Nazir 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: “

and he is liable only once he eats from the grapes” —

and the same law applies to all the other prohibitions of a nazir, even liquids —

an olive-bulk”;

this is the later Mishna.

“The earlier Mishna says: ‘Until he drinks a quarter-log of wine,’ and likewise with regard to all the other prohibitions of a nazir, even foods.”

“Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he soaked his bread in wine and there is enough in it to combine to an olive-bulk—the measure for liquids and foods forbidden to a nazir—he is liable”:

And we explain the reason for the dispute between the earlier Mishna and Rabbi Akiva [which accords with the later Mishna]:

The first tanna

[that is, the earlier Mishna], who holds that even with regard to foods derived from the grapevine that are forbidden to a nazir, the measure for eating them is a quarter-log, despite the fact that everywhere else in the Torah the measure for eating forbidden foods is an olive-bulk—his reason is:

He compares

them, all the prohibitions of a nazir,

to drinking.

He compares all the prohibitions of a nazir involving eating to the prohibition of liquids forbidden to a nazir.

And just as the measure for drinking is a quarter-log, so too the measure for foods forbidden to a nazir is a quarter-log and not an olive-bulk, despite the fact that throughout the Torah the measure for eating is an olive-bulk.

But

if

Rabbi Akiva—and likewise the later Mishna—who hold the opposite, that even liquids, whose measure everywhere is a quarter-log, nevertheless have the measure of an olive-bulk for a nazir—their reason is:

Since it is written

with regard to a nazir, “He shall not drink vinegar of wine or vinegar of wine.

And he shall not eat moist grapes or dried grapes,”

the vav of “and grapes” adds this clause to the preceding matter, drinking, and teaches:

Just as

like

eating

has the measure of

an olive-bulk,

as we establish everywhere, that the measure for eating is an olive-bulk,

so too all prohibitions

of a nazir, even the prohibitions of drinking wine, are measured by

an olive-bulk.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he is liable for the wine separately,”

for the grapes separately, for the grape seeds separately, and for the grape skins separately]:

a. One who eats, at one time, two measures of prohibition from one category of prohibition—for example, unslaughtered carcass meat—is liable for only one set of lashes.

b. Even if he ate those measures one after another, he is liable for only one set, since everything is considered one act of eating until a warning separates one act of eating from another.

c. But one who eats from two categories of prohibition—for example, unslaughtered carcass meat and an animal that was improperly slaughtered—is liable for two sets of lashes, whether he ate them at once or one after another, even if there was no warning separating them.

The Sages taught:

The Torah therefore specified and said:

“And he shall not eat moist grapes or dried grapes,”

rather than saying, “And he shall not eat grapes,” in order

to make him liable for this,

moist grapes,

separately,

and for this,

dried grapes,

separately.

Even though their tastes are the same.

That is, the verse made moist grapes and dried grapes into two separate categories of prohibition, to teach that if he ate an olive-bulk of this and an olive-bulk of that, even though their tastes are the same and there was no warning separating them, he is liable for two sets of lashes.

And from here—

from the separate liability for moist grapes and dried grapes—

you derive a principle for all the prohibitions of a nazir—

Just as here—

moist grapes and dried grapes—despite the fact that

they are one species

and have one taste, nevertheless, since

they are two categories,

and

he is

liable for this separately and for that separately.

So too, anything that is one species

and has one taste,

but consists of two categories,

he is

liable for this separately and for that separately;

and the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

The Gemara explains what one species with one taste the tanna intended to include:

to include

a nazir who ate and drank

new wine

[grape juice],

and grapes.

Since they are two categories, he is liable for two, even though their tastes are the same.

Abaye said:

If

the nazir ate

a grape seed

[an olive-bulk of grape seeds], he

receives two sets of lashes.

One for “From grape seeds to grape skin he shall not eat,” and one for “He shall not eat anything that is made from the grapevine.”

And likewise, if

the nazir ate

a grape skin

[an olive-bulk of grape skins], he

receives two sets of lashes.

One for “From grape seeds to grape skin he shall not eat,” and one for “He shall not eat anything that is made from the grapevine.”

