|  |  | Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir ### Folio 34a Should you say it is R. Tarfon, would he become a nazirite? For since he did not know at the time he uttered the nazirite vow whether it was So-and-so or not, would the naziriteship have become operative [at all]? For have we not been taught: R. Judah on behalf of R. Tarfon said that not one of them1 is a nazirite because naziriteship is not intended except when assumed unequivocally?2 — It must, therefore, be R. Judah [who indicated this in connection] with the heap of grain. For it has been taught: [If a man says,] 'I declare myself a nazirite, provided that this heap of grain contains one hundred kor,' and then finds that [the heap] has been stolen or is lost, R. Simeon binds [him to a naziriteship], whilst R. Judah frees him [from the vow].3 R. Simeon holds that since, had it not been stolen, it might have been found to contain one hundred kor, in which case he would have become a nazirite, he must now also become a nazirite. Here,4 too, since, had the other come before us and we had known that it was So-and-so, he would have become a nazirite, now [that the other has not come] he also becomes a nazirite. MISHNAH. IF [ONE MAN] SAW A KOY5 AND SAID, 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF THAT IS A BEAST OF CHASE, [AND ANOTHER] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF THAT IS NOT A BEAST OF CHASE,' [A THIRD SAID] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF THAT IS CATTLE,' [A FOURTH SAID,] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF THAT IS NOT CATTLE,' [A FIFTH SAID,] I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF THAT IS BOTH A BEAST OF CHASE AND CATTLE,' [AND A SIXTH SAID,] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF THAT IS NEITHER BEAST OF CHASE NOR CATTLE.' [THEN A SEVENTH SAID,] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF ONE OF YOU IS A NAZIRITE,' [AN EIGHTH SAID,] I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF NOT ONE OF YOU IS A NAZIRITE,' [WHILST A NINTH SAID,] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF YOU ARE ALL NAZIRITES, THEN ALL OF THEM BECOME NAZIRITES. GEMARA. In one [Baraitha] it is taught that nine [can become] nazirites,6 and in another that nine naziriteships [can be undertaken].7 Now there would be nine nazirites if, for example, a number of men referred to [the Koy] one after another;8 but how is it possible for nine naziriteships [to be undertaken] by one man? There could indeed be six, as enumerated in our Mishnah,9 but how could the other three be undertaken? — R. Shesheth replied: He could say,10 'I declare myself a nazirite and undertake the naziriteships of you all.'11 ## CHAPTER VI MISHNAH. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN TO A NAZIRITE, VIZ.: — RITUAL DEFILEMENT, POLLING, AND PRODUCTS OF THE VINE. ALL PRODUCTS OF THE VINE CAN BE RECKONED TOGETHER12 WHILST THERE IS NO PENALTY UNLESS HE EATS AN OLIVE'S BULK OF GRAPES, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files One of those, mentioned in our Mishnah, who undertook a naziriteship if the person approaching were So-and-so. Tosef. Naz. III. Thus in R. Judah's view unless the vow is free from all doubt it does not become operative. Tosef. Naz. II. Cf., however, Ned. 192, where the view of R. Judah here, and R. Judah on behalf of R. Tarfon and held by R. Ashi to be identical. I.e., in the Mishnah. The Rabbis were uncertain whether the Koy, an animal permitted for food, should be considered of the genus cattle, vnvc or a beast of chase, vhj. V. Aruch s.v. huf. [It is generally taken as a cross between a goat and some species of gazelle; v. Lewysohn, op. cit. p. 215.] By using different formulae and making the vow contingent on the Koy being a beast of chase or cattle. I.e., one man can undertake nine naziriteships by using different formulae with reference to the Koy. As described in our Mishnah. For the first six formulae could all be uttered by one man. Referring to nine men who had each undertaken a naziriteship in the manner of the Mishnah. I.e., 'I undertake a naziriteship for each one of you who is a nazirite. To form a total of an olive's bulk in the case of solids, or as the earlier Mishnah has it, a quarter of a 108 in the case of fluids, for the consumption of which there is a penalty, viz. stripes. (Meiri's interpretation of a very difficult passage). Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Nazir 34b [OR,] ACCORDING TO THE EARLIER MISHNAH,1 UNLESS HE DRINKS A QUARTER [OF A LOG]2 OF WINE. R. AKIBA SAID THAT THERE IS A PENALTY EVEN IF HE SOAKS HIS BREAD IN WINE AND ENOUGH [IS ABSORBED] TO MAKE UP ALTOGETHER3 AN OLIVE'S BULK.4 THERE IS A SEPARATE PENALTY FOR WINE, FOR GRAPES, FOR HARZANIM AND FOR ZAGIM.5 R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: THERE IS NO PENALTY [IN THE CASE OF THE LAST TWO SPECIES] UNLESS HE EATS TWO HARZANIM AND ONE ZAG. BY HARZANIM AND ZAGIM ARE MEANT THE FOLLOWING. ACCORDING TO R. JUDAH, HARZANIM MEANS THE OUTER PORTION [OF THE GRAPE].6 ZAG THE INNER PORTION,7 BUT R. JOSE SAID: THAT YOU MAY NOT ERR, [THINK OF] THE ZOG [BELL] OF AN ANIMAL,8 OF WHICH THE OUTER PART IS TERMED THE ZOG [HOOD].9 AND THE INNER PART THE INBAL [CLAPPER]. GEMARA. