[Piska 22]

"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man or a woman, if he shall declare to vow the vow of a Nazirite, to be a Nazirite to the Lord": What is the intent of this section? (i.e., the section of vows has already been stated!) — Because it is written (Ibid. 30:3) "A man if he vow a vow to the Lord, or if he take an oath to bind upon his soul, etc.⁠", whence if he vows (to forbid) something for one day it is forbidden for one day; for two days, it is forbidden for two days; (to forbid) a specific thing, that specific thing is forbidden — I would think that the same is true of Naziritism. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel, etc.⁠" that if he vowed (Naziritism, to forbid something to himself) for one day or for one moment, it is forbidden to him for thirty days. And he is forbidden to drink wine and to render himself tamei for the dead and to cut his hair. This is the intent of this section. "a man or a woman": to equate women with men (in respect to Naziritism). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where minors are equated with adults, (i.e., in respect to Cohanim not rendering themselves tamei for the dead, viz. Vayikra 21:1), women are not equated with men, then here (in respect to Naziritism), where minors are not equated with adults, how much more so should women not be equated with men! It is, therefore, written "a man or a woman,⁠" to equate women with men. "a man": and not a minor. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where women are not equated with men (see above), minors are equated with adults, then here, (in respect to Naziritism), where women are equated with men, how much more so should minors be equated with adults! It is, therefore, written "a man,⁠" and not a minor. "if he shall declare": to include (Naziritism as obtaining with) one who knows how to declare (i.e., one who is cognizant of the import of what he is saying.) From here they ruled: The vows of a girl of eleven years and one day are examined (for such cognizance); of twelve years and one day — her vows stand. The vows of a boy of twelve years and one day are examined; of thirteen years and one day — his vows stand. "if he declare": willingly, and not under coercion. — But perhaps even under coercion! — It follows (that they must be willing), viz.: It is written here "declare,⁠" and, in respect to vows and gifts (Vayikra 22:21) "declare.⁠" Just as there, willingly; here, too, willingly. "to vow a vow": I might think that even if he vows to bring an offering he becomes a Nazirite; it is, therefore, written "to make a Nazirite" — he must make the vow of a Nazirite. I might think (from "to make a Nazirite") that he may make even others Nazirites. It is, therefore, written "nazir,⁠" (which connotes that) he makes himself a Nazirite, and not others. If so, why is it written (lit.,) "nazir, to make a nazir"? To equate epithets of Naziritism with Naziritism and "signals" of Naziritism with Naziritism. This tells me only of Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows? From "the vow of a Nazirite,⁠" to equate vows with Naziritism and Naziritism with vows, viz.: Just as in Naziritism, epithets of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, and signals of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, so, with vows, epithets of vows are equated with vows, and signals of vows are equated with vows. And just as vows are subject to transgression of (Bemidbar 30:3) "He shall not profane his word" and (Devarim 23:22) "You shall not delay to pay it,⁠" so, Naziritism. And just as with vows a father may void the vows of his daughter, and a husband, the vows of his wife, so, with Naziritism. R. Yehoshua says: "to make a Nazirite": (to make) even others (Nazirites, e.g., a father, vis-à-vis his son). "to make a Nazirite to the Lord": It is a mitzvah to become a Nazirite to the Lord. Shimon Hatzaddik said: I never ate the guilt-offering of a Nazirite who had become unclean (by contact with a dead body) but once. Once a Nazirite came to me from the south. His eyes were beautiful, he was very handsome, and his hair was wavy. I said to him: "What prompted you to destroy this beautiful hair?⁠" (at the end of the Nazirite period). He answered: "I was a shepherd for my father in my town. Once, while drawing water from the well, I gazed upon my reflection and my evil inclination seized hold of me and threatened to snatch me from the world — whereupon I said to it: 'Empty one, why do you vaunt yourself in a world that is not yours, where you are destined to be consigned to worms and maggots? I swear, I shall shear you in the name of Heaven!'" I thereupon arose, and, kissing him on the head, said to him: "May Nazirites like you multiply in Israel, doing the will of the Lord! Of such as you it is written 'A man … if he shall declare to vow the vow of the Nazirite to be a Nazirite to the Lord.'"

