Nazir 34b (לד:) — the Talmud in English

This statement that we made—that all prohibitions of a nazirite, even liquids, are measured by an olive-bulk—applies according to the later Mishna –

But

the earlier Mishna says:

the nazirite is not liable

until he drinks a quarter-log of wine.

Likewise, all prohibitions of a nazirite are measured by a quarter-log; even foods, whose measure throughout the Torah is an olive-bulk, have a measure of a quarter-log in the case of a nazirite.

Rabbi Akiva says

in accordance with the view of the later Mishna:

Even if

the nazirite

soaks his bread in wine, and it contains –

in the bread together with the wine absorbed in it –

enough to combine

from both together the measure of

an olive-bulk,

and he eats the bread, he is

liable.

Rabbi Akiva taught us two laws:

The first: the measure of wine for a nazirite—and likewise all other prohibitions of a nazirite—is an olive-bulk, in accordance with the later Mishna.

The second: although there is not an olive-bulk of wine in what he ate, but there is an olive-bulk only when combined with the bread, he is liable.

The reason is that, in the case of a nazirite, “permitted matter combines with forbidden matter.” This matter will be explained in the Gemara [35b], where its source will also be explained.

The Mishna further adds that the Sages and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya disagree concerning the meaning of the verse, “Of anything made from the grapevine, from grape-pits to grape-skin, he shall not eat” –

And he is liable

the nazirite

for

drinking

the wine by itself,

even though he did not eat with it any additional prohibition of naziriteship.

And

he is likewise liable

for

eating

the grapes by themselves, and for

eating

the grape-pits by themselves, and for

eating

the grape-skins by themselves.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

disagrees with the Sages’ position concerning eating grape-pits and grape-skins, and

says:

a. He is not liable for grape-pits by themselves, nor for grape-skins by themselves, but only until he eats from both of them.

b.

He is not liable

unless

he eats two grape-pits and a grape-skin.

As it is stated: “From grape-pits” [in the plural] “to grape-skin” [in the singular], “he shall not eat.”

The Mishna explains:

These are grape-pits, and these are grape-skins:

The grape-pits –

these are

the

outer

skins of the grapes.

The grape-skins –

these are

the

inner

seeds inside the grapes,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says

the reverse:

The grape-pits are the inner seeds.

The grape-skins are the outer skins.

Rabbi Yosei gives a bell as a sign for his statement, so that one

will not err

between a grape-skin and a grape-pit –

Like a

pair [

bell]

of an animal,

which hangs from its neck and consists of two parts: the bell’s casing and the clapper that strikes it from within.

The

outer

part of the bell is called a

pair.

And

the

inner part [

the clapper that strikes the bell] is called an

clapper.

So too with a grape: the outer part is called a “grape-skin” [and you will consequently know that the inner seed is called a grape-pit].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Three species are forbidden to a nazirite: impurity,

shaving, and that which comes from the grapevine. The Gemara infers: only

that which comes from the grapevine –

the fruit of the grapevine and what is pressed from it –

is not

indeed forbidden to a nazirite.

But the

grapevine itself –

is not

forbidden for the nazirite to eat!

And if so:

the Mishna,

our Mishna, is

not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says: even leaves

of the grapevine

and tendrils,

soft strands of the grapevine, they too

are included

in the verse, and are forbidden for a nazirite to eat.

Some say this inference [

there are those who infer this]

from the latter clause

of our Mishna, in which we learned: “

And he is not liable until he eats an olive-bulk of the grapes.”

It implies that only if the nazirite ate

“from the grapes,”

is

he indeed liable. But if he ate

from

the

grapevine itself, he is not.

And if so,

the Mishna

is

not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar –

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says: even leaves and tendrils are included.

Over what do they disagree [

for what reason do the tanna of our Mishna, who does not hold him liable for leaves and tendrils, and Rabbi Elazar, who holds him liable even for them, disagree]?

a. It is stated in the passage concerning the nazirite: “From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain. Wine vinegar and intoxicating-drink vinegar he shall not drink; and any grape infusion he shall not drink; and fresh grapes and dried grapes he shall not eat. All the days of his naziriteship, of anything made from the grapevine, from grape-pits to grape-skin, he shall not eat.”

b. A matter that the Torah states in language encompassing several things [such as, “

of all

that is made from the grapevine”], and also in detailed language that does not encompass all things [such as, “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain”], can be expounded in two ways –

The first way is by the hermeneutical principle of

a generalization followed by a specification.

This is the principle: if a generalization is written and afterward a specification, the generalization contains only what is in the specification.

It is as though the generalization had not been written.

But if the generalization is written after the specification, the generalization becomes an addition to the specification.

It is as though the specification had not been written.

And if a generalization, a specification, and a generalization are written, you interpret the generalization only

in the manner of

the specification.

That is, every matter resembling the specification is included.

And if a specification, a generalization, and a specification are written, here too everything that is

in the manner of

the specification is included, except that there is a difference in the nature of the resemblance to the specification.

This matter will be explained at the end of the discussion [35b].

The second way is by the hermeneutical principle of “inclusions and exclusions.”

This is the principle: if an inclusion [an encompassing expression] is written and afterward an exclusion [a detailed expression], only what resembles the exclusion is included.

If an exclusion is written and afterward an inclusion, everything is included except for one matter that is excluded by virtue of the exclusion.

Likewise, if an inclusion, an exclusion, and an inclusion are written, everything is included and one matter is excluded.

