Nazir 38

דלית ליה צירוף מכל אשר יעשה מאי דריש ביה אמר לך ההוא מיבעי ליה לעולם אינו נזיר עד שיזיר מכולן

who is not of the opinion that the principle of combination is operative, as he renders one liable for consumption of forbidden substances of any amount (see Makkot 13a), what does he derive from the verse “anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4)? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: That verse is necessary to teach that one is never considered a nazirite until he vows naziriteship from all of them. Rabbi Shimon maintains that if one vows to be a nazirite only with regard to one or two of the prohibitions of naziriteship, the vow does not take effect at all.

אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי אלעזר כל רביעיות שבתורה אין היתר מצטרף לאיסור חוץ מרביעית שבנזיר שהרי אמרה תורה משרת מאי איכא בין רבי יוחנן לרבי אלעזר

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to every halakha that is in the Torah that involves a quarter-log, a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance to complete this measure, apart from the quarter–log of a nazirite. In the case of a nazirite, permitted liquid combines with wine to render him liable, as the Torah stated: “Soaked” (Numbers 6:3). The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who stated (35b) that a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden one with regard to any prohibition of the Torah apart from that of a nazirite, and that of Rabbi Elazar, who apparently says the same thing in different terms?

איכא בינייהו דרבי יוחנן מרבי אפילו אוכלין ורבי אלעזר משקין אין מידי אחרינא לא

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them, as Rabbi Yoḥanan amplifies the halakha to include even foods, i.e., he renders a nazirite liable for eating an olive-bulk of bread and grapes combined, and Rabbi Elazar maintains that with regard to liquids, yes, the permitted combines with the forbidden, but for other matters, i.e., solids, no, the different foods do not combine.

אמר רבי אלעזר עשר רביעיות הן ונקיט רב כהנא בידיה חמש סומקתא וחמש חיוורתא חמש סומקתא נזיר ועושה פסח שהורו במקדש ומתו

§ Apropos a quarter-log, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabbi Elazar says: There are ten applications of the quarter–log measurement in various areas of halakha, and Rav Kahana held in his hand the following mnemonic for them: Five are red and five are white. The Gemara elaborates: The five red ones of wine and blood are listed in the following mnemonic: A nazirite; and one who performs the ritual of the Paschal offering; who instructed; in the Temple; and they died.

נזיר רביעית יין לנזיר עושה פסח דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ארבע כוסות הללו צריך שיהא בהן כדי רביעית שהורו שתה רביעית יין אל יורה במקדש שתה רביעית יין ונכנס למקדש חייב מיתה

The Gemara explains this mnemonic: A nazirite, this is referring to the quarter–log of wine for which a nazirite is liable for drinking. Who performs the ritual of the Paschal offering, this is as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is a mitzva to drink these four cups at the Passover seder and they must each contain the amount of a quarter–log. Who instructed, this is referring to the following halakha: One who drank a quarter–log of wine may not issue rulings to others in matters of halakha, lest he err. In the Temple, this is referring to the halakha that one who drank a quarter–log of wine and entered the Temple is liable to receive the death penalty (see Leviticus 10:9).

ומתו דתניא מנין לרביעית דם שיוצאה משני מתים שהיא מטמאה באהל שנאמר ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא

And they died, this is as it is taught in a mishna (Oholot 2:10): From where is it derived with regard to a quarter–log of blood that emerges from two corpses, that it renders people and objects ritually impure in a tent, i.e., a house, meaning that one who enters that house contracts ritual impurity imparted by a corpse? As it is stated, with regard to the prohibition against ritual impurity for priests: “Neither shall he go in to any dead bodies” (Leviticus 21:11). The plural form indicates that the blood of two people joins together to form the minimum amount of a quarter-log for ritual impurity in a tent.

