Nazir 34b — the Talmud in English

This that we said, that all the prohibitions of a nazir, even liquids, are measured by an olive-bulk, is according to the Later Mishna —

But

the First Mishna says:

the nazir is not liable

until he drinks a quarter-log of wine.

And likewise, all the prohibitions of a nazir are measured by a quarter-log; even foods, whose measure throughout the entire Torah is an olive-bulk, for a nazir are measured by a quarter-log.

Rabbi Akiva says

according to the opinion of the Later Mishna:

Even if the nazir soaked

the nazirite

his bread in wine, and there is in it —

in the bread, together with the wine within it —

enough to combine

from both together a measure of

an olive-bulk,

and he ate the bread, he is

liable.

And Rabbi Akiva made two laws known to us:

The first: the measure of wine for a nazir — and likewise all the other prohibitions of a nazir — is an olive-bulk, as in the Later Mishna.

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

And the reason for the matter is that “permitted matter combines with forbidden matter” in the case of a nazir. This matter will be explained in the Gemara [35b], and there its source will be explained.

And the Mishna adds that the Sages and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagreed concerning the meaning of the verse, “From everything that is made from the grapevine, from grape-pits to grape-skin, he shall not eat” —

And he is liable

the nazir

for

drinking

the wine by itself,

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

And

likewise he is liable

for

eating

the grapes by themselves, and for

eating

the grape-pits by themselves, and for

eating

the grape-skins by themselves.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah

disagrees with the opinion of the Sages concerning eating grape-pits and grape-skins, and

says:

a. He is not liable for the grape-pits by themselves, nor for the 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 said: “From grape-pits” [in the plural] “to grape-skin” [in the singular], “he shall not eat.”

And the Mishna explains:

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

The grape-pits —

these are

the peels

on the outside

of the grapes.

The grape-skins —

these are

the seeds

on the inside

within the grapes,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Yose says

the reverse:

The grape-pits are the inner seeds.

The grape-skins are the outer peels.

And Rabbi Yose gives a bell as a sign for his words, so that

you should not err

between the grape-skin and the grape-pit —

Like

a pair [

bell ]

of an animal,

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

And the

outer

part of the bell is called “

pair.”

And

the

inner

[the clapper that strikes in the bell] is called “

clapper.”

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Three kinds are forbidden to a nazir: impurity,

and shaving, and that which comes from the vine. And the Gemara infers: only

“that which comes from the vine” —

the fruit of the grapevine, and what is squeezed from it —

not,

indeed it is forbidden to a nazir.

But the

grapevine itself —

not

is it forbidden for the nazir to eat!

And if so:

the Mishna,

our Mishna, is

not according to Rabbi Eleazar!

For it was taught: Rabbi Eleazar says: even leaves

of the grapevine,

and tendrils,

soft threads in the grapevine, they too

are included

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

Some say it is inferred [

there are those who made this inference ]

from the latter part

of our Mishna, in which we learned: “

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

It implies that only if the nazir ate

“from the grapes”,

not,

indeed he is liable. But if he ate

from

the

grapevine itself, he is not.

And if so,

the Mishna

is

not according to Rabbi Eleazar —

For it was taught: Rabbi Eleazar says: even leaves and tendrils are included.

In what do they disagree [

for what reason did the tanna of our Mishna, who does not make one liable for leaves and tendrils, and Rabbi Eleazar, who makes one liable even for them, disagree ]?

a. It is stated in the passage concerning the nazir: “From wine and strong drink he shall consecrate himself; vinegar of wine and vinegar of strong drink 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, from everything that is made from the grapevine, from grape-pits to grape-skin, he shall not eat.”

b. A matter stated by the Torah in language that includes several things [such as: “

from all

that is made from the grapevine”], and also in detailed language, which does not include all things [such as: “from wine and strong drink he shall consecrate himself”], may be expounded in two ways —

The first way: by the hermeneutical principle of “

generalization and specification.”

And this is the principle: if a generalization is written and afterward a specification, then the generalization includes only what is in the specification.

And it is as though the generalization had not been written.

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

And it is as though the specification had not been written.

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

in the manner of

the specification.

That is, every matter resembling the specification is included in this.

And if a specification, generalization, and specification are written, here too every matter 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.

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

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

And this is the principle: if an inclusion [inclusive language] is written and afterward an exclusion [detailed language], then we include only what resembles the exclusion.

