POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nazir 34
1) NEZIRUS ON CONDITION
(a) Suggestion: If the Mishnah is as R. Tarfon - would he
really be a Nazir?!
***** PEREK SHELOSHAH MINIM *****
1. Since when he vowed, he did not know if it was Ploni
- is he really a Nazir?!
(b) Answer: Rather, the Mishnah is as R. Yehudah's opinion in
the Beraisa of the stack.
i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Tarfon): None
of them are Nezirim, because Nezirus must be
accepted with certainty.
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
(c) (Mishnah): People saw a Kvi. One said: 'I am a Nazir if
this is a wild animal'.
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
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!
1. A 2nd man: 'I am a Nazir if this not a wild animal'.
(d) (Gemara): One Beraisa says, 9 men are Nezirim; another
Beraisa says, 1 man must fulfill 9 Neziriyos!
2. A 3rd man: 'I am a Nazir if this is a domestic
3. A 4th man: 'I am a Nazir if this is not a domestic
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
8. A 9th man: 'I am a Nazir if all of you are Nezirim'.
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.
3. Answer (Rav Sheshes): 9 men accepted Nezirus as in
the Mishnah; a 10th man accepted all their Neziriyos
ii. How does he accept the last 3?
2) THE PROHIBITIONS OF A NAZIR
(a) (Mishnah): There are 3 categories of prohibitions of a
Nazir: Tumah, shaving, and eating what grows on
1. All that comes from vines joins up; one is only
liable for eating an olive's volume of grapes;
3) METHODS OF EXPOUNDING
2. The initial version of the Mishnah said that one is
liable for drinking a quarter Log of wine;
(b) One is liable for each of the following by itself: wine,
grapes, grape pits, grape peels;
3. R. Akiva says, even if he soaked his bread in wine,
and there is an olive's volume of the mixture, he is
(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;
(d) (Gemara - Mishnah) Version #1: There are 3 categories of
prohibitions of a Nazir: Tumah, ...
2. R. Yosi says, Zag refers to the outer shell, just as
the outside of a bell is called Zug.
(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
(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
(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;
(c) Chachamim expound through the method of generalities and
2. An exclusion and an inclusion - this includes
i. Everything is included; branches are excluded.
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.
(d) Question: Since we will include everything - why did the
Torah write pits and peels?
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!
5. Rather, we must say as before (fruit and spoiled
ii. Wine and vinegar - these are written!
(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?
(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.
2. Answer: Vinegar.
3. Question: What does 'all fruits' include?
4. Answer: Unripe grapes (Tosfos; Rashi - small
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).