Nazir 34

אילימא רבי טרפון מי הוי נזיר כיון דבשעתא דקא נזר לא ידע אי פלוני הוא ואי לא מי חלה עליה נזירות והתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי טרפון אין אחד מהן נזיר לפי שלא נתנה נזירות אלא להפלאה

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’t 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’a]. The Torah says that a vow must be “clearly” pronounced, as the verse states: “When either man or woman shall clearly utter [yafli] a vow, the vow of a nazirite” (Numbers 6:2). This verse indicates that his vow is valid only if it is explicit.

אלא רבי יהודה דכרי הוא דתניא הריני נזיר על מנת שיהא בכרי הזה מאה כור והלך ומצאו שנגנב או שאבד רבי שמעון אוסר ורבי יהודה מתיר

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’s reasoning applies equally to the case of the mishna.

רבי שמעון סבר כיון דאילו לא נגנב דלמא הוו ביה מאה כור והוי נזיר השתא נמי הוי נזיר והכא נמי כיון דאי אתא לקמן וידעינן דפלוני הואי הוי נזיר השתא נמי הוי נזיר:

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.

מתני׳ ראה את הכוי ואמר הריני נזיר שזה חיה הריני נזיר שזה אינו חיה הריני נזיר שזה בהמה הריני נזיר שאין זה בהמה

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.

הריני נזיר שזה חיה ובהמה הריני נזיר שאין זה לא חיה ולא בהמה הריני נזיר שאחד מכם נזיר הריני נזיר שאין אחד מכם נזיר הריני נזיר שכולכם נזירין הרי כולן נזירין:

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.

גמ׳ תני חדא תשעה נזירים ותניא אידך תשע נזיריות בשלמא תשעה נזירין כגון דהוי גברי טפי דאיתפיס ואזיל ביה

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.

אלא תשע נזיריות לחד גברא היכי משכחת לה בשלמא שית משכחת לה כדתנן

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.

אבל תלת היכי משכחת לה אמר רב ששת כגון דאמר הריני נזיר ונזירות הכל עלי:

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.

הדרן עלך בית שמאי

שלשה מינין אסורין בנזיר הטומאה והתגלחת והיוצא מן הגפן וכל היוצא מן הגפן מצטרפין זה עם זה ואין חייב עד שיאכל מן הענבים כזית

MISHNA: Three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: The contraction of ritual impurity from a corpse, and the shaving of one’s 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.

משנה ראשונה אומרת עד שישתה רביעית יין רבי עקיבא אומר אפילו שרה פיתו ביין ויש בה כדי לצרף כזית חייב וחייב על היין בפני עצמו ועל הענבים בפני עצמן ועל החרצנים בפני עצמן ועל הזגים בפני עצמן רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר אין חייב עד שיאכל שני חרצנים וזג

An initial version of the mishna says that a nazirite is liable to receive lashes only if he drinks a quarter–log 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 ḥartzannim 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 ḥartzannim and one zag, in accordance with the verse “From ḥartzannim to zag” (Numbers 6:4), where the first term is in the plural and the second in the singular.

אלו הן חרצנים ואלו הן זגים החרצנים אלו החיצונים הזגים אלו הפנימים דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר שלא תטעה כזוג של בהמה החיצון זוג והפנימי עינבל

The mishna discusses the meaning of these terms: Which parts are ḥartzannim and which are zaggim? The ḥartzannim 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.

גמ׳ שלשה מינין אסורין בנזיר הטומאה כו׳: היוצא מן הגפן אין גפן עצמו לא מתניתין דלא כרבי אלעזר דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר אפילו עלין ולולבין במשמע

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.

איכא דאמרי לה אסיפא אינו חייב אלא עד שיאכל מן הענבים כזית מן הענבים אין מהגפן עצמו לא מתניתין דלא כרבי אלעזר דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר אפילו עלין ולולבין במשמע

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.

במאי קמיפלגי רבי אלעזר דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי רבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי רבי אלעזר דריש רבויי ומיעוטי מיין ושכר יזיר מיעט מכל אשר יעשה מגפן היין ריבה

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: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3), restricts the prohibition to wine and strong drink, and the subsequent phrase: “Anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4), amplifies the prohibition.

מיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי ריבה ריבה כל מילי מאי מיעט מיעט שבישתא

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 “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” 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.

ורבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי מיין ושכר יזיר פרט מכל אשר יעשה מגפן היין כלל מחרצנים ועד זג חזר ופרט פרט וכלל ופרט אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש פרי ופסולת פרי אף כל פרי ופסולת פרי

And conversely, the Rabbis interpret the verses employing the principle of generalizations and details, as the phrase “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3) is an example of a detail, the phrase “anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4) is a generalization, and when the verse continues: “From pits to grape skin,” 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.

אי מה הפרט מפורש פרי גמור אף כל פרי גמור אמרת אם כן מה הניח לך הכתוב במשמעו שלא אמרו ענבים לחים ויבשים הא כתיבי יין וחומץ הא כתיבי הא אין עליך לדון כלשון אחרון אלא כלשון ראשון

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.

ומאחר שסופינו לרבות כל דבר מה תלמוד לומר מחרצנים ועד זג לומר לך כל מקום שאתה מוצא פרט וכלל אי אתה רשאי למשכו ולדונו כעין הפרט

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: “From pits to grape skin”? 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.

אלא נעשה כלל מוסף על הפרט עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנזיר

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 “from pits to grape skin” after “anything that is made of the grapevine.” 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.

אמר מר מה הפרט מפורש פרי ופסולת פרי אף כל פרי ופסולת פרי פרי עינבי פסולת פרי מאי היא חומץ

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: “He shall drink no vinegar of wine or vinegar of strong drink” (Numbers 6:3).

אף כל פרי מאי היא גוהרקי אף כל דפסולת פרי מאי היא אמר רב כהנא לאיתויי עינבי דכרין ועד זג אמר רבינא לאיתויי דבין הבינים

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 “from pits to grape skin,” Ravina said: This serves to include the part of the fruit that is in between the seeds and the skin.

אמר מר [אי] מה הפרט מפורש פרי גמור אף כל פרי גמור אמרת אם כן מה הניח הכתוב במשמעו שלא אמרו ענבים לחים ויבשים הא כתיבי יין וחומץ הא כתיבי הא אין עליך לדון כלשון אחרון אלא כלשון ראשון ומאחר שסופינו לרבות כל דבר מה תלמוד לומר מחרצנים ועד זג לומר לך כל מקום שאתה מוצא פרט וכלל אי אתה רשאי למושכו ולדונו כעין הפרט אלא נעשה כלל מוסף על הפרט עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב

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: “From pit to grape skin”? 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