וחמש חיוורתא חלת נזיר ומצורע שנפסלו בשבת חלת רביעית שמן לחלה נזיר רביעית שמן לנזיר מצורע רביעית מים למצורע שנפסלו דתנן ושאר כל המשקין טמאין פוסלין את הגוייה ברביעית

And the five white cases of oil and water are listed in this mnemonic: The loaf of, a nazirite, and a leper, which were disqualified, on Shabbat. The Gemara elaborates: The loaf of, this is referring to the quarter–log of oil added to the loaves of a thanks-offering. A nazirite, this is referring to the quarter–log of oil for the wafers of a nazirite, which were brought with his offering. A leper, this is referring to the quarter–log of spring water into which a bird is slaughtered for the ritual purification of a leper (see Leviticus 14:5).Which were disqualified, this is as we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 17b): And all other ritually impure liquids disqualify the body to the extent that one who drinks them may not eat teruma, if one drank the amount of one quarter–log.

בשבת דתנן ושאר כל המשקין ברביעית ושאר כל השופכים ברביעית

On Shabbat, this is as we learned in a mishna which lists the minimum amounts of various liquids for which one is liable for violating the halakhot of Shabbat for carrying them from one domain to another. At the conclusion of this list, the mishna states (Shabbat 76b): And the measure that creates liability for carrying all other liquids, those not specified in the list, is a quarter–log, and the measure for carrying all waste water is likewise a quarter–log. This completes the list of ten halakhot that feature the quarter-log.

ותו ליכא והאיכא מרביעית נוטלין לידים לאחד ואפילו לשנים בפלוגתא לא קא מיירי

The Gemara asks: And are there no more than ten? But there is also the following mishna (Yadayim 1:1): With a quarter–log of water one can wash the hands of one person before eating bread, and this amount can be used even for two people, if they do so in the correct manner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar, who listed ten cases, does not deal with halakhot that are subject to a dispute, and some Sages disagree with the ruling that two people can wash their hands with a single quarter-log.

והא איכא היה מביא פיילי של חרס ונותן לתוכה חצי לוג מים מן הכיור ורבי יהודה אומר רביעית בפלוגתא לא קא מיירי

The Gemara further asks: But there is this halakha concerning a sota (Sota 15b): The priest who dealt with a sota would bring an earthenware vessel [pailei] and place in it a half–log of water from the basin in the Temple, and Rabbi Yehuda says it was a quarter–log. This is another case involving a quarter-log. The Gemara answers as before, that Rabbi Elazar does not deal with halakhot that are subject to a dispute, and this quarter-log applies only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

והאיכא כמה מים נותן לתוכה כל שהוא רבי זכאי אומר רביעית בפלוגתא לא קא מיירי והאיכא מקוה בר מההיא דבטלוה רבנן

The Gemara continues to ask. But there is the following halakha: How much water must one place in a vessel that contains urine, before he can pray nearby? Any quantity is sufficient. Rabbi Zakkai said: A quarter–log. The Gemara again answers that Rabbi Elazar does not deal with halakhot that are subject to a dispute. The Gemara suggests another example: But there is the case of a ritual bath, as it is taught that one may immerse extremely small vessels in a quarter-log of rainwater in the ground. The Gemara answers: His list excludes that case, as the Sages annulled that halakha by ruling that one must use a standard ritual bath of forty se’a even for extremely small vessels.

ואינו חייב אלא עד שיאכל מן הענבים כזית וכו׳ תנא קמא לא מדמי להון לכל איסורי נזיר לשתיה ורבי עקיבא כיון דכתיב וענבים לחים ויבשים לא יאכל מה אכילה כזית אף כל איסורין כזית

§ The mishna taught: And he is liable to receive lashes only if he eats an olive-bulk of the grapes. The mishna continues by noting that with regard to drinking, the first tanna holds that a nazirite is liable for a quarter-log, whereas Rabbi Akiva maintains that the amount of an olive-bulk applies to liquids as well. The Gemara explains this dispute: The first tanna does not liken all the other prohibitions of a nazirite to the prohibition of drinking wine, and therefore the measurements for eating and drinking are the same as for prohibitions in other contexts: An olive-bulk of food and a quarter-log of drink. And Rabbi Akiva maintains that since it is written: “Nor eat fresh grapes or dried” (Numbers 6:3),this verse teaches that just as eating is measured by the amount of an olive-bulk, so too, all the prohibitions of a nazirite are measured by an olive-bulk.

