Nazir 38b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: “

And he is liable only once he eats an olive-sized portion of the grapes” —

and the same is the law with regard to all the other prohibitions of a nazir, and even liquids —

an olive-sized portion,”

this is the later Mishna. “

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

Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he soaked his bread in wine and it contains enough to combine to an olive-sized portion — which is 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 follows the view of the later Mishna]:

The first tanna

[that is, the earlier Mishna], who holds that even the foods from the grapevine that are forbidden to a nazir have, as their measure for eating, a quarter-log, despite the fact that everywhere in the Torah the measure for eating forbidden foods is an olive-sized portion — 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 foods forbidden to a nazir have, as their measure, a quarter-log and not an olive-sized portion, despite the fact that throughout the Torah the measure for eating is an olive-sized portion.

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, with regard to a nazir, a measure of an olive-sized portion, their reason is:

Since it is written

with regard to a nazir, “Vinegar of wine and vinegar of strong drink you shall not drink.

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

the letter vav of “and grapes” adds to the first matter, drinking, and teaches:

Just as

like

eating

has as its measure

an olive-sized portion,

for so it is established everywhere, that the measure for eating is an olive-sized portion,

so too all prohibitions

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

an olive-sized portion.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he is liable for the wine by itself,

and for the grapes by themselves, and for the seeds by themselves, and for the skins by themselves]:

a. One who eats, from one name of a prohibition — such as an unslaughtered carcass — two measures of prohibition at once is liable only one set of lashes.

b. And even if he ate those measures one after the other, he is liable only once, since everything is considered one eating, until there is a warning that divides one eating from another.

c. But one who eats from two names of prohibitions — such as an unslaughtered carcass and an improperly slaughtered animal — whether at once or one after the other, receives two sets of lashes, even though there was no warning that divided them.

The Sages taught:

For this reason the Torah specified and said:

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

and it did not say, “And grapes he shall not eat,” in order

to make him liable for this,

moist grapes

by

themselves, and for this,

dried grapes,

by themselves.

And even though their tastes are the same.

That is to say: Scripture made moist grapes and dried grapes like two separate names of prohibition, in order to teach that if he ate an olive-sized portion of this and an olive-sized portion of that, even though their tastes are the same, and there was no warning that divided them, he is liable two sets of lashes.

And from here —

from the separate liability for moist and dried grapes —

you derive for all the prohibitions of a nazir —

Just as here —

moist and dried grapes — despite the fact that

they are one species

and one taste, but since

they are two names,

and

he is

liable for this by itself and for that by itself.

So too, anything that is one species

and one taste

and they are two names,

he is

liable for this by itself and for that by itself,

and he proceeds to explain it.

And the Gemara explains what that one species and one taste are that the tanna came to include:

to include

a nazir who ate and drank

new wine

[new wine] grape juice,

and grapes,

grapes. Since they are two names, he is liable two, even though their tastes are the same.

Abaye said:

If

he ate

the nazir

a seed

[an olive-sized portion of seeds], he

receives two sets of lashes.

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

And likewise, if

he ate

the nazir

a skin

[an olive-sized portion of skins], he

receives two sets of lashes.

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

And if

he ate

an olive-sized portion of

a seed and

an olive-sized portion of

a skin, he

is

liable for three sets of lashes,

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

But he does not receive two sets of lashes for this negative commandment even though he ate two olive-sized portions, since he is not liable two for one name, unless there were warnings that divided them.

Rava said:

One does not receive lashes for the negative commandment “From anything made from the grapevine,” because

one does not receive lashes for

a general negative commandment,

a negative commandment that includes several prohibitions; and this negative commandment includes everything that is made from the grapevine.

Rav Pappa challenged Abaye, who held him liable for the negative commandment “From anything made from the grapevine he shall not eat”:

Назорей, который пил вино весь день,

Rabbi Eliezer says:

a.

A nazir who was drinking wine all day,

and there were no warnings that divided them,

is liable only

lashes

one

for all the measures that he drank.

But if

they said to him:

“Do not drink,”

“Do not drink,”

and he drank,

for these were “warnings that divide,” he is

liable for each and every one

of the drinks following the warnings.

b.

He ate

the nazir an olive-sized portion of

moist grapes and

an olive-sized portion of grapes

dried,

and

seeds, and skins, and he pressed a cluster of grapes and drank,

[and transgressed “From wine he shall abstain,” that is, new wine], he

receives five sets of lashes,

even though there were no warnings that divided them, since they are five names.

And Rav Pappa raises an objection to Abaye: If, as you say, one receives lashes for the negative commandment “From anything made from the grapevine” —

then let him receive six,

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

one, for

“From anything made

from the grapevine.”

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: He does indeed receive lashes even for this negative commandment. But the

tanna stated,

“He receives five lashes,”

and omitted

a liability for lashes that he did not mention.

And we raise a difficulty:

What did he omit, that this one was omitted?

What additional liability for lashes did the tanna omit, that you say he omitted lashes for “From anything made from the grapevine”? For it is not the tanna’s way to omit one thing, but only several things. For if only one thing remained, the tanna would take the trouble to say it, and would not shorten his words and omit it!?

And we explain:

He omitted

the tanna also the lashes for

“He shall not profane his word,”

for anyone who transgresses his nazirite vow also transgresses “He shall not profane his word,” like the other vows.

And the Gemara explains that in any event there is no proof from the fact that the tanna omitted “He shall not profane his word” that one receives lashes for the negative commandment “From anything made from the grapevine.” And although seemingly we should have wondered: If you would say in accordance with Rava, that he does not receive lashes for this negative commandment, then what else did the tanna omit, since he 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 an omission], since

when

he teaches

[which lashes does the tanna teach],

something that is not found elsewhere

[a negative commandment that applies nowhere else except to a nazir].

But

“He shall not profane his word,”

it

is found

also

in vows,

and not only in nazirite vows, and therefore the tanna omitted it from his count.

He said

he challenged

Rabina of Parzekaya to Rav Ashi:

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

But he omitted

the tanna grapes

between the clusters

[small grapes that are between the grapes and never grow], 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, on 34b, from what the Torah said, “From seed to skin,” and did not say, “Seeds and skin.”

If so, there is a difficulty: Since “He shall not profane his word” is not an omission, what else did the tanna omit, that he omitted “between the clusters”? Rather, necessarily, one receives lashes for the negative commandment of “Everything that is made,” and the tanna omitted both this negative commandment and the negative commandment of “between the clusters”!

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Do not

teach

anything about five,

that is to say: Do not teach in the wording of the beraita, “He receives five lashes,” but rather “He receives lashes” without specification; and if you wish, say that he receives six.