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN TO A NAZIRITE, VIZ.: RITUAL DEFILEMENT etc.: Products of the vine are [forbidden] but not the vine itself, so that our Mishnah differs from R. Eleazar, for it has been taught: R. Eleazar said that even leaves and shoots [of the vine] are included [in the things forbidden to a nazirite]. Some draw the inference10 from the subsequent clause, viz.: WHILST THERE IS NO PENALTY UNLESS HE EATS AN OLIVE'S BULK OF GRAPES. GRAPES only [carry a penalty] but not the vine itself, so that our Mishnah differs from R. Eleazar, for it has been taught: R. Eleazar said that even leaves and shoots are included. In what [essentially] does the difference [between R. Eleazar and the Rabbis of our Mishnah] lie? — R. Eleazar interprets [certain scriptural passages as consisting of] 'amplifications and limitations,'11 whilst the Rabbis interpret [them as] general statements and specifications.12 R. Eleazar [argues as follows:] He shall abstain from wine and strong drink13 is a limitation,14 whilst, Nothing that is made of the grape-vine15 is an amplification. When a limitation is followed by an amplification all things are embraced.16 What then does the amplification serves to include [here]? Everything [coining from the vine],17 and what does the limitation exclude? Only the twigs. The Rabbis, on the other hand, [argue as follows:] 'He shall abstain from wine and strong drink' is a specification;18 '[He shall eat] nothing that is made of the grape-vine' is a general statement; 'from the pressed grapes even to the grape-stone'19 is again a specification. When we have a specification, a generalisation, and a [second] specification, only what is similar to the specification may be adjudged [to be within the scope of the prohibition]. In the specification fruit20 and fruit refuse21 are particularised, and so whatever is fruit22 or fruit refuse [is prohibited].23 Should you object that in the specification ripe fruit is particularised, and so only what is ripe fruit [is prohibited],24 the reply is that [in this view] nothing would be left implicit in Scripture, everything being explicitly mentioned.25 Fresh grapes and dried grapes are mentioned, as are also wine and vinegar. It follows that the inference must be drawn not in the latter form,26 but in the first form. Again, seeing that we finally include everything [similar to fruit or fruit refuse], for what purpose is 'from pressed grapes even to the grape-stone mentioned [separately from the other specification]?27 To tell us that wherever a specification is followed by a general statement it is not permissible to extend [the terms of the specification] so as to include only whatever is similar to it, but the general statement widens the scope of the specification,28 unless Scripture indicates the specification in the manner in which it is indicated in the case of the nazirite.29 The Master said: 'In the specification fruit and fruit refuse are particularised, and so whatever is fruit or fruit refuse [is prohibited].' 'Fruit' means grapes, but what is 'fruit refuse'? — Vinegar. What is meant by 'Whatever is fruit'? — Unripe grapes. And by 'whatever is fruit refuse'? — R. Kahana said that this serves to include worm-eaten grapes.30 [And what is the significance of] 'even to the grape-stone'?31 Rabina said that this serves to include the intermediate part.32 The Master said: 'Should you object that in the specification raw ripe fruit is particularised, and so only what is ripe fruit [is prohibited], the reply is that [on this view] nothing would be left implicit in Scripture, everything being explicitly mentioned. Fresh grapes and dried grapes are mentioned, as are also wine and vinegar. It follows that the inference must be drawn not in the latter form, but in the first form. Again, seeing that we finally include everything [similar to fruit or fruit refuse], for what purpose is from pressed grapes even to the grape-stone mentioned [separately from the other specification]? To tell us that wherever a specification is followed by a general statement it is not permissible to extend [the terms of the specification] as as to include only whatever is similar to It, but the general statement widens the scope of the specification, unless Scripture indicates the specification - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files [Or 'First Mishnah', a collection of Halachoth the compilation of which began according to Geonic accounts as early as Hillel and Shammai; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 163, n. 7.] A quarter of a log is between 50 and 60 c.c. (= the bulk of one and a half average-sized eggs). I.e., along with the bread. According to R. Akiba, an olive's bulk (less than 10 c.c.) carries with it a penalty in the case of liquids. There is no need to consume more than one variety to incur the penalty. All four species are mentioned in Num. VI, 3-4. harzanim being usually translated 'pressed grapes' and zag, 'grape-stone', following the opinion of R. Judah given later in the Mishnah. The skin. The stone. The bell suspended at the animal's neck. And so, too, zag of a grape is its skin. That our Mishnah and R. Eleazar differ. Ribbni u-Mi'ut. I.e., as consisting of clauses that amplify and clauses that restrict. Kelal u-ferat. The significance of these technical terms will become clearer in the argument set out below. For a full explanation of these terms, v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 3. Num. VI, 3. The things prohibited are confined to the things mentioned. Num. VI, 3. Lit., Of everything that is made … he shall not eat. I.e., the scope, in this case of the prohibition, is as wide as possible, the restriction serving merely to exclude some one thing, here the twigs. And so also the leaves and the shoots. Of the things forbidden. Num. VI, 4; the concluding half of the last verse quoted. Grapes and wine. Vinegar. Including unripe grapes. Worm-eaten grapes. And thus unripe grapes would be excluded. I.e., there is no form of ripe fruit different from those mentioned in the verses quoted. Restricted to ripe fruit. I.e., why does not the whole specification precede the generalisation. And includes also things not similar to the specification. With the general statement interrupting it. That went bad before they ripened. In Num. VI, 3. What remains of the flesh after the wine has drained off. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |