This edition of the Talmud Bavli, Massechet Nazir, has been dedicated by Haimi and Dina Dana, may God protect them and grant them success, for all their children, that they should be educated in the ways of our holy Torah. May they grow up to be diligent in Torah and mitzvot, marriage, and good deeds. In particular, it is dedicated for the healing of Moshe ben Dinah and Penina bat Esther, among all the sick of Israel, for a complete recovery of body and soul. This is fitting for Massechet Nazir, which offers protection to a person, amen.
We are four lines from the bottom of the page. Let us quickly review the previous discussion. We learned the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who derived the concept of "heter mistaref l'issur" (a permissible item combining with a forbidden item to become forbidden) from two verses. One verse discusses "mishrat anavim" (the soaking of grapes) regarding a Nazir, and the other speaks of a piece of meat combining with a piece of a sin-offering, thereby taking on the stringencies of the sin-offering. This is the concept of a permissible item combining with a forbidden item and becoming forbidden itself. Rabbi Akiva learned this from verses.
The Gemara asks, regarding Rabbi Asher and Rabbi Kahana, from the verse in the section of the Nazir, "mikol asher ya'aseh mi'gefen hayayin" (from all that is made from the grapevine). From this verse, we learn that all items can combine to make the Nazir liable. This means he does not necessarily need to eat a full "kezayit" (olive-sized portion) of one item. From "mikol," he can eat from anything. For instance, if he eats half a kezayit of grape skins and half a kezayit of grape pits, they combine. This demonstrates "issur mistaref l'issur" (a forbidden item combining with another forbidden item). The point is, from the word "mikol," we learn that a combination is sufficient; one does not need a kezayit of a single item.
The Gemara then asks: if you tell me that a permissible item can combine with a forbidden item, do I need to be told that a forbidden item can combine with another forbidden item? If you tell me that bread, which is permissible, becomes like wine when dipped in it, surely you would also tell me that two forbidden items, like skins and pits, can combine. The Gemara answers that you do need a specific verse for this, because there is a difference between the two cases. In the case of "heter mistaref l'issur," like bread and wine, they must be eaten together. However, in the case of "issur mistaref l'issur," like skins and pits, they do not necessarily have to be eaten simultaneously. For example, if one ate half a kezayit of skins and half a kezayit of pits within the time it takes to eat a kezayit (approximately six minutes), even if not together, the combination is valid. Because of this inherent difference, specific verses are needed for both cases.
The Gemara continues: According to Rabbi Shimon, he does not hold of this concept of "siruf" (combination). Rabbi Shimon, as we learned earlier in the Massechet, holds that to be liable as a Nazir, one is liable even for a small amount, not necessarily a kezayit. He learns that when the Sages speak of specific measures like a kezayit, it is usually in the context of bringing a sacrifice. However, for matters like receiving lashes, even a small amount is sufficient. So, according to him, who does not accept this kind of combination, what does he do with the verse "mikol asher ya'aseh mi'gefen hayayin" that we just learned? This verse taught us "issur mistaref l'issur." According to Rabbi Shimon, you do not need "siruf" because he says even a small amount is enough. So, what does he do with this verse that teaches "mikol"?
He uses it to teach that "le'olam einu Nazir ad she'enazir mikulan" (one is never a Nazir until he accepts all of them). We remember an important dispute earlier in the Massechet between Beit Shammai and the Sages regarding the proper way to accept Nazirite vows. There are three things forbidden to a Nazir: cutting hair, becoming ritually impure, and eating grapes and drinking wine. According to the Sages, as long as one accepts upon himself one of these items, he receives the entire package of Nazirite restrictions. However, Beit Shammai, from this verse "mikol asher ya'aseh," said it must be "from all the items," meaning one is not a Nazir until he accepts upon himself all three situations. So, that is what Rabbi Shimon does with the verse; he derives this from the word "mikol."
Let us remind ourselves that Rabbi Abahu was the one who quoted Rabbi Yochanan at the beginning of this discussion, making a very similar statement. He said that in all of the Torah, we do not say "heter mistaref l'issur" except by a Nazir. We have the case of bread dipped in wine; this is "mishrat anavim," which teaches us that not only the wine itself but whatever was soaked in the wine is forbidden. This was Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. Now we have Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Elazar, who basically says the same thing: whenever the Torah gives a beverage, a liquid item, the measure for it to be forbidden is a "revi'it" (a quarter-log). This is true except for the "revi'it" of a Nazir. This means that to be liable as a Nazir, one must drink a revi'it of wine. If, for example, you have half a glass of regular wine and fill it with water, it becomes forbidden. So, all forbidden liquids in the Torah require a full revi'it of the forbidden item, except for the Nazir's wine. For example, if you have half water and half wine, the water combines with the wine to make a revi'it, and it is forbidden. This is in contrast to, for instance, "yayin orlah" (wine from a tree's first three years), where you must have a full revi'it of the forbidden wine itself, and no combination with permissible liquid is effective.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar, both of whom were quoted by Rabbi Abahu? The practical difference ("nafkaminah") is in how they apply the law of "heter mistaref l'issur." Rabbi Yochanan applied it even to foodstuffs, giving the example of bread dipped in wine. According to Rabbi Elazar, however, he only applies "heter mistaref l'issur" to wine itself, but not to bread. So, both learn the principle, but they differ on its scope of application. Rabbi Yochanan applies it even to food, whereas Rabbi Elazar applies it only to wine itself.
They are basically learning from the same verse, "mishrat anavim lo yishte." It could be that Rabbi Elazar learns it specifically about beverages because the verse they are learning from, "mishrat anavim lo yishte," sounds like it is talking about a drink. Rabbi Yochanan, however, would say that this is just an illustration, an example, not an exhaustive list. He would apply it to bread as well.
The Gemara continues by listing ten different laws that use the measure of a "revi'it" (a quarter-log). To remember them quickly, one can use the mnemonic "five red and five white." This refers to five items that are red liquids, like wine or blood, and five that are white, like oil or water. The Gemara goes through them. The five red items that require a revi'it are: Nazir, Pesach, Shoreru, Mikdash, and Metu. These are five different items, and the Gemara explains each one.
First, "Nazir": A revi'it is required for a Nazir. This is obvious, as we have been learning that if a Nazir drinks a revi'it, he is liable. This is the first case of a revi'it. Second, "Oseh Pesach": This refers to the four cups of wine drunk on Pesach night. As Abaye said in the name of Shmuel, the four cups must each contain at least a revi'it of wine. Third, "Shoreru": This refers to a rabbi who gave a halachic ruling. If a person drinks a revi'it of wine, he is not allowed to give a halachic ruling; he must wait until the effects of the wine wear off. Fourth, "Mikdash": If a person drank a revi'it of wine and subsequently entered the Temple area, he is liable to death. Fifth, "Metu": This refers to a corpse. We have a law that a corpse makes objects ritually impure under a roof. Not only the corpse itself, but anything that comes out of the corpse, such as blood, can also cause impurity. For example, a revi'it of blood from a corpse can transmit impurity. The novelty here is that even if the revi'it of blood comes from two different corpses, it combines to reach the measure that brings impurity. One might have thought that a revi'it must come from a single corpse. But the verse states regarding a Kohen, "al kol nafshot met lo yavo" (he shall not come near any dead person). The word "nefesh" (person) in this context refers to blood, as blood is considered the life of a person. So, the verse "al kol nafshot" implies that even if the blood comes from different people (two corpses) and combines to the measure of a revi'it, it brings impurity. The measure of blood from a corpse that causes impurity is a revi'it. Therefore, in "nafshot," we have two amounts combining to form a revi'it.
Now we go to the five white items: "Halat Nazir," "Mitzora," "Shenifselu," and "B'Shabbat." The Gemara explains each one. First, "Halat": This refers to the oil required for the "chalot" (loaves) of the thanksgiving offering. A person bringing a thanksgiving offering brings forty loaves: ten leavened and thirty unleavened. The thirty unleavened loaves consist of ten wafers ("rekikim"), ten loaves, and ten fried items ("murbechet"). The wafers and fried items require oil. Specifically, a revi'it of oil is needed for the "challah." The Rosh explains that there were three types of unleavened bread: loaves, wafers, and fried ones. The wafers and fried ones required oil. It was divided into two quarter-logs, one for the loaves and wafers, and the other for the deep-fried ones. This oil is brought as part of the offering. So, this is a case of a revi'it of oil. Second, "Nazir": When a Nazir brings his offering after completing his Nazirite period, he also brings a revi'it of oil. He brings wafers and fried items, but not the regular loaves. So, he needs a revi'it for these items. Third, "Mitzora": This refers to the "metzora" (leper). When a metzora completes his purification process, they slaughter a bird, and its blood is collected in a vessel. The verse states, "el mayim chayim" (into living water). So, a revi'it of "mayim chayim" (spring water) is needed in that vessel where the bird is slaughtered. Water is a white liquid. Fourth, "Shenifselu": This refers to a person who ingests ritually impure liquids. The measure for him to become impure, rendering him unfit to eat "terumah" (heave offering), is a revi'it of impure liquids. The Mishnah in Me'ilah states that normally, drinking liquids does not make a person's body impure. However, the Sages made an enactment that even a revi'it of impure liquids makes the body impure, rendering him unfit to eat terumah. The measure is a revi'it. Fifth, "B'Shabbat": This refers to carrying on Shabbat. What is considered a significant measure for carrying on Shabbat? Each item has its own value. For other liquids, the measure for carrying on Shabbat is a revi'it. This also applies to "shofin" (dirty water that one spills out); the measure is a revi'it. This refers to water, which is a white liquid.