And if an exclusion is written and afterward an inclusion, then everything is included, except for one matter that must be excluded by force of the exclusion.

And likewise, if an inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion are written, then we include everything and exclude one matter.

And if an exclusion, inclusion, and exclusion are written, this is not a principle at all to be expounded by inclusions and exclusions.

Rabbi Eleazar expounds

the verses in the passage concerning the nazir by the principle of

inclusions and exclusions.

Whereas

the Sages expound

the verses by the principle of

generalizations and specifications.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Eleazar expounds inclusions and exclusions: “

From wine and strong drink he shall consecrate himself” —

excluded

the verse, for it implies that specifically wine and strong drink are forbidden. “

From everything that is made from the grapevine” —

included

the verse, for it implies that even leaves and tendrils are forbidden.

And since at first the verse

excluded

and

afterward

it

included —

It included

through this the verse

everything.

And Rabbi Eleazar explains:

what did it include

the verse? —

It included every matter,

even leaves and tendrils.

And

what did it exclude? —

It excluded branches [

the vines of the grapevine ].

Because this is the principle for 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 strong drink he shall consecrate himself” —

this is a

specification. “

From everything that is made from the grapevine” —

this is a

generalization. “

From grape-pits to grape-skin” —

it specified again.

You have here: “specification, generalization, and specification” —

And this is the principle: “

specification, generalization, and specification” —

you expound only

every matter that is

in the manner of the specification.

What

just as

the specification is explicit: 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 are not in the manner of the specification, are not included in the prohibition.

If

you might say, perhaps this is how we should expound and say:

What, just as

the

specification is explicit

as being

fully developed fruit —

so too every fully developed fruit

shall be forbidden to a nazir.

But unripe grapes — which are grapes whose ripening has not been completed — the nazir should not be forbidden to eat them!?

You have said [

say the answer to this question on your own ]:

If so —

that the verse comes to exclude even unripe grapes —

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

Do you have here to exclude, through the principle of “specification, generalization, and specification,” every matter that is not written explicitly? If so, the verse has left nothing at all to be learned from it; only what is explicit in the verse is forbidden.

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

For after all,

fresh grapes and dried grapes —

are they not written

explicitly?

Wine and vinegar

also —

are they not written

explicitly?

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

Here,

it is necessarily the case that

you must not expound according to the latter wording

that you said, namely, “Perhaps, just as the specification is explicit as fully developed fruit,” and thereby exclude unripe grapes.

Rather, you must expound

according to the first wording

that we said: “Just as the specification is explicit as fruit and refuse of fruit, so too every fruit and refuse of fruit,” and learn from here to forbid unripe grapes.

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 it teach: “

From grape-pits to grape-skin”!?

That is: why was the specification “from grape-pits to grape-skin” stated after the generalization, and not before the generalization, together with the other specifications stated by the Torah!?

To tell you: everywhere that you find

in the Torah

specification and generalization,

for then

you are not permitted to draw it out and judge it in the manner of the specification

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

Rather, it is made

the

rule "

additional"

upon the particular,

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

until Scripture specifies for you

a particular after the generalization,

as it specified for you in Nazir.

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

And therefore the particular was written after the generalization.

And the same is the law with regard to all the other generalizations and particulars in the Torah.

The master said: "

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

And we explain: what does the particular explicitly consist of,

fruit,

namely

grapes [

grapes]. And "

the waste of fruit,"

what is it? —

vinegar.

Also "

everything"

[that is] fruit —

what is it [

which fruit is learned by the interpretive principle]? —

goharki [

unripe grapes].

Also "

everything"

[that is] the 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-eaten].

And what Scripture said: "

from grape-stone to rind" —

why do I need it?

Why did Scripture not say, "grape-stone and rind"?

Ravina said: to include [

to include] grapes

that are between the others.

Small grapes found between the large grapes, which do not see the face of the sun, and will never become large.

The master said: "

If [you say]: just as the particular explicitly consists of fully formed fruit, so too everything consists of fully formed fruit.

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

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

Here, you have no grounds to expound according to the latter expression, but according to the former expression.

And since our conclusion is to include every thing, what is the meaning of: "

from grape-stone to rind"? —

To tell you: wherever you find a particular and a generalization, you are not permitted to draw it along and expound it according to the likeness of the particular.

Rather, the generalization is made additional to the particular, until Scripture specifies a particular for you.