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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 25, 2015 | 讬状讘 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Nazir 35

Study Guide Nazir 35


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讻讚专讱 砖驻专讟 诇讱 讘谞讝讬专 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛讗讬 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讝讙 驻专讟讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讚专讬砖 诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛

in the manner that it specified with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥 (Numbers 6:4). The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who establishes this verse: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥 (Numbers 6:4), as serving to say that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin, if so from where does he derive the detail? It is unclear how he applies this method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail, as according to his interpretation, the phrase 鈥渇rom pits to grape skin鈥 does not serve to limit the previous generalization but to state a different halakha. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who interprets this by saying that a verse restricts and amplifies.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诇讬讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛讗讬 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 讙讘讬 驻专讟讬 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘讬讛 讘转专 讻诇诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讚讬讬谞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟

And if you wish, say instead that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that this is a case of a detail, a generalization, and a detail. As, if it should enter your mind that the verse is merely teaching that which was stated by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, let the Merciful One write this phrase: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin,鈥 alongside the other details of wine and vinegar. For what halakha did the Torah write: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin,鈥 after the generalization? Conclude from it that you should derive this halakha by means of the method of a generalization and a detail.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 讗讜 砖谞讬 讞专爪谞讬诐 讗讜 砖谞讬 讝讙讬诐 讗讜 讞专爪谉 讜讝讙 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讚专砖 讘讬讛 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 诇诪讬讚专砖 讘讬讛 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讝讙

The Gemara asks: But if so, you can say that the entire phrase comes only for this purpose, for a generalization and a detail, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya should not derive his halakha, that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin, from this verse at all. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would say: If so, let the Torah write either two grape seeds and two grape skins, with both terms in the plural, or a grape seed and a grape skin, with both terms in the singular. For what halakha did the Merciful One write: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥? Learn from it that one should interpret it in the manner of a generalization and a detail, and one can also interpret from it that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讚专讬砖 诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, who interprets by the method of restriction and amplification that even tendrils and the leaves of a grapevine are included in the prohibition, from where does he derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讞诪讜专 讗讜 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 驻专讟 讜讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讻诇诇 诇砖诪讜专 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

Rabbi Abbahu says: He derives it from this verse, which deals with a bailee: 鈥淎nd if a man deliver to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to guard, and it dies鈥he oath of the Lord shall be between them both鈥 (Exodus 22:9). The phrase 鈥渁 donkey, or an ox, or a sheep鈥 is a detail; 鈥渙r any animal鈥 is a generalization that includes all animals; and in the phrase 鈥渢o guard鈥 the Torah detailed again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail. In this case, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail; i.e., items that can be guarded.

专讘讗 讗诪专 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诪谉 驻专讟 讛爪讗谉 讻诇诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讜注讝讬诐 讞讝专 讜驻专讟

Rava said: Rabbi Elazar derives the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this verse: 鈥淎nd if his offering is from the flock, whether of the sheep or of the goats, for a burnt-offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 1:10). The phrase 鈥渁nd if his offering is from鈥 is a detail, as it indicates part but not all of something, 鈥渢he flock鈥 is a generalization that includes animals that have been used sinfully, and when it stated: 鈥淪heep,鈥 and: 鈥淕oats,鈥 the Torah has detailed again.

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

This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, and therefore you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. The details teach that only animals that copulated with a person may not be brought as offerings.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬住拽专转讗 诇专讘讗 讜诇讬诇祝 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 拽专讗 诪谉 驻专讟 讛讘讛诪讛 讻诇诇 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 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

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: And let Rabbi Elazar derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this earlier verse, which appears in the same chapter: 鈥淔rom animals, from the herd or from the flock, you shall bring your offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2), in the following manner: 鈥淔rom鈥 is a detail that excludes an undomesticated animal; 鈥渁nimals鈥 is a generalization which includes undomesticated animals (see Deuteronomy, chapter 14); and when it states: 鈥淗erd,鈥 and: 鈥淔lock,鈥 the Torah has detailed again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, and therefore you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail, i.e., domesticated animals.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讗讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讘讛诪讛

Rava said to Rav Yehuda of Diskarta: One cannot derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this verse, as if the source were from there, I would say the phrase 鈥渁nimals鈥

讞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛

is referring even to undomesticated animals, as an undomesticated animal is included in the general category of animal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: How can you suggest that in this verse an undomesticated animal is included in the general category of animal? It is written: 鈥淗erd鈥 and: 鈥淔lock,鈥 and this entire phrase is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, from which you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail, which are herd and flock, not undomesticated animals.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗

搂 The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that it is so, that in the methodology of generalizations and details, the generalizations are similar to the details? It is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the mitzva to bring money for the second tithe to Jerusalem: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires, on cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink, and on whatever your soul requests鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26).

