Talmud Nazir (E)

permitted combines with what is forbidden, so that these are two verses from which the same
inference can be made, and when two verses occur from which the same inference can be made, no
other cases may be inferred.
25
 R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: How are we to explain the following,
where it is taught: ‘[The verse] Nothing that is made of the grape-vine, from the pressed grapes even
to the grape-stone,
26
 teaches that the things forbidden to a nazirite can combine together’?
27
 For
seeing that it is possible, according to R. Akiba, for what is permitted to combine with what is
forbidden, need we be told that the same is true of two species of forbidden substances? — [R.
Kahana] replied: What is permitted [combines with] what is forbidden only [if they are eaten]
together, whereas two species of forbidden substances combine even [if eaten] consecutively.
 
    Now R. Simeon
____________________
(1) Before they can be used by Jews.
(2)  Referring to the vessels captured by the Jews during the campaign against Midian. Num. XXXI, 23. The scalding
prescribed causes the sides of the vessel to exude forbidden flavours that may have been absorbed.
(3) And consequently does not cause what is permitted to become forbidden. For the derivation of this rule v. A.Z. 67b.
(4) Any flavour exuded from the sides of a cooking-utensil nor properly scalded of course worsens the food.
(5) And so bow can it form the basis of our rule.
(6) And we may properly infer that the flavour of a forbidden substance is forbidden.
(7) Whereas R. Johanan, who is following the opinion of R. Akiba, expressly confines the rule to nazirite prohibitions
only; v. supra 35b.
(8) This is explained immediately below.
(9) Viz.: That a permitted and a forbidden substance combine.
(10)  Ordinarily a rule is derived from a single passage. If another passage occurs from which exactly the same rule
would follow, it can only be because there is in fact no rule, and both the cases are exceptional; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p.
458, n. 9.
(11) Whatever is soaked in... Num. VI, 3-
(12) I.e. of the sin-offering.
(13) Lev. VI, 20.
(14) The meaning is: It might have been taken as implying this if the word flesh had not been used.
(15) In which case the permitted and forbidden foods have combined. R. Akiba's deduction now follows. [The text of
cur. edd. is difficult. A better reading is preserved in the Sifra a.l. ‘till it absorbs’, omitting the words, ‘into its flesh.]
(16) The sin-offering could be eaten only ‘by the males of the priesthood, within the hanging of the court, the same day
and evening until midnight’. (M. Zeb. V, 3; Singer's P. B. p. 12). For other meats there were other, often less stringent
regulations. (Ibid.).
(17) E.g. because it is after midnight.
(18) See note 10.
(19)  If the verses relating to nazirite and sin-offering both lead to the same inference how do they establish their rule
about taste and substance?
(20)  I.e. That it is in fact impossible to infer the rule from either one of the passages taken alone, since its presence
would have been put down to other properties of the sinoffering or the nazirite, which are really irrelevant as far as the
rule is concerned.
(21) Since no rule about profane things can be inferred from sacred ones. This is a general principle.
(22)  So that the inference that could be drawn from the sin-offering is admittedly not exactly the same as that drawn
from the nazirite prohibitions
(23)  By the Rabbis. For no mention of the sin-offering is made in the Baraitha (supra 37a). Thus this verse would be
altogether superfluous, and the principle of ‘two verses from which the same inference can be drawn’ can be applied.
(24) And so this principle is confined to sacred meats.
(25) And that is why R. Akiba confines the principle to the nazirite prohibitions.
(26) Num. VI, 4.
(27) So that provided an olive's bulk is consumed there is a penalty, even if the quantity of each constituent is less than
this.

---

Talmud - Mas. Nazir 38a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 38a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 38a
does not require the principle of combination.
1
 What interpretation does he put on the verse,
‘Nothing that is made etc.’? — He requires it for the rule that one cannot become a nazirite without
undertaking explicitly to abstain from all the things [that are forbidden a nazirite].
2
 
    R. Abbahu, quoting R. Eleazar, said: In none of the instances In the Torah requiring a quarter [of a
log]
3
 does what is permitted combine with what is forbidden, with the exception of the quarter [of a
log] of the nazirite, where the Torah uses the phrase ‘soaked in’.
4
 What is the difference between R.
Johanan
5
 and R. Eleazar? — It is that the former includes solid foods,
6
 the latter liquids only but no
other things. R. Eleazar said that there are ten quarters [of a log]
7
 and R. Kahana knew for a fact
8
that five [involved] red [liquids]
9
 and five white.
10
 For the five red ones [there is the following
mnemonic]:
11
 A nazirite and a celebrant of the passover who delivered judgment in the sanctuary
and died. ‘A nazirite’ indicates the quarter [log] of wine [entailing a penalty] for the nazirite [who
drinks it].
12
 ‘A celebrant of the passover’ refers to the following dictum quoted by Rab Judah on
behalf of Samuel viz: — Each of these four cups
13
 should contain sufficient [undiluted wine] to
make a quarter of a log [of diluted wine].
14
 ‘Who delivered judgment’ [refers to the law that] one
who has partaken of a quarter of a log of wine must not render a decision.
15
 ‘In the sanctuary [refers
to the law that a priest] who drinks a quarter of a log of wine and then enters the sanctuary renders
himself liable to death penalty.
16
 ‘And they died’ [indicates the following teaching]: For it has been
taught, whence do we infer that a quarter of a log of blood taken from two corpses renders unclean
the contents of a tent? Because it is said, Neither shall he go to any dead body.
17
 
    The five white [fluids are indicated in the following mnemonic]: The cake of a nazirite or a leper
who were disqualified on the Sabbath. ‘The cake’ [signifies] the quarter of a log of oil for the cake;
18
‘of a nazirite’, the quarter of a log of oil [that must be brought] by a nazirite;
19
 ‘or a leper,’ the
quarter of a log of water [that must be used] for a leper.
20
 ‘Disqualified’ [indicates] what we have
learnt: Other ritually defiled liquids render the body unfit
21
 if a quarter of a log [is partaken of].
22
‘On the Sabbath’ [indicates] what we have learnt: For all other liquids [the legal quantity]
23
 is a
quarter of a log, and for all waste liquids [the legal quantity] is a quarter of a log.
 
    But is there no instance other than [the ten mentioned, requiring a quarter of a log?] There is
surely the case: ‘With a quarter [of a log of water] the hands of one person, and even of two may be
washed [before food]’!
24
 Disputed cases are not included.
25
 But we have [also the following case]:
He brought an earthenware phial and poured into it half a log of water from the laver.
26
 According to
R. Judah it was only a quarter of a log’?
27
 — Disputed cases are not included.
 
    But we have [also the following]: ‘How much water must be poured [into the chamber-pot]?
28
 As
little as one pleases. R. Zakkai said: It must be a quarter of a log’.
29
 — Disputed cases are not
included.
 
    But there is also the ritual-bath?
30
 — [There are ten cases] besides this one, for the Rabbis
[subsequently] disallowed this quantity.
31
____________________
(1) Because in his opinion there is a penalty even for a minute quantity of any one of the things forbidden the nazirite. V.
supra 4a.
(2) Supra 3b.
(3) E.g., The quarter-log of blood that spreads defilement throughout a tent; Cf. infra 54a.
(4) Num. VI, 3.
(5) Who uses the term ‘all the prohibitions of the Torah’ instead of ‘all quarters (of a log) in the Torah’. Supra 35b.
(6) In the scope of the application of the principle.

---