משנה: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין אֲסוּרִין בַּנָּזִיר הַטּוּמְאָה וְהַתִּגְלַחַת וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַגֶּפֶן. וְכָל־הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַגֶּפֶן מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְאֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִן הַעֲנָבִים כַּזַּיִת. מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתֶּה רְבִיעִית יַיִן. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ שָׁרָה פִיתּוֹ בַיַּיִן וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְצָרַף כַַּזַּיִת חַייָב. MISHNAH: Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir: Impurity, shaving, and anything coming from the vine. Everything coming from the vine is added together1The verse prohibiting “anything coming from the vine” to the nazir makes it clear that the most minute amount is forbidden. But a nazir cannot cleanse himself by a purification sacrifice (or, if duly warned by two witnesses, cannot be criminally prosecuted for desecrating his holy status) unless he consumed more than the legal minimum. For most matters of food, the legal minimum is the size of an average olive used for the production of oil (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, pp. 326–328). For beverages, the standard is the revi‘it, definined by the Kelim 17:11" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.17.11">Mishnah (Kelim 17:11) as Roman quartarius, 133 ml (loc. cit. pp. 212–213).. He is only guilty when he eats grapes in the volume of an olive; according to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine2Or eats an amount of grapes from which a quartarius of juice could be extracted.. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume3The bread plus the wine absorbed in it. of an olive, he is guilty.
הלכה: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין אֲסוּרִין בַּנָּזִיר כול׳. הַטּוּמְאָה. דִּכְתִיב כָּל־יְמֵי הַזִּירוֹ לַיי֨ עַל נֶפֶשׁ מֵת לֹא יָבֹא. תִּגְלַחַת. דִּכְתִיב כָּל־יְמֵי נֶדֶר נִזְרוֹ תַּעַר לא יַעֲבֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַגֶּפֶן. דִּכְתִיב כָּל־יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן וגו׳. HALAKHAH: “Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir,” etc. Impurity, as it is written4Leviticus.6.6">Lev. 6:6.: “During all the days he vowed to the Eternal he shall not come close to a human corpse.” Shaving, as it is written5Leviticus.6.5">Lev. 6:5.: “During all the days of his nazir vow, a shaving knife shall not come onto his head.” Anything from the vine, as it is written6Leviticus.6.4">Lev. 6:4.: “During all the days of his vow, of anything coming from the wine-vine [he shall not eat.]”
תַּנֵּי רַב זַכַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִיבֵּחַ וְקִיטֵּר נִיסַּךְ בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּבְלַייָא. עָבַרְתְּ בְּיָדָךְ תְּלָתָא נְהָרִין וְאִתַּבְּרָת. וְאֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. עַד דְּלָא יַתְבְּרִינָהּ בְּיָדֵהּ יֵשׁ כָּאן אַחַת וְאֵין כָּאן הֵנָּה. מָאן דְּתָֽבְרָהּ בְּיָדֵהּ יֵשׁ כָּאן הֵנָּה וְאֵין כָּאן אַחַת. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וִיהֵא חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת. כְּמָה דְּתֵימַר בַּשַׁבָּת. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָּל־מְלָאכָה כְּלָל. לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכָל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם פְּרָט. וַהֲלֹא הַבְעָרָה בִּכְלָל הָיָה וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד. מַה הַבְעָרָה מְיוּחֶדֶת מַעֲשֵׂה יְחִידִים וְחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ אַף כָּל־מַעֲשֶׂה וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ לְחַייֵב עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וָכָא. לֹא תָעָבְדֵּם. כְּלָל. לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה פְּרָט. וַהֲלֹא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָּיָה בִּכְלָל הָיָה וְלָמָּה יָצָאת מִן הַכְּלָל. לְלַמֵּד. לוֹמַר לָךְ. מַה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָּיָה מְיוּחֶדֶת מַעֲשֵׂה יְחִידִים וְחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ אַף כָּל מַעֲשֶׂה וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ לְחַייֵב עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר לָךְ. בַּשַּׁבָּת כָּלַל בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּפִרֵט בְּמָקוּם אַחֵר. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּלָל שֶׁהוּא בְצַד הַפְּרָט. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָֽכְתִיב לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר. הֲרֵי שֶׁכָּלַל בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּפִרֵט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ לָמֵד מִצִּידּוֹ אֲפִילוּ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר אֵי אַתְּ לָמֵד. חֲבָרַייָא אָֽמְרֵי. לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא. בֵּין שֶׁכָּלַל בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּפִרֵט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר בֵּין שֶׁכָּלַל וּפִרֵט בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. בַּשַּׁבָּת כָּלַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ פִּרֵט. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פִּרֵט וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּלַל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. לֹא שַׁנְייָא. בֵּין שֶׁכָּלַל בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּפִרֵט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר בֵּין שֶׁכָּלָל וּפִרֵט בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּלָל וּפְרָט הִיא. בַּשַּׁבָּת כָּלַל בַּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וּפִרֵט בַּעֲבוֹדָתָה. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כָּלַל בַּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וּפִרֵט לִמְלֶאכֶת הַגָּבוֹהַּ. 7This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א.
Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting8He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden., he is guilty for each action separately9In the Shabbat.72a">Babli, Šabbat 72a, Sanhedrin.62a">Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands10Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. and were broken. He is guilty only once! 11The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Leviticus.4.2">Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Leviticus.4">Lev. 4 but in Numbers.15.22-26">Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke12The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work13Exodus.20.10">Ex. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,14Exodus.35.3">Ex. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual15A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Shabbat.70a">Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menachot.55b">Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here17Regarding idolatry.: “Do not worship them,18Exodus.20.5">Ex. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,18Exodus.20.5">Ex. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Shabbat.70a">Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menachot.55b">Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered19R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail20In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”.. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”21Exodus.34.14">Ex. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar22Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Exodus.20.5">Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle23Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether 24Text from Šabbat.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle25This really is the case for the Second Comandment.]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven26The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..
אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הַבְעָרָה שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַעֲשֶׂה. וַתְייָא כְהָדָא דְתַנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. זוֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם. יָצָאת זְבִיחָה לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכֹּל. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַעֲשֶׂה. אוֹ חָלָף. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הַבְעָרָה לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. לְלַמֵּד עַל בַָּתֵּי דִינִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בַּשַׁבָּת. מַה טַעֲמָא. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בְּכָל־מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְהָיוּ אֵלֶּה לְחוּקַּת עוֹלָם לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם בְּכָל־מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם. מַה מוֹשָׁבוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בָּתֵּי דִּינִין. אַף מוֹשָׁבוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּבָתֵי דִּינִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדּוּמָא. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתֵימַר. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. כְּמִי שֶׁיָּצָאת שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ. וְדָבָר שֶׁיָּצָא שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ מְלַמֵּד. Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily28Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work29Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned30Exodus.22.19">Ex. 22:19. This explains the punishment for idolatrous acts forbidden in the Second Commandment. This is the interpretation in all of talmudic literature (Sanhedrin.60b">Babli Sanhedrin 60b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 310, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.) (Nowhere in rabbinic literature does one find the more obvious explanation of Exodus.22.19">Ex. 22:19: “Anyone sacrificing to the Elohim (God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world) shall be banned, only to YHWH (God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace) alone.” In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.}.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything31Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath32In the Yevamot.6b">Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaïtic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ויקהל.. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements33Numbers.35.29">Num. 35:29. The quote is correct in Šabbat..” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily34Since the argument is based on Numbers.35.29">Num. 35:29, not on Exodus.22.19">Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9th rule., and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.
וָכָא חַרְצָנִין וְזָגִין בִּכְלָל הָיוּ וְיָצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל. וִיחַלֵּקוּ וְלֹא יִצְטָֽרְפוּ. אֶלָּא תַּמָּן כְּלָל בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּפְרָט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. וָכָא כְּלָל וּפְרָט בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְהָא חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרֵי. לא שַׁנְייָא. בֵּין כָּלַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ פִּרֵט בֵּין שֶׁפִּרֵט וְאַחַר כָּך כָּלַל. בֵּין שֶׁכָּלַל וְאַחַר כָּך כָּלַל וְאַחַר כָּך פִּרֵט. וָכָא כָּלַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ פִּרֵט. וְהָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. לֹא שַׁנְייָה. בֵּין כָּלַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ פִּרֵט וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. תַּמָּן שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ יָֽצְאוּ. וְלָמָּה יָֽצְאוּ. לְמָעֵט הֶעָלִים וְהַלּוּלָבִים. וְהָא תַנִּי מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצָנִים וְעַד זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל. אַף הֶעָלִים וְהַלּוּלָבִים בְּמַשְׁמַע. תַּמָּן לְצוֹרֶךְ נִכְלְלוּ. בְּרַם הָכָא שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ נִכְלְלוּ. וְלָמָּה. לצירוכין. But here, skins and seeds were understood in the principle, and were listed separately35In Numbers.6.4">Num. 6:4, it is started that a nazir is forbidden “everything coming from the vine”, followed by “skins and seeds”. Since skins and seeds of grapes come from the vine, this is “principle and detail” and the question arises why the Mishnah prescribes that all that comes from the vine be counted together; should not every kind be counted separately?. Should they not be separate rather than common? But there36The rules of the Sabbath., the principle is at one place and the details are at another place. But did not the colleagues say: It makes no difference: Whether he stated the principle and then a detail or the detail and after that the principle. And here, he stated the principle and then a detail. But did not Rebbi Yose say, there is no difference whether He gave principle, detail, and principle, it is the principle and then a detail, it is counted as the principle and then a detail. There, the detail was not necessary. Why were they detailed? To exclude leaves and twigs37Which may not be directly edible. But vine leaves are used in cooking, supporting R. Eliezer.. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer38Nazir.34b">Babli 34b, Sifry Num. #24; rejected in the Babli.: “From anything coming from the wine-vine, from skins to seeds, he shall not eat;” leaves and twigs are also understood. There39While this paragraph is not found in Šabbat, it seems to have originated there since “there” is here, the discussion of the rules of nazir, but “here” is Šabbat, the discussion of the mention of making fire. In the case of the nazir, everything that comes from the vine is added together (one minimum quantity, one sacrifice) since everything mentioned (including in v. 3 wine, liquor, vinegar, grapes and raisins) is necessary as explained in Sifry Num. #23–24., they are mentioned for a need, but here, they are mentioned without need. Why? For additions40Reading לְצֵירוּפִין for לצירוכין of the text..
אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת מְנַיִין. לא תֹאכְלוּ כָּל־נְבֵילָה. עַד כְּדוֹן נְבֵילָה. טְרֵיפָה מְנַיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נְבֵילָה וְכָל־נְבֵילָה. לְרַבּוֹת הַטְּרֵיפָה. הָאוֹכֵל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִטְּרֵיפָה. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לא תֹאכַל כָּל־נְבֵילָה. וְלֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אָֽמְרֵי חֲבֵרִין קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵיפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. אַל תְּהֵא תוֹלֵשׁ וְאוֹכֵל מִן הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵרֵךְ שֶׁאַתָּה תוֹלֵשׁ מֵהַקַּרְקַע וְאוֹכֵל. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. חֲבֵרַייֵה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לא סָבַר בִּטְרֵיפָה כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִין יִסְבּוֹר כֵּן שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר לוֹן. אֲפִילוּ דְיִסְבּוֹר כֵּן לֹא יְהֵא חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שָׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁחָזַר וְכָלַל. הָתִיבוֹן. חֵלֶב לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. וְדָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. וּכְתִיב כָּל־חֵלֶב וְכָל־דָּם לֹא תֹאכְלוּ. מֵעַתָּה מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁחָזַר וְכָלַל לֹא יְהֵא חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר לוֹן. אִילּוּ הָיָה כָתוּב חֵלֶב וְדָם יְאוּת. לֵית כְּתִיב אֶלָּא כָּל־חֵלֶב וְכָל־דָּם. לְחַייֵב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְהָא כְתִיב וְכָל־מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה. וּכְתִיב מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל. מֵעַתָּה מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁחָזַר וְכָלַל לֹא יְהֵא חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר לוֹן. אִילּוּ הֲוָה כָתוּב מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְזָג יְאוּת. לֵית כְּתִיב אֶלָּא מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג. לְחַייֵב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. Warning41An infraction of a biblical law is prosecutable only if the prohibition is mentioned at least twice in the text, once as “warning” to spell out the prohibition and once to specify the punishment for infraction. If no punishment is specified, whipping is intended; nevertheless, the second mention is necessary. Cf. Yevamot 11:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.11.1.11">Yebamot 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.42Deuteronomy.14.21">Deut. 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”43Ṭerephah is a technical term, originally meaning an animal which cannot survive an attack by a predator. The meaning has been extended to include all animals who cannot survive for any length of time, including dangerously sick animals and those born with severe birth defects. (As a practical matter, slaughtered animals have to be inspected for signs of tuberculosis, which would prohibit the meat for human consumption.) animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal44The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut. 104.. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat42Deuteronomy.14.21">Deut. 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh45,Deuteronomy.12.23">Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to eat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Genesis.9.4">Gen. 9:4: "But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat", meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)46The argument is that in one act one may transgress two prohibitions referring to two distinct verses as warnings and, therefore, be subject to distinct punishments. In the Chullin.102b-103a">Babli, Hulin 102b/103a, the difference between the interpretations of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish boils down to the question whether "flesh from a living animal" and "limbs from a living animal " are different prohibitions following distinct rules. (For the problems raised by the competition of laws, cf. Terumot 7:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.7.1.6">Terumot 7:1, Notes 6 ff.).” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’47Exodus.22.30">Ex. 22:30. In this interpretation, the verse forbids flesh or limbs torn from an animal (and also supports R. Joḥanan’s interpretation of Deuteronomy.14.21">Deut. 14:21.) A similar formulation, also in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, is in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 214., you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground48Vegetables. and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it49It is impossible to say that Exodus.22.30">Ex. 22:30 does not contain a prohibition of meat from “torn” animals, since this is the obvious meaning of the text. But since following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, the verse also prohibits flesh torn from living animals, there is no separate “warning” for eating meat from “torn” animals. The offender can be prosecuted either on basis of Deuteronomy.14.21">Deut. 14:21 or of Exodus.22.30">Ex. 22:30, but not of both together. (Since in the desert, consumption of any non-sacrificial meat of domesticated animals was forbidden, Leviticus.17.4">Lev. 17:4, the mention of carcass meat would have been out of place in Exodus.22">Ex. 22.). They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,50Leviticus.7.24">Lev. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,51Leviticus.7.26">Lev. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.52Leviticus.3.17">Lev. 3:17.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink53Numbers.6.3">Num. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat54Numbers.6.4">Num. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!55But Nazir 6:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.2.1">Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir can be punished separately for each item on the list. He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto56A redundant word, not really required by the context. seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.