讜谞转转 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讻诇诇 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讜讘讬讬谉 讜讘砖讻专 驻专讟 讜讘讻诇 讗砖专 转砖讗诇讱 谞驻砖讱 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇

The baraita elaborates: The phrase 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires鈥 is a generalization, as no particular type of food is specified. The phrase 鈥渙n cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink鈥 is a detail, as specific foods are mentioned. And when the verse concludes: 鈥淥n whatever your soul requests,鈥 it then generalized again, as no specific type of food is stated.

讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 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 诪驻专讬 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 诪驻专讬 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注

Since the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that it is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as the produce of produce, i.e., not only the produce itself but also items that come from it, such as grapes from a seed, and they are also items grown from the ground, as all of these items grow from the ground or receive their main sustenance from it, so too, the generalization includes all items that are the produce of produce and are grown from the ground. This includes birds, but it does not include fish, water, or salt.

诪讻讚讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讻注讬谉 驻专讟讗 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 讻诇诇讗 讘转专讗 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara discusses a series of problems with regard to these and other methods of halakhic exegesis: Now, in the case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, one derives that all items which are like the detail are included. However, if that is so, what purpose does the last generalization stated in the verse serve? The same conclusion would be reached if the verse had stated merely a generalization and a detail. The Gemara answers: The purpose of the last generalization is to add all that is similar to it, i.e., even those articles or cases not explicitly listed among the details.

讜转讜 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 驻专讟讗 讘转专讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 驻专讟讗 讘转专讗讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟

And furthermore, in the case of a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, one again derives that all items which are like the detail are included. If so, what purpose does the last detail stated in the verse serve? The same conclusion would apply if there was simply a detail and a generalization. The Gemara answers: If it were not for the last detail, I would say that the generalization becomes added to the detail, which is broadened in all possible ways. Therefore, the last detail limits the generalization to items or cases that are similar to the detail.

讜诪讻讚讬 转专讬谉 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讗 讜转专讬谉 驻专讟讬 讜讻诇诇讗 (讻诇诇讗) 讻注讬谉 驻专讟讗 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

The Gemara continues this line of questioning. And now that it has been established that both with regard to two generalizations and a detail, i.e., a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, and two details and a generalization, i.e., a detail, a generalization, and a detail, one derives that all items that are like the detail are included, what difference is there between this method and that one? The two methods are apparently identical.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗讬诇讜 转专转讬谉 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 驻专讟讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚 爪讚 诪专讘讬谞谉 转专讬 驻专讟讬 讜讻诇诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 驻专讟讗 讚讚诪讬 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪专讘讬谞谉 讘讞讚 爪讚 诇讗 诪专讘讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them, as whereas in a case of two generalizations and a detail, if there is another detail that is similar to the detail specified in the verse even in one aspect, one includes it, due to the two generalizations. By contrast, in the case of two details and a generalization, if there is another detail that is similar to the one mentioned in the verse in two aspects, one includes it. However, if it is similar in only one aspect one does not include it, as the halakha is limited by two details.

诪讻讚讬 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 讜讗讬转专讘讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讜诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 谞诪讬 专讬讘讛 讛讻诇 讜讗讬转专讘讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 诇驻专讟 讜讻诇诇

The Gemara asks another question: Now, in the method of a detail and a generalization, the generalization becomes added to the detail, and all matters are included by the generalization. And the method of restriction and amplification also amplifies and includes everything, and therefore all matters are included in both cases. If so, what difference is there between the method of restriction and amplification and that of a detail and a generalization?

讗讬讻讗 讚讗讬诇讜 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 诪专讘讬谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讬谉 讜诇讜诇讘讬谉 讜诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 诇讜诇讘讬谉 讗讬谉 注诇讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara answers: There is the following difference, as whereas in the method of a detail and a generalization one includes and renders forbidden to a nazirite even leaves and tendrils of the vine, with the method of restriction and amplification one includes less, as tendrils, yes, they are included in the prohibition, whereas leaves, no, they are not included.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讞讜抓 诪讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪砖专转

Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to all prohibitions that are written in the Torah, a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance. If one eats a permitted food with a forbidden food and together they constitute the minimum prohibited measure, he is exempt from punishment for this act of consumption. This principle applies to all halakhot except for the prohibitions of a nazirite, who is liable for eating a mixture of that kind, as the Torah said with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淣either shall he drink anything soaked in grapes鈥 (Numbers 6:3). This verse indicates that a nazirite is prohibited from consuming not only wine and vinegar, but also any food that was soaked in these liquids.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 35