[Piska 23]

"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself": (The intent is) to equate wine of mitzvah with non-mitzvah (i.e., optional) wine, as being forbidden to a Nazirite (viz. Ibid. 4). For (without this verse) it would follow that since a mourner is forbidden to drink wine (viz. Devarim 26:14) and a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine, then since I have learned about a mourner that wine of mitzvah (i.e., second-tithe wine) was not equated with optional wine, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted), also, in the instance of a Nazirite, wine of mitzvah is not to be equated with optional wine, (i.e., the second, being forbidden, the first must be permitted, [wherefore the verse is needed to tell us that mitzvah wine, too, is forbidden to a Nazirite]). — No, this may be so in the instance of a mourner, where mitzvah eating was not equated with optional eating, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted,) wherefore mitzvah wine was not equated with optional wine. But in the instance of the Nazirite, we would say that just as mitzvah eating was equated with optional eating, so, mitzvah wine should be equated with optional wine, (and both should be forbidden. Why, then, is the verse needed to tell us this?). And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that mitzvah wine is forbidden to a Nazirite,) viz.: If in the instance of an officiating (Cohein in the Temple), where the rind was not equated with the fruit, nor eating with drinking, nor the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, (only the last being forbidden), mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, (both being forbidden, viz. [Vayikra 10:9]), then in the instance of the Nazirite, where the rind was equated with the fruit (both being forbidden), and eating with drinking, and the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, how much more so, should mitzvah wine be equated with optional wine (and be forbidden!) Why, then, is the verse needed? — No, (i.e., it is needed.) This (i.e., what you have said), may be so with the officiating (Cohein), whose punishment (for drinking) is death, wherefore mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, whereas in the instance of the Nazirite, whose punishment (for drinking) is not death, we would say that mitzvah wine was not to be equated with optional wine, (and should be permitted.) It must, therefore, be written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself,⁠" to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? Because it is written (Devarim 14:23) "and you shall eat before the Lord your G-d … the (second-) tithe of your grain and wine, etc.⁠", I might think that even Nazirites are included. And how would I satisfy "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? With other wines, excluding mitzvah wines. Or even with mitzvah wines. And how would I satisfy "and you shall eat, etc.⁠"? With other men, aside from Nazirites. Or even with Nazirites. It is, therefore, written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself" — to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden.) Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is it written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? For it would follow: Since he (a Nazirite) is forbidden to defile himself (for the dead) and he is forbidden (to drink) wine, then if I learn that (for a Nazirite) a meth-mitzvah [(one who, lacking kin, it is a mitzvah for everyone to bury)] is not equated with a non-meth-mitzvah, then mitzvah wine, likewise, should not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden.) And, further, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If (dead-body) tumah, which voids (one's elapsed period of Nazaritism) does not equate a meth-mitzvah with a non meth-mitzvah, (it being a mitzvah for a Nazirite to render himself tamei for the first, but forbidden to do so for the second), how much more so should mitzvah wine, which does not void (his lapsed Naziritism) not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden)! It must, therefore, be written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself" to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). "From yayin (wine) and shechar he shall separate himself": Now yayin is shechar, and shechar is yayin! — But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues (i.e., synonymously). Similarly: Shechitah (slaughtering) is zevichah, and zevichah is shechitah. Kemitzah (taking the fistful) is haramah, and haramah is kemitzah. Amuka (lowland) is shefelah, and shefelah is amukah. Oth (a sign) is mofeth, and mofeth is oth — but the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. Here, too — "From yayin and shechar he shall separate himself": Now yayin is shechar and shechar is yayin. But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. R. Elazar Hakappar says: "yayin" is diluted; shechar is undiluted. You say this, but perhaps the reverse is the case! — From(Bemidbar 28:7) "And its libation a fourth of a hin for the one lamb. On the holy place (i.e., the altar) shall it be poured (connoting "undiluted"), a pouring of shechar to the Lord,⁠" you must deduce that "yayin" is diluted, and "shechar,⁠" undiluted. "From wine and strong drink yazir": "nezirah" in all places connotes separation, viz. (Vayikra 22:2) "and they shall separate ("veyinazru") from the holy things of the children of Israel,⁠" and (Ibid. 25:5) "The after-growth of your harvest you shall not reap (in the sabbatical year), and the guarded ("nezirecha,⁠" lit., "separated") grapes of your vine you shall not gather,⁠" and (Hoshea 9:10)) "And they came to Baal-peor and 'separated themselves' ('vayinazru') to shame,⁠" and (Zechariah 7:3) "Shall I weep in the fifth month (Tisha B'av), separating myself ("hinazer"), etc.⁠" We find, then, that in all places "nezirah" connotes separation. "From wine and shechar he shall separate himself": I might think, (even) from selling wine or healing (himself with it); it is, therefore, written "he shall not drink,⁠" but he is permitted to sell it or to heal himself with it. "Vinegar of wine and vinegar of shechar he shall not drink": We are hereby taught that vinegar is equated with wine. For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since an officiating Cohein may not drink wine, then if I have learned that in his case vinegar is not equated with wine, then for a Nazirite, too, vinegar should not be equated with wine. And, furthermore, this should follow a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) an officiating Cohein, whose punishment (for drinking wine) is death, vinegar is not equated with wine, then (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose punishment is not death, how much more so should vinegar not be equated with wine! (The verse then is needed) to tell us that vinegar is equated with wine. And just as mitzvah wine is equated with optional wine, so, mitzvah vinegar (i.e., second-tithe vinegar) is equated with optional vinegar. What is the intent of "and any steeping of grapes he shall not eat"? We are hereby taught that if he steeped grapes in water, and the taste (of the grapes) was transmitted to the water, it is forbidden. And this serves as a paradigm for everything forbidden by the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re wine) is not for all time, (but only for the period of his Naziritism), and whose prohibition does not extend to derivation of benefit (e.g., selling and healing), and whose prohibition is subject to release (by absolution of his Naziritism), the taste (of the forbidden substance) was regarded as the substance itself, then the other prohibitions in the Torah, whose prohibitions are for all time, and whose prohibition extends to derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is not subject to release — how much more so should the taste (of the forbidden substance) be regarded as the substance itself! "and grapes": Why is this written? It follows (logically) even without being stated, viz.: If he is liable for what issues from the fruit (i.e., wine), should he not be liable for the fruit itself! Rather, what is the intent of "wet" grapes"? To include (as forbidden) half-ripe grapes. You say "to include half-ripe grapes. But perhaps its intent is to exclude dry grapes? (This cannot be) for "and dry" includes dry grapes. What, then, is the intent of "wet"? For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: He is liable for wine and he is liable for grapes. Just as wine is a finished fruit (i.e., product), so, grapes must be a finished product (and not half-ripe). It is, therefore, written "wet" to include half-ripe grapes (as forbidden). Issi b. Yehudah says: What is the intent of "grapes wet and dry"? To impose liability for each in itself (i.e., eating "wet" and "dry" grapes together is regarded as two separate transgressions though one kind of fruit is eaten). (And this serves as a paradigm for all prohibitions in the Torah.) Let it be written "and dry grapes he shall not eat" (i.e., "wet" is understood from "grapes itself,⁠" and only "dry" need be written.) If it were stated thus, all dried fruits would be understood (to be forbidden). "wet" and "dry" (in this context) implies what issues from the vine wet and then dried up.