But if

he ate

an olive-bulk of

grape seeds and

an olive-bulk of

grape skins, he

receives

three sets of lashes:

two because he transgressed “From grape seeds to grape skin he shall not eat,” since they are two categories, and the third because he transgressed “He shall not eat anything that is made from the grapevine.”

But he does not receive two sets of lashes for this prohibition, even though he ate two olive-bulks, because he is not liable twice for one category unless warnings separated them.

Rava said:

There are no lashes for the prohibition “He shall not eat anything that is made from the grapevine,” because

there are no lashes for a

general prohibition

[a prohibition that encompasses several prohibitions], and this prohibition encompasses everything made from the grapevine.

Rav Pappa challenged Abaye, who held that there are lashes for the prohibition “He shall not eat anything that is made from the grapevine”:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

a.

A nazir who was drinking wine all day,

and no warnings separated the acts,

is liable only for

lashes

once

for all the measures that he drank.

But if

they said to him,

“Do not drink,”

“Do not drink,” and

he drank, so that there were “warnings separating” the acts,

he is liable for each and every one

of the acts of drinking that followed the warnings.

b.

If

the nazir ate an olive-bulk of

moist grapes and

an olive-bulk of grapes

dried,

and

grape seeds, grape skins, and squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank

[thereby transgressing “From wine he shall abstain,” that is, new wine], he

receives five sets of lashes,

even though no warnings separated the acts, since they are five categories.

Rav Pappa challenges Abaye: If, as you say, there are lashes for the prohibition “He shall not eat anything that is made from the grapevine”—

then let him receive six sets of lashes.

He should have been liable for six sets, since according to you he receives another

one, for

“anything that is made

from the grapevine.”

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: In fact, he does receive lashes even for this prohibition. However, the

tanna said,

“he receives five sets of lashes,”

and omitted

an additional liability for lashes, which he did not mention.

And we challenge this:

What did he omit that this is an omission?

What additional liability for lashes did the tanna omit, that you say he omitted lashes for “He shall not eat anything that is made from the grapevine”? For it is not the tanna’s practice to omit a single matter; he omits only several matters. If only one matter remained, the tanna would take the trouble to state it, and would not abbreviate his words by omitting it!?

And we explain: The tanna

omitted the lashes for

“

He shall not profane his word,”

for anyone who violates his naziriteship also violates “He shall not profane his word,” as with other vows.

The Gemara explains that, nevertheless, there is no proof from the tanna’s omission of “He shall not profane his word” that there are lashes for the prohibition of “He shall not eat anything that is made from the grapevine.” Although, seemingly, we should have asked: If you conclude according to Rava, that he does not receive lashes for this prohibition, then what other matter did the tanna omit, having omitted “He shall not profane his word”?

For

if it is because of this—

“He shall not profane his word”—

it is not an omission

[this is not considered an omission], since

when

he teaches

[which lashes does the tanna teach?], he teaches

something that does not occur elsewhere

[a prohibition that applies nowhere else except to a nazir].

But

“He shall not profane his word”

is

applicable

also

to vows,

and not only to naziriteship; therefore the tanna omitted it from his count.

He said—

he challenged

Rabina of Parzakia to Rav Ashi:

According to the one who says that “He shall not profane his word” is not considered an omission, and if so, the tanna omitted nothing—

But he omitted

the tanna the grapes

between the intermediates

[small grapes between the grapes, which never develop], for if he ate them together with the other prohibitions of a nazir, he receives a separate set of lashes for them. They were included above, 34b, from the fact that the Torah said, “From grape seeds to grape skin,” rather than “Grape seeds and grape skin.”

If so, this is difficult: Since “He shall not profane his word” is not an omission, what else did the tanna omit, that he omitted “the grapes between the intermediates”? It must necessarily be that there are lashes for the prohibition of “Everything that is made,” and the tanna omitted both this prohibition and the prohibition of “the grapes between the intermediates”!

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Do not teach

the phrase

“five”;

that is, do not formulate the beraita as “he receives five sets of lashes,” but rather simply “he receives lashes.” Alternatively, you may say that he receives six sets.