讻讚专讱 砖驻专讟 诇讱 讘谞讝讬专 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛讗讬 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讝讙 驻专讟讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讚专讬砖 诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛

in the manner that it specified with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥 (Numbers 6:4). The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who establishes this verse: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥 (Numbers 6:4), as serving to say that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin, if so from where does he derive the detail? It is unclear how he applies this method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail, as according to his interpretation, the phrase 鈥渇rom pits to grape skin鈥 does not serve to limit the previous generalization but to state a different halakha. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who interprets this by saying that a verse restricts and amplifies.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诇讬讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛讗讬 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 讙讘讬 驻专讟讬 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘讬讛 讘转专 讻诇诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讚讬讬谞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟

And if you wish, say instead that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that this is a case of a detail, a generalization, and a detail. As, if it should enter your mind that the verse is merely teaching that which was stated by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, let the Merciful One write this phrase: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin,鈥 alongside the other details of wine and vinegar. For what halakha did the Torah write: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin,鈥 after the generalization? Conclude from it that you should derive this halakha by means of the method of a generalization and a detail.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 讗讜 砖谞讬 讞专爪谞讬诐 讗讜 砖谞讬 讝讙讬诐 讗讜 讞专爪谉 讜讝讙 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讚专砖 讘讬讛 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 诇诪讬讚专砖 讘讬讛 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讝讙

The Gemara asks: But if so, you can say that the entire phrase comes only for this purpose, for a generalization and a detail, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya should not derive his halakha, that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin, from this verse at all. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would say: If so, let the Torah write either two grape seeds and two grape skins, with both terms in the plural, or a grape seed and a grape skin, with both terms in the singular. For what halakha did the Merciful One write: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥? Learn from it that one should interpret it in the manner of a generalization and a detail, and one can also interpret from it that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讚专讬砖 诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, who interprets by the method of restriction and amplification that even tendrils and the leaves of a grapevine are included in the prohibition, from where does he derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讞诪讜专 讗讜 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 驻专讟 讜讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讻诇诇 诇砖诪讜专 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

Rabbi Abbahu says: He derives it from this verse, which deals with a bailee: 鈥淎nd if a man deliver to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to guard, and it dies鈥he oath of the Lord shall be between them both鈥 (Exodus 22:9). The phrase 鈥渁 donkey, or an ox, or a sheep鈥 is a detail; 鈥渙r any animal鈥 is a generalization that includes all animals; and in the phrase 鈥渢o guard鈥 the Torah detailed again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail. In this case, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail; i.e., items that can be guarded.

专讘讗 讗诪专 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诪谉 驻专讟 讛爪讗谉 讻诇诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讜注讝讬诐 讞讝专 讜驻专讟

Rava said: Rabbi Elazar derives the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this verse: 鈥淎nd if his offering is from the flock, whether of the sheep or of the goats, for a burnt-offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 1:10). The phrase 鈥渁nd if his offering is from鈥 is a detail, as it indicates part but not all of something, 鈥渢he flock鈥 is a generalization that includes animals that have been used sinfully, and when it stated: 鈥淪heep,鈥 and: 鈥淕oats,鈥 the Torah has detailed again.

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

This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, and therefore you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. The details teach that only animals that copulated with a person may not be brought as offerings.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬住拽专转讗 诇专讘讗 讜诇讬诇祝 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 拽专讗 诪谉 驻专讟 讛讘讛诪讛 讻诇诇 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 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

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: And let Rabbi Elazar derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this earlier verse, which appears in the same chapter: 鈥淔rom animals, from the herd or from the flock, you shall bring your offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2), in the following manner: 鈥淔rom鈥 is a detail that excludes an undomesticated animal; 鈥渁nimals鈥 is a generalization which includes undomesticated animals (see Deuteronomy, chapter 14); and when it states: 鈥淗erd,鈥 and: 鈥淔lock,鈥 the Torah has detailed again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, and therefore you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail, i.e., domesticated animals.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讗讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讘讛诪讛

Rava said to Rav Yehuda of Diskarta: One cannot derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this verse, as if the source were from there, I would say the phrase 鈥渁nimals鈥

讞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛

is referring even to undomesticated animals, as an undomesticated animal is included in the general category of animal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: How can you suggest that in this verse an undomesticated animal is included in the general category of animal? It is written: 鈥淗erd鈥 and: 鈥淔lock,鈥 and this entire phrase is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, from which you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail, which are herd and flock, not undomesticated animals.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗

搂 The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that it is so, that in the methodology of generalizations and details, the generalizations are similar to the details? It is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the mitzva to bring money for the second tithe to Jerusalem: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires, on cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink, and on whatever your soul requests鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26).

