Talmud Nazir (E)

(7) In ten instances the quantity of fluid required by the Law is a quarter of a log.
(8) Lit., ‘held in his hand’.
(9) Wine or blood.
(10) Water or oil.
(11) Each term of the mnemonic indicates one of the instances.
(12) Mishnah supra 34b
(13) That must he partaken of at the passover meal; v. Pes. X, 1.
(14) Wine was usually diluted with three parts of water, v. Pes. 108b.
(15) Inferred from the juxtaposition of the forbidding of wine to priests about to enter the sanctuary (Lev. X, 9) and the
statement that a priest's duty is to ‘teach (lit., ‘render decisions for’) the children of Israel’. (Ibid. V, 11).
(16) M. Ker. III, 3, inferred from Lev. X. 9.
(17) Lev. XXI, 11. Heb. ‘nafshoth’ in the plural, and so two or more corpses, v. Sanh. 4a.
(18)  I.e., the unleavened portion of the thankoffering, which required half of what was brought for the whole
thank-offering. V. Lev. VII, 12 and Men. 8 (Tosaf).
(19) Num. VI, 15.
(20) Lev. XIV, 5.
(21) I.e., ritually unclean.
(22) V. Me'il. 17b. [There the reading is ‘all liquids’. Our text is difficult to explain; cf. Bertinoro on Mik. x, 7.]
(23) The removal of which from a public to a private domain carries with it a penalty for breach of the Sabbath.
(24) Yad. I, 1.
(25) This is not a unanimous opinion, R. Jose contending that each person requires a quarter of a log (ibid.).
(26) The Mishnah is describing the preparation of the ‘bitter waters’ to be drunk by a faithless wife. V. Lev. V, 17.
(27) Sotah II, 2.
(28) To enable one to say one's prayers in the same room.
(29) Ber. 25b.
(30) A ritual-bath containing a quarter of a log might be used for dipping small vessels such as needles to remove ritual
defilement; v. Pes. 17b.
(31) And enacted that only a full-size ritual-bath containing 40 seahs was to be used even for needles. V. Hag. 21b.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 38b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 38b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 38b
    WHILST THERE IS NO PENALTY UNLESS HE EATS AN OLIVE'S BULK OF GRAPES
etc.:] The first Tanna
1
 does not put all the things forbidden a nazirite on the same footing as
drinking,
2
 whereas R. Akiba, because of the verse nor eat fresh grapes nor dried,
3
 says that just as in
eating an olive's bulk [entails a penalty], so for all the prohibitions
4
 an olive's bulk [is sufficient to
entail a penalty].
 
    THERE IS A SEPARATE PENALTY FOR WINE etc. Our Rabbis taught: [The verse,] ‘Nor eat
fresh grapes nor dried’ indicates that there is a penalty for [eating] the one by itself, and a penalty for
[eating] the other by itself.
5
 From here a rule may be derived applicable to all prohibitions of the
Torah.
6
 Just as here where we have a single species [grapes] known by two different names [fresh
and dried], each entails a distinct penalty, so wherever we find a single species known by two
different names, each entails a penalty distinct from the other. In this way, new wine and grapes are
included.
7
 
    Abaye said: For eating pressed-grapes [the nazirite] is scourged twice;
8
 For eating grape-stones he
is scourged twice; for eating both pressed-grapes and grape-stones he is scourged three times. Raba
9
said: He is scourged once only [in the first two cases] since we do not scourge for [breach of] the
prohibition expressed in general terms.
 
    R. Papa raised an objection: [It is taught] R. Eleazar said that a nazirite who drank wine all day
long would be scourged once only. If, however, he was warned, ‘Do not drink’, and again ‘Do not

---

drink’, [and so on], there would be a penalty for each [warning]. If he ate fresh grapes, dried grapes,
pressed-grapes, grape-stones, and squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank [the liquor] he would be
scourged five times.
10
 Now if [Abaye is right] he should be scourged six times, including once on
account of ‘He shall eat nothing [that is made of the grape-vine]’? — [Abaye replied:] He mentioned
some and omitted others.
11
 But what other [count] is omitted, that the one referred to
12
 should have
been omitted?
13
 — He omitted, He shall not break his word.
14
 Had this last, however, been the only
one, it would not have been considered an omission,
15
 [as it could be argued that R. Eleazar]
mentioned only [those prohibitions] that are not found elsewhere, whereas this one is found in
connection with ordinary vows too.
16
 
    Rabina of Parazikia
17
 said to R. Ashi: But he has in any case omitted the intermediate portion of
the grape!
18
 — But said R. Papa
19
 [in reply to the various arguments advanced]: Five is not actually
mentioned [in the Baraitha].
20
 But [R. Papa]
____________________
(1) I.e. the ‘earlier Mishnah’ of our text, which prescribes a different legal quantity for drinking (viz.: a quarter of a log)
than for eating.
(2)  And so in other cases an olive's bulk entails a penalty. Thus the first Tanna makes no use of the arguments of R.
Akiba given later at all.
(3) Num. VI, 3, the first half of which is the prohibition against drinking.
(4) Including drinking.
(5) So that in eating both together there will be a double penalty.
(6) Tosaf. has the preferable reading ‘all prohibitions of the nazirite’.
(7) Although the first can be obtained simply by squeezing the second, a nazirite who partakes of both is scourged twice.
(8) The general prohibition contained in the verse, ‘He shall eat nothing that is made of the grape-vine’ is held by Abaye
to add one scourging to the total number entailed by eating forbidden substances.
(9) In Pes. 41b, where this controversy also occurs, the names are interchanged, Raba's appearing before the statement
here attributed to Abaye. V. D.S. a.l
(10) Tosef. Naz. IV, 1. (Here there is a variation based on the Mishnah infra 42a).
(11) I. e. ‘five’ does not represent the total number of counts, but there are five scourgings in addition to others on counts
not mentioned.
(12) Viz., The general prohibition ‘He shall eat nothing etc.’
(13) It is assumed that the Tanna would not ordinarily omit one count only.
(14) Num. XXX, 3. There would be stripes for breach of this injunction also.
(15) And so its omission cannot be used as a counter argument against Raba (Tosaf). Aliter ‘This is not an omission at
all, for R. Eleazar etc.’ so that the original contradiction remains.
(16) There is thus a good reason for its omission, and so no objection to its being the only one omitted. (Tosaf.)
(17) [Or Parazika, Farausag, near Bagdad, Obermeyer, p. 269. Var. lec. Raba of Parazikia, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 15.]
(18) The pulp, which entails a separate penalty, (v. supra, 34b near end). This would be present in the squeezed cluster,
so that there should be six counts apart from the other two.
(19) [Var. lec. Rabina; cf. n. 7.]
(20) The correct reading is ‘. . . he would be scourged on each count’, so that both Abaye and Raba can interpret it to suit
their opinions. Incidentally the objection of Rabina of Parazikia is also disposed of.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 39a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 39a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 39a
quoted the passage in contradiction [of Abaye] because of the five [scourgings], and if five is not
mentioned in it, why did he quote it as a contradiction? — R. Papa said [to himself]: I imagined that
[Abaye's opinion] was not a tradition [he had received], and so he would retract [on hearing my
quotation], for I did not know that it was a tradition and that he would not retract.
1
 
    R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID etc.: R. Joseph said: In agreement with whom is the rendering
in the Targum
2
 as ‘from the kernels even unto the skins’?
3
 — In agreement with the opinion of R.

---