So, we have listed all ten cases, five red and five white. The Gemara then asks, "mitud eka?" (Is there not another case?). A person must perform "netilat yadayim" (ritual hand-washing). A revi'it of water is enough for one person. However, one opinion states that a revi'it is enough even for two people, meaning whatever is left over from the first person's washing can be used for the second, as long as it initially came from a revi'it. So, why is this case not listed among the ten? The Gemara answers, "b'flukta lo kamayim" (we are not discussing items that are subject to a dispute). If you look, this is indeed a dispute; Beit Hillel argues and says that you can only use the leftovers for a second person if a revi'it remains. Therefore, a revi'it is not enough for two people. We do not want to include cases that are subject to a dispute.
The Gemara asks again, "veha'ika haya mevi chailesh el cheres" (and there is the case of bringing a jug into an earthenware vessel). This refers to the "sotah" (suspected adulteress). When they would fill a jug with water and then put the scroll containing the "parashah" (section) of the sotah into the water, it says, "haya mevi chailesh el cheres." "Chailesh" is like an earthenware vessel. They would put half a log from the basin, which is a revi'it. So, we have another example of a revi'it for the sotah waters. The Gemara answers again, "we are not discussing cases that are subject to dispute."
The Gemara has one more question. There is an interesting case regarding a "mikveh" (ritual bath). We know that a mikveh needs forty "se'ah" (a large measure). However, there is a law in the Torah that "tzinorot u'machatot" (small items like pins and small vessels) can be immersed in a revi'it of water. So long as there is a revi'it of water, it counts. This was said for small, tiny vessels. So, why don't you list a revi'it for a mikveh for small items? The Gemara answers, "bar ma'id batlu rabbanan" (leave that one, because even though it might be acceptable according to Torah law, the Sages nullified that law and said every vessel needs to be immersed in a full mikveh). So, you cannot count that either. The Gemara concludes that it did not want to include cases of dispute.
But if you look at the list of the ten, it did include cases of dispute. In which case? In the case of the Nazir. The Nazir case, what did it say? The Nazir. If you remember back in our Mishnah, we saw a dispute whether it is a revi'it or a kezayit. The Tosafot answers that the point of the dispute that we do not want to include is in the white beverages. If you look at all the questions, they were all asking about white liquids: the washing of hands, the waters of the sotah, and the diluted urine. In the white examples, we do not want to have disputes. But indeed, in the red ones, there was a dispute. So, we have no problem including the case of the Nazir, even though there was a dispute whether it was a revi'it or a kezayit. That is the answer they bring.
The Gemara continues, quoting from the Mishnah: A person is not liable until he eats a kezayit from the grapes. If you remember, our Mishnah brought an earlier version ("Mishnah Rishonah") and a later version ("Mishnah Acharonah"). The earlier version said that a Nazir is not liable until he drinks a revi'it of wine. Then the Gemara brought Rabbi Akiva, who said, no, the measure is not a revi'it, but only a kezayit. The practical difference between the Mishnah Rishonah and Mishnah Acharonah, as we understood it according to our text, was in the measure for beverages. Mishnah Rishonah says a revi'it, and Mishnah Acharonah says a kezayit for wine. For foods, everyone agreed it was a kezayit, meaning for grapes and similar items. The argument was only about beverages.
The Gemara states that the Tanna Kamma (the first Sage in the Mishnah), who said it is a revi'it, does not compare the liquid of wine to all other items forbidden to a Nazir. For example, for grapes, the Tanna Kamma would say it is a kezayit. Skins, pits, all that, a kezayit. So, he does not compare the beverage of the Nazir to the foodstuff of the Nazir. While the foodstuff is a kezayit, the beverage is a revi'it. He does not make that comparison. When it comes to grapes, the verse says, "lo yochal" (he shall not eat). We know that the Torah's measure for eating is a kezayit. Nobody argues on that. But the key for Rabbi Akiva is the conjunction "vav" (and). When it comes to grapes, the verse right before talks about wine, then it talks about grapes. Why would it put "and also" grapes? To tell me that the law of wine has the same law as grapes. Therefore, just as for grapes it is a kezayit, for wine it is also a kezayit. That is what Rabbi Akiva learned: the measure for wine for a Nazir is indeed a kezayit. He learns this from the "vav" that connects the verse about wine, which is written right before it, to the verse about grapes. We know for grapes it is "lo yochal," and the measure for eating is a kezayit. So, this is a kezayit, and this is a kezayit. The Tanna Kamma does not make that derivation. We all know that eating is a kezayit and drinking is a revi'it. That is how we learned it, according to our version of the text.