[Piska 24]

"All the days of his Naziritism, of all that is made from the grape-vine, from the kernels to the husk, he shall not eat": Scripture hereby apprises us that if he ate an olive-size of all of them (kernel and husk combined), he receives forty lashes. And this serves as a paradigm for all of the prohibitions of the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re wine) is not for all time, (but only for the period of his Naziritism), and whose prohibition does not extend to the derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is subject to release (by absolution of his Naziritism), separate elements (in an injunction) combine with each other to (form the forbidden) olive-size, then the other prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibitions are for all time, and whose prohibition extends to derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is not subject to release — how much more so do they combine with each other to (form the forbidden) olive-size! "of all that is made from the grape-vine": I might think that leaves and sprouts, too, (are included); it is, therefore, written "from the kernels to the husk": Just as the specific instance is of fruit (kernel) and residue of fruit (husk), so, only these are included (in the prohibition), to exclude leaves and sprouts, (which do not satisfy these parameters). R. Eliezer says: Leaves and sprouts are also subsumed in "of all that is made from the grape-vine.⁠" "from the chartzanim to the zag he shall not eat": The minimum (amount for transgression) — two kernels, one husk. These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Azaryah. Which are the chartzanim and which are the zagim? "chartzanim" are the outer, and "zagim" are the inner. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: So that you not err, (they are) like the bells ("zugim") of an animal: the outer (part) is the "zag"; the inner (the clapper) is the "inbal.⁠" "From the kernels to the husk he shall not eat": We are hereby apprised that "pained eating" (as in eating kernels and husk) does not free him from liability. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If for the graver — Yom Kippur — one is not liable for "pained eating,⁠" should this not be so for the lesser, Naziritism? It is, therefore, written "From the kernels to the husk he shall not eat.⁠": Why is this written" (i.e., it may be derived from the preceding verse, viz.:) "of all that is made of the grape-vine … he shall not eat" — general. "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself. Vinegar of wine and vinegar of strong drink he shall not drink" — particular. (We have here an instance of) general-particular. (The rule is:) There is subsumed in the general only what is in the particular. Just as the particular is "fruit (wine) and residue of fruit (vinegar),⁠" so, I derive (as forbidden) anything which is "fruit and residue of fruit" — including kernels and husk, which satisfy that parameter! (Why, then is "from the kernels to the husk" needed?) — Perhaps, just as the particular is an "actual" fruit, so, I may derive only an "actual" fruit. — (No!) Which "actual" fruit has not been mentioned? You must revert, then, to the original formulation, (and the question remains:) If I can derive it from the rule, why need "from the kernels to the husk" be stated? We are hereby taught that (in the instance of) a "general" which adds to the "particular,⁠" what is to be derived is not (of necessity) to be of the same nature as the "particular" to remove it from the "general" (formulation) unless Scripture indicates it specifically, as it does in the instance of the Nazirite.