讜谞转转 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讻诇诇 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讜讘讬讬谉 讜讘砖讻专 驻专讟 讜讘讻诇 讗砖专 转砖讗诇讱 谞驻砖讱 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇

The baraita elaborates: The phrase 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires鈥 is a generalization, as no particular type of food is specified. The phrase 鈥渙n cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink鈥 is a detail, as specific foods are mentioned. And when the verse concludes: 鈥淥n whatever your soul requests,鈥 it then generalized again, as no specific type of food is stated.

讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 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 诪驻专讬 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讗祝 讻诇 驻专讬 诪驻专讬 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注

Since the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that it is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as the produce of produce, i.e., not only the produce itself but also items that come from it, such as grapes from a seed, and they are also items grown from the ground, as all of these items grow from the ground or receive their main sustenance from it, so too, the generalization includes all items that are the produce of produce and are grown from the ground. This includes birds, but it does not include fish, water, or salt.

诪讻讚讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讻注讬谉 驻专讟讗 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 讻诇诇讗 讘转专讗 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara discusses a series of problems with regard to these and other methods of halakhic exegesis: Now, in the case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, one derives that all items which are like the detail are included. However, if that is so, what purpose does the last generalization stated in the verse serve? The same conclusion would be reached if the verse had stated merely a generalization and a detail. The Gemara answers: The purpose of the last generalization is to add all that is similar to it, i.e., even those articles or cases not explicitly listed among the details.

讜转讜 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 驻专讟讗 讘转专讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 驻专讟讗 讘转专讗讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟

And furthermore, in the case of a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, one again derives that all items which are like the detail are included. If so, what purpose does the last detail stated in the verse serve? The same conclusion would apply if there was simply a detail and a generalization. The Gemara answers: If it were not for the last detail, I would say that the generalization becomes added to the detail, which is broadened in all possible ways. Therefore, the last detail limits the generalization to items or cases that are similar to the detail.

讜诪讻讚讬 转专讬谉 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讗 讜转专讬谉 驻专讟讬 讜讻诇诇讗 (讻诇诇讗) 讻注讬谉 驻专讟讗 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

The Gemara continues this line of questioning. And now that it has been established that both with regard to two generalizations and a detail, i.e., a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, and two details and a generalization, i.e., a detail, a generalization, and a detail, one derives that all items that are like the detail are included, what difference is there between this method and that one? The two methods are apparently identical.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗讬诇讜 转专转讬谉 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 驻专讟讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚 爪讚 诪专讘讬谞谉 转专讬 驻专讟讬 讜讻诇诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 驻专讟讗 讚讚诪讬 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪专讘讬谞谉 讘讞讚 爪讚 诇讗 诪专讘讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them, as whereas in a case of two generalizations and a detail, if there is another detail that is similar to the detail specified in the verse even in one aspect, one includes it, due to the two generalizations. By contrast, in the case of two details and a generalization, if there is another detail that is similar to the one mentioned in the verse in two aspects, one includes it. However, if it is similar in only one aspect one does not include it, as the halakha is limited by two details.

诪讻讚讬 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 讜讗讬转专讘讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讜诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 谞诪讬 专讬讘讛 讛讻诇 讜讗讬转专讘讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 诇驻专讟 讜讻诇诇

The Gemara asks another question: Now, in the method of a detail and a generalization, the generalization becomes added to the detail, and all matters are included by the generalization. And the method of restriction and amplification also amplifies and includes everything, and therefore all matters are included in both cases. If so, what difference is there between the method of restriction and amplification and that of a detail and a generalization?

讗讬讻讗 讚讗讬诇讜 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 诪专讘讬谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讬谉 讜诇讜诇讘讬谉 讜诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 诇讜诇讘讬谉 讗讬谉 注诇讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara answers: There is the following difference, as whereas in the method of a detail and a generalization one includes and renders forbidden to a nazirite even leaves and tendrils of the vine, with the method of restriction and amplification one includes less, as tendrils, yes, they are included in the prohibition, whereas leaves, no, they are not included.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讞讜抓 诪讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪砖专转

Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to all prohibitions that are written in the Torah, a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance. If one eats a permitted food with a forbidden food and together they constitute the minimum prohibited measure, he is exempt from punishment for this act of consumption. This principle applies to all halakhot except for the prohibitions of a nazirite, who is liable for eating a mixture of that kind, as the Torah said with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淣either shall he drink anything soaked in grapes鈥 (Numbers 6:3). This verse indicates that a nazirite is prohibited from consuming not only wine and vinegar, but also any food that was soaked in these liquids.

Scroll To Top