Talmud Nazir (E)

    IF [THE PERSON APPROACHING] TURNED AWAY SUDDENLY [WITHOUT BEING
IDENTIFIED] HE IS NOT A NAZIRITE etc.: The reason [that he is not a nazirite] is because the
other turned away, which would show that had the other come before us, he would become a
nazirite. Who is the author [of this opinion)?
3
____________________
(1) [Read 
huvht
 for 
huv ht
.]
(2) And so he becomes a nazirite.
(3) There is no Gemara on 33b, this page being taken up with Tosaf.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 34a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 34a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 34a
Should you say it is R. Tarfon, would he become a nazirite? For since he did not know at the time he
uttered the nazirite vow whether it was So-and-so or not, would the naziriteship have become
operative [at all]? For have we not been taught: R. Judah on behalf of R. Tarfon said that not one of
them
1
 is a nazirite because naziriteship is not intended except when assumed unequivocally?
2
 — It
must,therefore, be R. Judah [who indicated this in connection] with the heap of grain. For it has been
taught: [If a man says,] ‘I declare myself a nazirite, provided that this heap of grain contains one
hundred kor,’ and then finds that [the heap] has been stolen or is lost, R. Simeon binds [him to a
naziriteship], whilst R. Judah frees him [from the vow].
3
 R. Simeon holds that since, had it not been
stolen, it might have been found to contain one hundred kor, in which case he would have become a
nazirite, he must now also become a nazirite. Here,
4
 too, since, had the other come before us and we
had known that it was So-and-so, he would have become a nazirite, now [that the other has not
come] he also becomes a nazirite.
 
    MISHNAH. IF [ONE MAN] SAW A KOY
5
 AND SAID, ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE
IF THAT IS A BEAST OF CHASE, [AND ANOTHER] ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF
THAT IS NOT A BEAST OF CHASE,’ [A THIRD SAID] ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF
THAT IS CATTLE,’ [A FOURTH SAID,] ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF THAT IS NOT
CATTLE,’ [A FIFTH SAID,] I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF THAT IS BOTH A BEAST
OF CHASE AND CATTLE,’ [AND A SIXTH SAID,] ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF
THAT IS NEITHER BEAST OF CHASE NOR CATTLE.’ [THEN A SEVENTH SAID,] ‘I
DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF ONE OF YOU IS A NAZIRITE,’ [AN EIGHTH SAID,] I
DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF NOT ONE OF YOU IS A NAZIRITE,’ [WHILST A NINTH
SAID,] ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF YOU ARE ALL NAZIRITES, THEN ALL OF
THEM BECOME NAZIRITES.
 
    GEMARA. In one [Baraitha] it is taught that nine [can become] nazirites,
6
 and in another that nine
naziriteships [can be undertaken].
7
 Now there would be nine nazirites if, for example, a number of
men referred to [the Koy] one after another;
8
 but how is it possible for nine naziriteships [to be
undertaken] by one man? There could indeed be six, as enumerated in our Mishnah,
9
 but how could
the other three be undertaken? — R. Shesheth replied: He could say,
10
 ‘I declare myself a nazirite
and undertake the naziriteships of you all.’
11
 
    C H A P T E R   V I
 
    MISHNAH. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN TO A NAZIRITE, VIZ.:- RITUAL
DEFILEMENT, POLLING, AND PRODUCTS OF THE VINE. ALL PRODUCTS OF THE VINE
CAN BE RECKONED TOGETHER
12
 WHILST THERE IS NO PENALTY UNLESS HE EATS
AN OLIVE'S BULK OF GRAPES,
____________________
(1) One of those, mentioned in our Mishnah, who undertook a naziriteship if the person approaching were So-and-so.
(2) Tosef. Naz. III.