[וחייב על היין בפני עצמו כו׳] תנו רבנן וענבים לחים ויבשים לא יאכל לחייב על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו מכאן אתה דן לכל איסורין שבתורה מה כאן שהוא מין אחד והן שני שמות וחייב על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו אף כל שהוא מין אחד והן שני שמות חייב על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו

§ The mishna further taught: And he is liable for consuming wine by itself, and for grapes by themselves, and for grape seeds by themselves, and for grape skins by themselves. The Sages taught: The verse: “Nor eat fresh grapes or dried” (Numbers 6:3), serves to render him liable for this by itself and for that by itself, i.e., that he need not consume all of the grape products listed in the verses. From here you derive the halakha with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah: Just as here there is one type of food, grapes, which are called by two names, fresh or dried, and he is liable for this by itself and for that by itself, so too, in all cases where there is one type and they are called by two names, one is liable for this by itself and for that by itself.

לאיתויי חמרא חדתא ועינבי

The Gemara adds that in the case of a nazirite this principle serves to include new wine, i.e., grape juice, and grapes. Although these are apparently a single type, as the juice, before fermenting, is merely grapes in liquid form, nevertheless one is liable for grape juice and grapes separately, as they have different names.

אמר אביי אכל חרצן לוקה שתים אכל זג לוקה שתים אכל חרצן וזג לוקה שלש רבא אמר אינו לוקה אלא אחת שאינו לוקה אלאו שבכללות

§ Abaye says: A nazirite who ate a grape seed is flogged twice, i.e., two sets of thirty-nine lashes, one set for the specific prohibition stated with regard to grape seeds, and the other for the general prohibition “anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4). Likewise, if he ate a grape skin he is flogged twice. If he ate a grape seed and a grape skin he is flogged three times, for the seed, for the skin, and for the prohibition “anything that is made of the grapevine.” Rava says: He is flogged only once if he ate a seed or a skin. He is not flogged for “anything that is made of the grapevine,” because one is not flogged for violating a general prohibition. One is not liable to receive lashes for violation of a single prohibition that includes many items or cases.

מתיב רב פפא רבי אליעזר אומר נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת אכל ענבים לחים ויבשים חרצנים וזגים וסחט אשכול של ענבים ושתה לוקה חמש אי הכי לילקי שש אחת על מכל אשר יעשה

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Abaye’s statement. Rabbi Eliezer says: A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If two witnesses said to him in warning: Do not drink, do not drink, and he continued drinking, he is liable for each and every one of the warnings that was followed by an act of drinking. If he ate grapes and raisins, grape seeds and grape skins, and squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank the juice, he is flogged five times. The difficulty for Abaye is as follows: If so, that Abaye’s opinion is accepted, let him be flogged six times, to include one more for transgressing the verse “anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4).

תנא ושייר מאי שייר דהאי שייר שייר לא יחל דברו

Abaye responded: Rabbi Eliezer taught certain prohibitions and omitted others. He did not include all the prohibitions for which one is liable to be flogged. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? He would not have listed all relevant prohibitions less one. The Gemara answers: He also omitted the additional prohibition of “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3),as the nazirite profaned his word by violating his vow of naziriteship.

אי משום האי לאו שיורא הוא כי קתני מידי דלא איתיה בדוכתא אחריתי לא יחל דברו איתיה בנדרים

The Gemara retorts: If it is due to that verse, this is not an omission, as when Rabbi Eliezer teaches and lists the lashes which a nazirite is liable to receive, he includes only matters that are not found elsewhere, i.e., he mentions only prohibitions that apply exclusively to a nazirite. The prohibition “He shall not profane his word” is relevant to vows in general, and therefore he omitted it. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer should have mentioned the prohibition “anything that is made of the grapevine,” and the fact that he did not do so presents a difficulty for the opinion of Abaye.

אמר ליה רבינא מפרזקיא לרב אשי והא שייר דבין הביניים אלא אמר רב פפא לא תניא מידי חמש והא

Ravina from Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: But he omitted the case of in between. Rabbi Eliezer could have added that a nazirite is liable not only for the seed and skin of a grape but also for the substances in between them, as the verse: “From pits to grape skin” (Numbers 6:4), comes to include all that is in between the two (see 34b). Rather, Rav Pappa said: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer did not teach anything about five sets of lashes, but merely stated that he is flogged for all those actions, without enumerating the precise number. Therefore, this source does not present a difficulty for Abaye. The Gemara asks: But