But if an exclusion, an inclusion, and an exclusion are written, this is not a principle to be expounded by means of inclusions and exclusions.

Rabbi Elazar expounds

the verses in the passage concerning the nazirite according to the principle of

inclusions and exclusions.

Whereas

the Sages expound

the verses according to the principle of

generalizations and specifications.

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Elazar expounds by means of inclusions and exclusions: “

From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” –

the verse excluded,

as it implies that specifically wine and intoxicating drink are forbidden. “

Of anything made from the grapevine” –

the verse included,

as it implies that even leaves and tendrils are forbidden.

And since initially

the verse excluded

the matter,

and

afterward

included it –

It included

thereby

everything.

Rabbi Elazar explains:

What did the verse include? –

? —

It included every matter,

even leaves and tendrils.

And

what did it exclude? –

It excluded the vine branches [

the branches of the grapevine].

For this is the manner of expounding when the verse is expounded by the method of “exclusions and inclusions.”

And the Sages expound

by the principle of

generalizations and specifications: “

From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” –

this is a

specification. “

Of anything made from the grapevine” –

this is a

generalization. “

From grape-pits to grape-skin” –

it specified again.

Thus, you have: “specification, generalization, and specification” –

And this is the principle: “

specification, generalization, and specification” –

you may interpret only

every matter that is

in the manner of the specification.

Just as

the

specification explicitly states: fruit [

grapes],

and refuse of fruit [

vinegar] –

So too, every

matter that is

fruit [

unripe grapes]

and refuse of fruit [

worm-eaten grapes] is included in the prohibition.

But leaves and tendrils, which do not resemble the specification, are not included in the prohibition.

If,

should you say that perhaps this is how we should expound and say:

Just as,

just as

the specification explicitly states

that it is

fully developed fruit –

so too, every fully developed fruit

shall be forbidden to a nazirite.

But unripe fruit—grapes whose ripening has not been completed—would not be forbidden to the nazirite!?

You can say [

state the answer to this question on your own]:

If so –

that the verse came to exclude even unripe fruit –

what has the verse left for you in its implication that it did not state explicitly!?

Can you exclude here, by the principle of “specification, generalization, and specification,” every matter that is not written explicitly? If so, the verse has left us nothing to derive from it; only what is explicit in the verse would be forbidden.

And if so, why did the Torah write here a specification, a generalization, and a specification!?

After all,

fresh and dried grapes –

they are written

explicitly.

Wine and vinegar

likewise –

they are written

explicitly.

It follows that this principle of generalization, specification, and generalization teaches us nothing here –

Indeed,

it necessarily follows that

you may not expound according to the latter formulation

that you proposed, namely, “Just as the specification explicitly states fully developed fruit,” and thereby exclude unripe fruit.

Rather, you must expound

according to the first formulation

that we stated: “Just as the specification explicitly states fruit and refuse of fruit, so too every fruit and refuse of fruit,” and derive from this that unripe fruit is forbidden.

that we stated: “Just as the specific statement refers to fruit and waste of fruit, so too everything that is fruit and waste of fruit,” and learn from this that unripe grapes are prohibited.

And since in the end we include every matter,

if so,

what does the verse come to teach: “

from grape-pits to grape-skin”!?

In other words: why was the specification “from grape-pits to grape-skin” stated after the generalization, rather than before the generalization, together with the other specifications stated by the Torah!?

This teaches you: wherever you find

in the Torah

a specification and a generalization,

then

you are not permitted to draw it out and interpret it only in the manner of the specification,

as we do with “specification, generalization, and specification.”

Rather, it is made

the

rule "

additive"

to the particular,

and we learn everything from here, as though there had been no particular at all,

until Scripture specifies a particular for you

a particular after the general rule,

as it specified for you in Nazir.

That is to say: had the particular not been written after the general rule, we would have included everything and excluded neither leaves nor tendrils.

Therefore, the particular was written after the general rule.

And the same applies to all the other general rules and particulars in the Torah.

The Master said: "

Just as the particular explicitly comprises fruit and waste of fruit, so too everything comprises fruit and waste of fruit."

And we explain: What does the particular explicitly comprise?

Fruit,

namely

grapes

grapes]. And "

waste of fruit,"

what is it? —

Vinegar.

So too "

everything"

fruit —

what is it

which fruit is learned through this interpretive principle]? —

unripe grapes

unripe grapes].

So too "

everything"

of waste of fruit —

what is it,

which waste of fruit is learned from here?

Rav Kahana said: To include worm-eaten grapes

grapes that have become worm-infested.

And concerning what Scripture said: "

from grape seeds to the grape skin" —

why do I need this?

Why did Scripture not say, "grape seed and grape skin"?

Ravina said: To include

to include] grapes

that are in between.

These are small grapes found between the large grapes; they do not see the sunlight, and they will never become large.

The Master said: "

If the particular explicitly comprises fully ripened fruit, so too everything comprises fully ripened fruit.

You say: If so, what did Scripture leave within its implication that they did not state!?

Wet and dry grapes are written explicitly; wine and vinegar are written explicitly.

Thus, you have no choice but to interpret according to the latter formulation rather than the former.

And since ultimately we include everything, what is the purpose of stating: "

from grape seeds to the grape skin"? —

To tell you: Everywhere that you find a particular and a general rule, you may not draw it out and interpret it according to the particular.

Rather, the general rule is made additive to the particular, until Scripture specifies a particular for you."