The Gemara continues: "v'chayav al hayayin b'fnatzmo" (and he is liable for the wine by itself). We learned in the Mishnah that the Nazir is liable for each forbidden item by itself. This means if he had seeds by themselves, or grape skins by themselves, he does not have to have each item. One item alone, if it reaches the measure of a kezayit, makes the Nazir liable. "Chayav al kol echad v'echad" (he is liable for each one individually). The Gemara analyzes a verse that mentions "anavim lachim" (fresh grapes) and "yevishim" (dried grapes, like raisins). It states, "lo yochal" (he shall not eat). The verse separates them to tell you that each item, by itself, makes the Nazir liable. You do not have to have both. If he had this item, or that item, each one can make the Nazir liable. This means, as explained here, that if someone ate a kezayit of dried grapes and a kezayit of fresh grapes, and he was warned (because to receive lashes, a warning is required), he would receive two sets of lashes. Each item can bring a separate liability. One might have thought that since it is all the same item (grapes), he would only get one set of lashes, like eating two kezaytim of fresh grapes. But if he eats one kezayit of this and one kezayit of that, with a preceding warning, he will receive two sets of lashes. This is the novelty of the verses here: each one can bring a separate liability for lashes.
The Gemara says, "mikan ata dan d'chol issurim sheb'Torah" (from here you learn about all prohibitions in the Torah). "Ma kan shehu min echad" (what is here, that it is one species). When we say "the same species," it means it tastes the same. Fresh grapes and dried grapes are really of "min echad" (one species) regarding taste, but they are called something else: "lachim" (fresh) and "yevishim" (dried). Since they have different names, "v'chayav al zeh bifnei atzmo v'al zeh bifnei atzmo" (he is liable for this by itself and for that by itself). So, any forbidden item, even though it is technically the same species, if it has two different names, one is liable for each individually. What is this coming to include? It is coming to include fresh new wine and grapes. Even though fresh new wine (meaning it has not yet fermented, like grape juice) and grapes basically have the same taste, because it is the same thing (the juice of the grape), since they are called "grape juice" and "grapes," even though they are the same species, the Nazir will be liable for each because they have two names. For example, if he was warned, "Hey, you are a Nazir, do not drink grape juice!" and "Hey, you are a Nazir, do not eat grapes!" and he ate a kezayit of grapes and drank a kezayit of grape juice, he will receive two sets of lashes, even though it is the same species, because it is called by two different names.
The Tosafot here asks: Even though the taste is the same (which is what "same species" means), since there are two different terms ("grape juice" and "grapes"), the Tosafot questions this. The Torah says that the Nazir's laws apply to "mi'yayin v'shechar" (from new wine and old wine). How does the Targum explain "yayin v'shechar"? As grape juice and wine. So, it is explicitly stated in the verse! You do not need this whole derivation to include these two items, grape juice and grapes. Meaning, even without this whole idea of "same species, two names," it is explicit in the verse. The Tosafot answers that one might have thought that when the Torah talks about "new wine" (grape juice), it refers to grape juice that has already started its process of fermentation. For example, after it has sat for three days, it starts to ferment a little. In that case, it is different from fresh grapes, and one would be liable for both. However, we are talking about grape juice that was freshly squeezed and did not sit in the barrel at all. Here, it has the exact same taste as the grapes themselves. So, one might have thought that since it has the exact same taste as the grapes, perhaps one would not receive lashes. Therefore, the derivation teaches us that this is not the case. Do not compare the "grape juice" mentioned in the Torah (which is further along in the process, though still called "chadash" because it has not fully fermented) to the grape juice we are discussing now, which is "mamash" (literally) just squeezed from the grape. Even in this case, where it is the exact same taste, you are liable. This is the reason for the derivation: "min echad, sh'tei shemot" (one species, two names). If he was warned for each individual item, he will receive lashes for each item.
The Gemara continues, let us reread that part from the text: "From here you judge all prohibitions in the Torah. What is there that is one kind and has two names? And must it be one kind and has two names? Not even that it is one kind and has two names. Must it be one kind and has two names? What does it include? 'Hamra Hadah' (new wine) and 'Be'ez' (grapes)." This is coming to include these two items. "Kukadu wa ala'lam, amen wa amen."