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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 29, 2015 | 讟状讝 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 38

讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 爪讬专讜祝 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讝讬专 诪讻讜诇谉

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 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 专讘讬注讬讜转 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 诪专讘讬注讬转 砖讘谞讝讬专 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪砖专转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

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 quarterlog of a nazirite. In the case of a nazirite, permitted liquid combines with wine to render him liable, as the Torah stated: 鈥淪oaked鈥 (Numbers 6:3). The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注砖专 专讘讬注讬讜转 讛谉 讜谞拽讬讟 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讞诪砖 住讜诪拽转讗 讜讞诪砖 讞讬讜讜专转讗 讞诪砖 住讜诪拽转讗 谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 砖讛讜专讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讜诪转讜

搂 Apropos a quarter-log, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabbi Elazar says: There are ten applications of the quarterlog 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.

谞讝讬专 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讘注 讻讜住讜转 讛诇诇讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 砖讛讜专讜 砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛

The Gemara explains this mnemonic: A nazirite, this is referring to the quarterlog 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 quarterlog. Who instructed, this is referring to the following halakha: One who drank a quarterlog 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 quarterlog of wine and entered the Temple is liable to receive the death penalty (see Leviticus 10:9).

讜诪转讜 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 砖讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖讜转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗

And they died, this is as it is taught in a mishna (Oholot 2:10): From where is it derived with regard to a quarterlog 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: 鈥淣either shall he go in to any dead bodies鈥 (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.

讜讞诪砖 讞讬讜讜专转讗 讞诇转 谞讝讬专 讜诪爪讜专注 砖谞驻住诇讜 讘砖讘转 讞诇转 专讘讬注讬转 砖诪谉 诇讞诇讛 谞讝讬专 专讘讬注讬转 砖诪谉 诇谞讝讬专 诪爪讜专注 专讘讬注讬转 诪讬诐 诇诪爪讜专注 砖谞驻住诇讜 讚转谞谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讘专讘讬注讬转

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 quarterlog of oil added to the loaves of a thanks-offering. A nazirite, this is referring to the quarterlog of oil for the wafers of a nazirite, which were brought with his offering. A leper, this is referring to the quarterlog 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鈥檌la 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 quarterlog.

讘砖讘转 讚转谞谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讘专讘讬注讬转 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讜驻讻讬诐 讘专讘讬注讬转

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 quarterlog, and the measure for carrying all waste water is likewise a quarterlog. This completes the list of ten halakhot that feature the quarter-log.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪专讘讬注讬转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇砖谞讬诐 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara asks: And are there no more than ten? But there is also the following mishna (Yadayim 1:1): With a quarterlog 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讬讛 诪讘讬讗 驻讬讬诇讬 砖诇 讞专住 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讻讬讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

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 halflog of water from the basin in the Temple, and Rabbi Yehuda says it was a quarterlog. 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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讻诪讛 诪讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜讛 讘专 诪讛讛讬讗 讚讘讟诇讜讛 专讘谞谉

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 quarterlog. 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鈥檃 even for extremely small vessels.

讜讗讬谞讜 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 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讜谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 诇砖转讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讝讬转 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 讻讝讬转

搂 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: 鈥淣or eat fresh grapes or dried鈥 (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.

[讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讻讜壮] 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讛谉 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讛谉 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

搂 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: 鈥淣or eat fresh grapes or dried鈥 (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.

诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讜注讬谞讘讬

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讻诇 讞专爪谉 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讗讻诇 讝讙 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讗讻诇 讞专爪谉 讜讝讙 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转

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 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (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 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine.鈥 Rava says: He is flogged only once if he ate a seed or a skin. He is not flogged for 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine,鈥 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转砖转讛 讗诇 转砖转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讻诇 注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讝讙讬诐 讜住讞讟 讗砖讻讜诇 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 讜砖转讛 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬诇拽讬 砖砖 讗讞转 注诇 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Abaye鈥檚 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鈥檚 opinion is accepted, let him be flogged six times, to include one more for transgressing the verse 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (Numbers 6:4).

