


诪转谞讬壮 专讗讛 讗转 讛讻讜讬 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 讘讛诪讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讝讛 讘讛诪讛


MISHNA: Someone saw a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal [koy], and said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a non-domesticated animal; and another individual said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not a non-domesticated animal; and a third person said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a domesticated animal; and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite if this not a domesticated animal.


讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 讞讬讛 讜讘讛诪讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讝讛 诇讗 讞讬讛 讜诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讻讜诇讻诐 谞讝讬专讬谉 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 谞讝讬专讬谉:


The mishna continues: A fifth person added: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal, and a sixth person said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal. Someone who heard all the above statements said: I am hereby a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite, and another one stated: I am hereby a nazirite if not one of you is a nazirite, and a final person said: I am hereby a nazirite if all of you are nazirites. In this case, they are all nazirites.


讙诪壮 转谞讬 讞讚讗 转砖注讛 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 转砖注 谞讝讬专讬讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 转砖注讛 谞讝讬专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讛讜讬 讙讘专讬 讟驻讬 讚讗讬转驻讬住 讜讗讝讬诇 讘讬讛


GEMARA: With regard to the ruling of the mishna that they are all nazirites, it is taught in one baraita that this case involves a total of nine nazirites, and it is taught in the other baraita that there are nine sets of naziriteship here. The Gemara clarifies: Granted, one can understand the baraita that says that there are nine nazirites, for example, if there were many people who associated their naziriteship with the status of this koy, each with one of the statements listed above.


讗诇讗 转砖注 谞讝讬专讬讜转 诇讞讚 讙讘专讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讬转 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讚转谞谉


However, how can you find these circumstances of nine sets of naziriteship in one person? Granted, you find six, as we learned in the mishna that there are six ways in which the nature of a koy can be expressed: It is a non-domesticated animal; it is not a non-domesticated animal; it is a domesticated animal; it is not a domesticated animal; is a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal; it is neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal. One person could associate his acceptance of naziriteship with all of the above possibilities.


讗讘诇 转诇转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜谞讝讬专讜转 讛讻诇 注诇讬:


However, how can you find these circumstances of the other three sets of naziriteship? The statements: If one of you is a nazirite, and: If one of you is not a nazirite, are necessarily expressed by individuals who did not make the initial six statements, as these last three statements address the group of people who made the first six statements. Rav Sheshet said: It is possible in a case where nine people issued the statements mentioned in the mishna, and someone said: I am hereby a nazirite and the naziriteship of all of them are incumbent upon me. Since each of the nine people is obligated to observe a term of naziriteship, this last one is obligated to observe nine terms.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬



砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘谞讝讬专 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛转讙诇讞转 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 讜讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 讻讝讬转


MISHNA: Three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: The contraction of ritual impurity from a corpse, and the shaving of one鈥檚 hair, and eating or drinking any substances that emerge from the vine. The mishna adds: And all products that emerge from the vine combine with one another to the amount that renders a nazirite liable to receive lashes. And he is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk of the grapes.


诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讜诪专转 注讚 砖讬砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖专讛 驻讬转讜 讘讬讬谉 讜讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇爪专祝 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讛注谞讘讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜注诇 讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜注诇 讛讝讙讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讝讙


An initial version of the mishna says that a nazirite is liable to receive lashes only if he drinks a quarterlog of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he soaked his bread in wine and the two together contain enough to combine to the amount of an olive-bulk, he is liable. And furthermore, a nazirite is liable to receive lashes for consuming wine by itself, and for grapes by themselves, and for 岣rtzannim by themselves, and for zaggim by themselves, as each of these is forbidden separately by the Torah. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk that includes at least two 岣rtzannim and one zag, in accordance with the verse 鈥淔rom 岣rtzannim to zag鈥 (Numbers 6:4), where the first term is in the plural and the second in the singular.


讗诇讜 讛谉 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讝讙讬诐 讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讗诇讜 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讛讝讙讬诐 讗诇讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 转讟注讛 讻讝讜讙 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讝讜讙 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬 注讬谞讘诇


The mishna discusses the meaning of these terms: Which parts are 岣rtzannim and which are zaggim? The 岣rtzannim are the outside parts, the skin of the grape, while the zaggim are the inner parts, the seeds. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: The opposite is the case and this is the mnemonic so that you should not err: It is like a bell [zog] worn by an animal, in which the outer part, which corresponds to the skin of a grape, is called zog, and the inner portion of the bell, the clapper, which corresponds to the seeds in a grape, is called inbal.


讙诪壮 砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘谞讝讬专 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讻讜壮: 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 讗讬谉 讙驻谉 注爪诪讜 诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讬谉 讜诇讜诇讘讬谉 讘诪砖诪注


GEMARA: The mishna taught that three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: Contracting ritual impurity, shaving, and consuming products of the vine. The Gemara infers: That which emerges from the vine, yes, it is included in the prohibition; however, any part of the vine itself, other than its fruit, no, this is not forbidden. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Even the leaves and tendrils of the vine are included in the prohibitions of naziriteship.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讛讙驻谉 注爪诪讜 诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讬谉 讜诇讜诇讘讬谉 讘诪砖诪注


Some say this statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: He is liable to receive lashes only if he eats an olive-bulk of the grapes. The Gemara infers: If he eats from the grapes, yes, he is liable, but if he eats from the vine itself, no, he is not liable. If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Even the leaves and tendrils are included in the prohibition.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚专讬砖 专讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专 诪讬注讟 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 专讬讘讛


The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis disagree; what is the basis of their dispute? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar interprets the verses employing the hermeneutical principle of amplifications and restrictions, while the Rabbis interpret them employing the hermeneutical principle of generalizations and details. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Elazar interprets the verses employing the principle of amplifications and restrictions, as the phrase: 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3), restricts the prohibition to wine and strong drink, and the subsequent phrase: 鈥淎nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (Numbers 6:4), amplifies the prohibition.


诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讛讻诇 诪讗讬 专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 诪讗讬 诪讬注讟 诪讬注讟 砖讘讬砖转讗


The Gemara elaborates: In this manner, the Torah restricts and amplifies, which, according to the principles of exegesis, amplifies and includes virtually all substances. What does it amplify and include? It amplifies and includes all matters and substances that come from the vine. What does it restrict? After all, the phrase 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 must be excluding something. According to this interpretation, the verse restricts only one part of a vine, the branches. A nazirite who eats the branches of the vine has not committed a transgression.


讜专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专 驻专讟 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 讻诇诇 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 讞讝专 讜驻专讟 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 讜驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 讜驻住讜诇转 驻专讬


And conversely, the Rabbis interpret the verses employing the principle of generalizations and details, as the phrase 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3) is an example of a detail, the phrase 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (Numbers 6:4) is a generalization, and when the verse continues: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin,鈥 it has given an example of a detail again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail. According to this exegetical method, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a fruit or fruit waste, i.e., grape seeds or skins, so too, everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit or fruit waste, but not leaves or tendrils, as maintained by Rabbi Elazar.


讗讬 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 讙诪讜专 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 讙诪讜专 讗诪专转 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛谞讬讞 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪砖诪注讜 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 讛讗 讻转讬讘讬 讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 讛讗 讻转讬讘讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讱 诇讚讜谉 讻诇砖讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉


The Gemara asks: If so, one can suggest an alternative derivation: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a complete, i.e., ripe, fruit, so too, everything forbidden must be a complete fruit, excluding unripe fruit. Why, according to the Rabbis, are unripe grapes included in the prohibition? You will say the following counterargument: If so, what has the verse left you to derive from its meaning that it has not stated? If you say grapes and raisins, these are explicitly written; if you say wine and vinegar, these are also written. What, then, does the generalization come to add? Evidently, you cannot learn in accordance with the last version, which excludes unripe fruit; rather, you must learn in accordance with the first version, which includes this fruit and excludes only leaves and tendrils.


讜诪讗讞专 砖住讜驻讬谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇诪砖讻讜 讜诇讚讜谞讜 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟


The Gemara asks: And as we eventually include everything that is similar to the detail of fruit and the waste of fruit, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥? This serves to tell you a general principle of exegesis that applies throughout the Torah: Wherever you find only a detail and a generalization, you cannot broaden it and learn that the generalization is limited to be like the detail, by saying that the generalization merely clarifies the previous detail.


讗诇讗 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讻讚专讱 砖驻专讟 诇讱 讘谞讝讬专


Rather, the generalization becomes added to the detail so that it includes all matters, even those dissimilar to the detail, until the verse specifies and adds another detail after the generalization, in the manner that it specified with regard to a nazirite, by inserting the phrase 鈥渇rom pits to grape skin鈥 after 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine.鈥 The exegetical method of: A detail, a generalization, and a detail, means that the generalization includes only something that is similar to the detail. In this particular example, leaves and tendrils are excluded.


讗诪专 诪专 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 讜驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 讜驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 驻专讬 注讬谞讘讬 驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讞讜诪抓


The Gemara analyzes the details of this baraita. The Master said above: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a fruit or fruit waste, so too everything forbidden to the nazirite by the Torah is a fruit or fruit waste. The Gemara clarifies: The fruit mentioned by the Torah is grapes. What is fruit waste? Vinegar, as in the verse: 鈥淗e shall drink no vinegar of wine or vinegar of strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3).


讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讙讜讛专拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讚驻住讜诇转 驻专讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 注讬谞讘讬 讚讻专讬谉 讜注讚 讝讙 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讚讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐


What is the statement: So too everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit, serving to include? It serves to include unripe grapes. And what is the statement: So too everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit or fruit waste, stated with regard to fruit waste, serving to include? Which fruit waste unspecified by the verse is added by means of this derivation? Rav Kahana said: This serves to include grapes that have become wormy. With regard to the phrase 鈥渇rom pits to grape skin,鈥 Ravina said: This serves to include the part of the fruit that is in between the seeds and the skin.


讗诪专 诪专 [讗讬] 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 驻专讬 讙诪讜专 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 讙诪讜专 讗诪专转 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛谞讬讞 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪砖诪注讜 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 讛讗 讻转讬讘讬 讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 讛讗 讻转讬讘讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讱 诇讚讜谉 讻诇砖讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讗讞专 砖住讜驻讬谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜砖讻讜 讜诇讚讜谞讜 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 讗诇讗 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘


The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita, which it cites at length. The Master said above: If so, just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a complete fruit, so too everything is a complete fruit. You say: If so, what has the verse left you to derive from its meaning that it has not stated? Grapes and raisins, these are written; wine and vinegar, these are written. You cannot learn in accordance with the last version; rather, you must learn in accordance with the first version. And as we eventually include everything, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淔rom pit to grape skin鈥? This serves to tell you that wherever you find a detail and a generalization, you cannot broaden it and learn that the generalization is limited to be like the detail; rather, the generalization becomes added to the detail, until the verse specifies for you


Scroll To Top