Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) NEZIRUS ON CONDITION

(a) Suggestion: If the Mishnah is as R. Tarfon - would he really be a Nazir?!

1. Since when he vowed, he did not know if it was Ploni - is he really a Nazir?!

i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Tarfon): None of them are Nezirim, because Nezirus must be accepted with certainty.

(b) Answer: Rather, the Mishnah is as R. Yehudah's opinion in the Beraisa of the stack.

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): 'I am a Nazir on condition that this stack contains 100 Kor (a unit of measure)'; he went to measure the stack, but was unable to, for it was stolen - he has the prohibitions of a Nazir; R. Yehudah says, he does not.

i. R. Shimon holds, had it not been stolen, perhaps it would have been found to hold 100 Kor, and he would be a Nazir - even now that it was stolen, he is a Nazir (because we are in doubt);
ii. Also in our Mishnah - R. Shimon would say, since if we would have verified that this is Ploni, the 1st man would be a Nazir - now that we are in doubt, he is also a Nazir!

(c) (Mishnah): People saw a Kvi. One said: 'I am a Nazir if this is a wild animal'.

1. A 2nd man: 'I am a Nazir if this not a wild animal'.
2. A 3rd man: 'I am a Nazir if this is a domestic animal'.
3. A 4th man: 'I am a Nazir if this is not a domestic animal'.
4. A 5th man: 'I am a Nazir if this is a wild animal and a domestic animal'.
5. A 6th man: 'I am a Nazir if this is not a wild animal nor a domestic animal'.
6. A 7th man: 'I am a Nazir if 1 of you is a Nazir'.
7. An 8th man: 'I am a Nazir if 1 of the you is not a Nazir'.
8. A 9th man: 'I am a Nazir if all of you are Nezirim'.

(d) (Gemara): One Beraisa says, 9 men are Nezirim; another Beraisa says, 1 man must fulfill 9 Neziriyos!

1. We understand the 1st Beraisa - 9 men accepted Nezirus as in the Mishnah.
2. Question: How can 1 man accept 9 Neziriyos?

i. We understand how he accepts 6 - as the 1st 6 men in the Mishnah.
ii. How does he accept the last 3?

3. Answer (Rav Sheshes): 9 men accepted Nezirus as in the Mishnah; a 10th man accepted all their Neziriyos on himself.

2) THE PROHIBITIONS OF A NAZIR

(a) (Mishnah): There are 3 categories of prohibitions of a Nazir: Tumah, shaving, and eating what grows on grapevines.

1. All that comes from vines joins up; one is only liable for eating an olive's volume of grapes;

2. The initial version of the Mishnah said that one is liable for drinking a quarter Log of wine;
3. R. Akiva says, even if he soaked his bread in wine, and there is an olive's volume of the mixture, he is liable;

(b) One is liable for each of the following by itself: wine, grapes, grape pits, grape peels;
(c) R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, one is only liable for eating 2 pits and a peel;

1. R. Yehudah says, the word Chartzanim in the Torah refers to grape pits; Zag refers to the peel;
2. R. Yosi says, Zag refers to the outer shell, just as the outside of a bell is called Zug.

(d) (Gemara - Mishnah) Version #1: There are 3 categories of prohibitions of a Nazir: Tumah, ...
(e) What comes from the vine is forbidden - the vine itself is permitted! The Mishnah is not as R. Eliezer.

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Even the leaves and shoots are prohibited.

(f) Version #2 (Mishnah): One is only liable for eating an olive's volume of grapes,
(g) One is liable for grapes - but not for the vine itself! The Mishnah is not as R. Eliezer.

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Even the leaves and shoots are prohibited.

(a) Question: Why do R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue?
(b) Answer: R. Eliezer expounds the Torah through the method of inclusions and exclusions; Chachamim expound through the method of generalities and specifics.

1. R. Eliezer expounds via inclusions and exclusions: "From wine and strong drink he will separate himself" - this is an exclusion; "From all that is made from the grapevine" - this is an inclusion;
2. An exclusion and an inclusion - this includes everything.

i. Everything is included; branches are excluded.

(c) Chachamim expound through the method of generalities and specifics.

1. "From wine and strong drink he will separate himself" - this is a specific; "From all that is made from the grapevine" - this is a generality; "From Chartzanim to Zag" - this is another specific.
2. A specific and a generality and a specific - this includes only what resembles the specifics.

i. The specifics are fruits and spoiled fruit - all fruits and spoiled fruits are included.

3. Suggestion: The specifics are proper fruits - perhaps we should only include proper fruit!
4. Rejection: If so, the expounding does not teach anything not written explicitly in the Torah!

i. Moist and dry grapes - these are written!
ii. Wine and vinegar - these are written!

5. Rather, we must say as before (fruit and spoiled fruit).

(d) Question: Since we will include everything - why did the Torah write pits and peels?
(e) Answer: This teaches, whenever there is a specific followed by a generality, we do not expound to include only what resembles the specific, unless it is followed by another specific.

1. Rather, the generality adds onto the specific (and everything is included).

(f) We said above, fruits and spoiled fruit - all fruits and spoiled fruits are included.

1. Question: Fruits are grapes; what is spoiled fruit?
2. Answer: Vinegar.
3. Question: What does 'all fruits' include?
4. Answer: Unripe grapes (Tosfos; Rashi - small grapes).
5. Question: What does 'all spoiled fruits' include?
6. Answer: Wormy grapes (Tosfos; Aruch - grapes stricken on the vine).
7. (Ravina): "To a Zag" - this includes the inside of the grape (Rashi; Tosfos - grapes covered by other grapes that do not ripen properly).

(g) We learned from "Pits and peels" that whenever there is a specific followed by a generality, we do not expound to include only what resembles the specific, unless it is followed by another specific.