Talmud Nazir (E)

argued that [in the expression] ‘the cattle’,
____________________
(1) V. our Mishnah supra.
(2) To be able to continue the argument as the Rabbis do.
(3) In R. Eleazar's argument no second specification is needed.
(4) In the verse preceding.
(5) Leaving no room for R. Eleazar b. Azariah's further ruling.
(6) As a bailment. Ex. XXIII, 9.
(7) For it excludes beasts of prey which cannot be ‘kept’, i.e. guarded.
(8) Domestic animals of any kind and also poultry.
(9)  Lev. I, 10. The inference depends on the Hebrew construction which could have read ‘And if flock’, so that the
expression ‘of the flock’ does limit the choice permitted.
(10) In this example it is not clear from the verse what is excluded. An animal that had been worshipped as a deity would
be forbidden as a sacrifice, but the commentators differ as to whether Raba could have had this in mind.
(11) [Deskarah, sixteen parasangs N.E. of Bagdad Obermeyer op. cit. p. 146.]
(12) Lev. 1, 2. (V. note 4).
(13) Viz.: domestic clean animals, though the age would be immaterial.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 35b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 35b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 35b
cattle includes beasts of chase.
1
 — [Rab Judah] retorted: Could beasts of chase be included In
‘cattle’ [in this instance]? For ‘the herd and the flock’
2
 are mentioned, making in fact a specifications
a general statement, and a specifications and only what is similar to the specification can be
inferred!
3
 
    How do we know that [the rule] is correct?
4
 -It has been taught: And thou shalt bestow the money
for whatsoever thy soul desireth
5
 is a general statement, for oxen or for sheep or for wine or for
strong drink a specification, and or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee a further general
statement, making a general statement, a specification and a second general statement. Only what is
similar to the specification may be inferred,
6
 and so because the specification particularises the
product of that which is itself a product ,
7
 whose sustenance is drawn from the earth ,
8
 whatever is a
product of a product-bearing species that draws its sustenance from the earth [may be purchased].
9
 
    Seeing that when there is a general statement, a specifications and a general statement, we infer
whatever is similar to the specification, what is then the function of the second general statement? It
is to add whatever resembles the things specified.
10
 Again, seeing that when there is a specifications
a general statement, and a specifications what is similar to the specification is inferred, what is the
purpose of the second specification? — But for its presence it would be said that it is a case of
general statement being added to the [first] specification.
11
 Further, seeing that both when there are
two general statements [separated by] a specification and when there are two specifications
[separated by] a general statement, what is similar to the specification is inferred, what then is the
difference between the two cases? — It is that whereas in the former case we include even things
that resemble the specification In one respect only,
12
 in the latter case we include only what
resembles [the specification] in two respects, but not what resembles it in one respect.
13
 
    Seeing that when a specification is followed by a general statement, the general statement
supplements the specification, all things being included, and again when a limitation is followed by
an amplifying clause, this amplifies to the fullest extent, all things being included, what then is the
difference between [the two cases]? — The difference is that whereas in the case of a specification
followed by a general statement, both shoots and leaves [say],
14
 would be included, in the case of a
limitation followed by an amplifying clause, Only the shoots, but not the leaves [would be
included].
15
 R. Abbahu said: R. Johanan said that what is permitted is not reckoned together with

---

what is forbidden
16
 in the case of any prohibition of the Torah with the exception of the prohibitions
of the nazirite where the Torah says explicitly, [Neither shall he drink] that which is soaked in
grapejuice.
17
____________________
(1) And so the second specification is in any case necessary to exclude these, and we cannot use it to derive the method
of specification etc.
(2) Which are domestic clean animals and not beasts of chase, and their mention serves to exclude beasts of chase.
(3) Thus beasts of chase would be automatically excluded by the operation of the rule, so that the rule can be applied.
(4) Viz.: that when there is more than one specification, whatever is similar can be inferred (Rashi).
(5) Deut. XIV, 26, referring to money converted from the second tithe.
(6) Thus the presence of a second generalisation alters the rule that applies when there is a single clause of each kind.
The same is taken to be true when there is a second specification.
(7) Mineral substances are thus excluded.
(8) In contrast to fish.
(9) E.g., poultry also.
(10)  Without the second general statement, only the things actually specified would be included in the scope of the
subject under discussion.
(11) [In which case the rule is that even things that do not resemble the specification are included.]
(12)  E.g., in the case of the second tithe we do not also require the thing purchased to be attached to the soil and so
exclude poultry.
(13) And so, for example, vine shoots are not forbidden the nazirite although they may be edible.
(14) This is not referring to any particular case, but is simply an illustration of how the difference might arise.
(15) V. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 3.
(16)  I.e., there is no penalty unless a full olive's bulk of the forbidden food is consumed. Thus half an olive's bulk of
forbidden fat and half of permissible meat would entail no penalty.
(17) E.V. ‘liquor’. Num. VI, 3. Hence an olive's bulk of, e.g., bread soaked in wine carries the penalty.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 36a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 36a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 36a
Ze'iri said: Another [exception] is leaven which it is prohibited to burn [on the altar] .
1
 According to
whom [will Ze'iri infer this? Evidently] after the manner of R. Eleazar who interprets the particle kol
[any].
2
 But then should not another exception be leaven [on passover]?
3
 — Quite so. But [Ze'iri
wished to indicate his] dissent from the opinion of Abaye that the burning of even less than an olive's
bulk counts as an offering,
4
 and so he [incidentally] tells us that the burning of less than an olive's
bulk does not count as an offering.
5
 
    As R. Dimi was once sitting and repeating the above reported decision [of R. Johanan]
6
 Abaye
raised the following objection. [A Mishnah says:] If part of a stew of terumah
7
 containing garlic and
oil of hullin
8
 is touched by a [defiled person who] had bathed that day,
9
 the whole is rendered unfit
[to be eaten].
10
 If part of a stew of hullin containing garlic and oil of terumah is touched by a [defiled
person who] had bathed that day, only that part that was touched becomes unfit [to be eaten].
11
 Now,
in discussing this it was asked why the part touched should become unfit
12
 and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah
quoting R. Johanan replied: The reason is that a layman
13
 would be scourged for eating an olive's
bulk.
14
 Surely this
____________________
(1) Lev. II, 11.
(2) Ibid. ‘any leaven’ as a sign that even in combination it is forbidden, with the full penalty for transgression.
(3) For here R. Eleazar explicitly makes this interpretation of kol, (v. Pes. 43b), and so why does not Ze'iri mention it.
(4) So that even if the total bulk burnt is less than an olive, there is a penalty. V. Men. 58a.
(5)  Although not all the olive's bulk need be leaven. That leaven on passover is another exception we are expected to
infer.
(6) That what is permitted does not combine with what is forbidden.

---