---

(3)  Thus in R. Judah's view unless the vow is free from all doubt it does not become operative. Tosef. Naz. II. Cf.,
however, Ned. 192, where the view of R. Judah here, and R. Judah on behalf of R. Tarfon and held by R. Ashi to be
identical.
(4) I.e., in the Mishnah.
(5) The Rabbis were uncertain whether the Koy, an animal permitted for food, should be considered of the genus cattle,
vnvc
 or a beast of chase, 
vhj
. V. Aruch s.v. 
huf
. [It is generally taken as a cross between a goat and some species
of gazelle; v. Lewysohn, op. cit. p. 215.]
(6) By using different formulae and making the vow contingent on the Koy being a beast of chase or cattle.
(7) I.e., one man can undertake nine naziriteships by using different formulae with reference to the Koy.
(8) As described in our Mishnah.
(9) For the first six formulae could all be uttered by one man.
(10) Referring to nine men who had each undertaken a naziriteship in the manner of the Mishnah.
(11) I.e., ‘I undertake a naziriteship for each one of you who is a nazirite.
(12) To form a total of an olive's bulk in the case of solids, or as the earlier Mishnah has it, a quarter of a 108 in the case
of fluids, for the consumption of which there is a penalty, viz. stripes. (Meiri's interpretation of a very difficult passage).
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 34b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 34b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 34b
[OR,] ACCORDING TO THE EARLIER MISHNAH,
1
 UNLESS HE DRINKS A QUARTER [OF A
LOG]
2
 OF WINE. R. AKIBA SAID THAT THERE IS A PENALTY EVEN IF HE SOAKS HIS
BREAD IN WINE AND ENOUGH [is ABSORBED] TO MAKE UP ALTOGETHER
3
 AN
OLIVE'S BULK.
4
 
    THERE IS A SEPARATE PENALTY FOR WINE, FOR GRAPES, FOR HARZANIM AND
FOR ZAGIM.
5
 R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: THERE IS NO PENALTY [IN THE CASE OF
THE LAST TWO SPECIES] UNLESS HE EATS TWO HARZANIM AND ONE ZAG.
 
    BY HARZANIM AND ZAGIM ARE MEANT THE FOLLOWING. ACCORDING TO R.
JUDAH, HARZANIM MEANS THE OUTER PORTION [OF THE GRAPE].
6
 ZAG THE INNER
PORTION,
7
 BUT R. JOSE SAID: THAT YOU MAY NOT ERR, [THINK OF] THE ZOG [BELL]
OF AN ANIMAL,
8
 OF WHICH THE OUTER PART IS TERMED THE ZOG [HOOD].
9
 AND THE
INNER PART THE INBAL [CLAPPER].
 
    GEMARA. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN TO A NAZIRITE, VIZ.: RITUAL
DEFILEMENT etc.: Products of the vine are [forbidden] but not the vine itself, so that our Mishnah
differs from R. Eleazar, for it has been taught: R. Eleazar said that even leaves and shoots [of the
vine] are included [in the things forbidden to a nazirite].
 
    Some draw the inference
10
 from the subsequent clause, viz.: WHILST THERE IS NO PENALTY
UNLESS HE EATS AN OLIVE'S BULK OF GRAPES. GRAPES only [carry a penalty] but not the
vine itself, so that our Mishnah differs from R. Eleazar, for it has been taught: R. Eleazar said that
even leaves and shoots are included.
 
    In what [essentially] does the difference [between R. Eleazar and the Rabbis of our Mishnah]
lie?-R. Eleazar interprets [certain scriptural passages as consisting of] ‘amplifications and
limitations,’
11
 whilst the Rabbis interpret [them as] general statements and specifications.
12
 R.
Eleazar [argues as follows:] He shall abstain from wine and strong drink
13
 is a limitation,
14
 whilst,
Nothing that is made of the grape-vine
15
 is an amplification. When a limitation is followed by an
amplification all things are embraced.
16
 What then does the amplification serves to include [here]?
Everything [coining from the vine],
17
 and what does the limitation exclude? Only the twigs.
 
    The Rabbis, on the other hand, [argue as follows:] ‘He shall abstain from wine and strong drink’ is

---