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 砖讬讬专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜

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 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3),as the nazirite profaned his word by violating his vow of naziriteship.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘讚讜讻转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讗讬转讬讛 讘谞讚专讬诐

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 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 is relevant to vows in general, and therefore he omitted it. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer should have mentioned the prohibition 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine,鈥 and the fact that he did not do so presents a difficulty for the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 砖讬讬专 讚讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转谞讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讞诪砖 讜讛讗

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: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥 (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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 38

讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 爪讬专讜祝 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讝讬专 诪讻讜诇谉

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 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 专讘讬注讬讜转 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 诪专讘讬注讬转 砖讘谞讝讬专 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪砖专转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

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 quarterlog of a nazirite. In the case of a nazirite, permitted liquid combines with wine to render him liable, as the Torah stated: 鈥淪oaked鈥 (Numbers 6:3). The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注砖专 专讘讬注讬讜转 讛谉 讜谞拽讬讟 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讞诪砖 住讜诪拽转讗 讜讞诪砖 讞讬讜讜专转讗 讞诪砖 住讜诪拽转讗 谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 砖讛讜专讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讜诪转讜

搂 Apropos a quarter-log, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabbi Elazar says: There are ten applications of the quarterlog 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.

谞讝讬专 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讘注 讻讜住讜转 讛诇诇讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 砖讛讜专讜 砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛

The Gemara explains this mnemonic: A nazirite, this is referring to the quarterlog 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 quarterlog. Who instructed, this is referring to the following halakha: One who drank a quarterlog 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 quarterlog of wine and entered the Temple is liable to receive the death penalty (see Leviticus 10:9).

讜诪转讜 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 砖讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖讜转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗

And they died, this is as it is taught in a mishna (Oholot 2:10): From where is it derived with regard to a quarterlog 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: 鈥淣either shall he go in to any dead bodies鈥 (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.

讜讞诪砖 讞讬讜讜专转讗 讞诇转 谞讝讬专 讜诪爪讜专注 砖谞驻住诇讜 讘砖讘转 讞诇转 专讘讬注讬转 砖诪谉 诇讞诇讛 谞讝讬专 专讘讬注讬转 砖诪谉 诇谞讝讬专 诪爪讜专注 专讘讬注讬转 诪讬诐 诇诪爪讜专注 砖谞驻住诇讜 讚转谞谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讘专讘讬注讬转

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 quarterlog of oil added to the loaves of a thanks-offering. A nazirite, this is referring to the quarterlog of oil for the wafers of a nazirite, which were brought with his offering. A leper, this is referring to the quarterlog 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鈥檌la 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 quarterlog.

讘砖讘转 讚转谞谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讘专讘讬注讬转 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讜驻讻讬诐 讘专讘讬注讬转

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 quarterlog, and the measure for carrying all waste water is likewise a quarterlog. This completes the list of ten halakhot that feature the quarter-log.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪专讘讬注讬转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇砖谞讬诐 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara asks: And are there no more than ten? But there is also the following mishna (Yadayim 1:1): With a quarterlog 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讬讛 诪讘讬讗 驻讬讬诇讬 砖诇 讞专住 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讻讬讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

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 halflog of water from the basin in the Temple, and Rabbi Yehuda says it was a quarterlog. 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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讻诪讛 诪讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜讛 讘专 诪讛讛讬讗 讚讘讟诇讜讛 专讘谞谉

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 quarterlog. 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鈥檃 even for extremely small vessels.

讜讗讬谞讜 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 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讜谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 诇砖转讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讝讬转 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 讻讝讬转

搂 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: 鈥淣or eat fresh grapes or dried鈥 (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.

[讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讻讜壮] 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讛谉 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讛谉 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

搂 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: 鈥淣or eat fresh grapes or dried鈥 (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.

诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讜注讬谞讘讬

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讻诇 讞专爪谉 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讗讻诇 讝讙 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讗讻诇 讞专爪谉 讜讝讙 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转

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 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (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 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine.鈥 Rava says: He is flogged only once if he ate a seed or a skin. He is not flogged for 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine,鈥 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转砖转讛 讗诇 转砖转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讻诇 注谞讘讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讝讙讬诐 讜住讞讟 讗砖讻讜诇 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 讜砖转讛 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬诇拽讬 砖砖 讗讞转 注诇 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Abaye鈥檚 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鈥檚 opinion is accepted, let him be flogged six times, to include one more for transgressing the verse 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (Numbers 6:4).

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 砖讬讬专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜

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 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3),as the nazirite profaned his word by violating his vow of naziriteship.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘讚讜讻转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讗讬转讬讛 讘谞讚专讬诐

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 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 is relevant to vows in general, and therefore he omitted it. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer should have mentioned the prohibition 鈥渁nything that is made of the grapevine,鈥 and the fact that he did not do so presents a difficulty for the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 砖讬讬专 讚讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转谞讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讞诪砖 讜讛讗

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: 鈥淔rom pits to grape skin鈥 (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

Scroll To Top