רִבִּי אוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרַייָא. הֲווּ יָֽדְעִין דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁחִלְּקוֹ בְפִיו וַאֲכָלוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עֲבַד פִּיו כְּלִפְנִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ עֲבַד פִּיו כִּלְחוּץ. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ. אַתְּ מָה אֲמַר. אֲמַר לוֹן. אֲנָא אָֽמְרִי לְכוֹן. הָרֵי עוֹלָם פְּלִיגִין וְאַתּוּן אָֽמְרִין אָכֵן. אִין כֵּינִי אֲפִילוּ חִלְּקוֹ בַּחוּץ וַאֲכָלוֹ יְהֵא חַייָב. לָמָּה. דֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָה הִיא. נְמָלָה שֶׁחִלְּקָהּ בְּפִיו וַאֲכָלָהּ. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי מַייְשָׁא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי זְעִירָה. עֲנָבָה שֶׁחִלְּקָהּ בְּפִיו וַאֲכָלָהּ. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּמָּן דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר וְטוּמְאָה. מָקוֹם שֶׁבָּֽטְלָה טוּמְאָתוֹ בָּֽטְלָה אִיסּוּרוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא יֵשׁ כָּאן אִיסּוּר וְאֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְּרִבִּי מָמָל בָּעֵי. כְּזַיִת מַצָּה שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ בְּפִיו וַאֲכָלוֹ. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּכָל־מָקוֹם לֹא נֶהֱנֶה חִיכּוֹ כְּזַיִת. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרֵי. רִבִּי נִיסָא שָׁאַל. פְּרֵידִים שֶׁלְּרִימּוֹן שֶׁלְּעָרְלָה שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ בְּפִיו וַאֲכָלוֹ. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִי מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֶה. כְּבַר תַנִּינָן. אֵין מְטַמֵּא מִשֵּׁם מַשְׁקֶה אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַזֵּיתִים וּמִן הָעֲנָבִים. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרִין. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבְּלָעָן. Rebbi [Yose]57Missing in ms. and editio princeps; needed by the context and historical considerations. said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution58He has an olive-sized piece of flesh taken from a living animal and splits it in two. Neither piece has the minimum size that would make prosecution possible. He eats both pieces in one meal. As Rashi explains in Chullin.103b">Ḥulin 103b (s.v. מהו): “In general, undersized parts of forbidden food consumed in the same meal are added together (Yoma.80b">Babli Yoma 80b). But the prohibition of limbs from a living animal is particular since in general inedible sinews and bones (of carcass and “torn” meat) are not forbidden food. By contrast, here one would be guilty since there is no limb without sinews and bones. One may say that its rules are separate and if one eats it in one piece one is guilty, since this is the normal way of eating, but not in minute pieces.”. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside59In the interpretation of the Babli, for R. Joḥanan the prohibition is triggered by the palate’s enjoyment, for R. Simeon ben Laqish by the act of swallowing.. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats60In the Chullin.103b">Babli, Ḥulin 103b, this is R. Eleazar’s opinion. The configuration of the food is irrelevant.. If somebody split an ant in his mouth61Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Leviticus.11.41">Lev. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.6.1.4">Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Makkot.16b">Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously. and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish62According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, what he did is forbidden but not prosecutable.. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he63A nazir, who can be criminallyprosecuted for eating an olive’s volume of grapes. split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there64A limb taken from a living animal causes impurity (Ahilut 2:1); similarly, crawling animals are called “impure”. An entire crawling animal is always impure. But all parts of such an animal cut into pieces smaller than lentils are pure. it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity65R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree that for the nazir only the total amount consumed is relevant.. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah66In the first night of Passover, when there is a biblical commandment to eat mazzah (in the minimal amount of one olive’s size); Exodus.12.18">Ex. 12:18. in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit67Here also, R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree with R. Joḥanan.. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries68The berries of the pomegranate, each containing a single seed. Such a berry is a creature (cf. Berakhot 6:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.6.1.4">Berakhot 6:1, Note 18). which are ‘orlah69Harvested before the tree is three years old, when all usufruct is forbidden. and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.70Mishnah Terumot 11:3. Therefore, the pomegranate berries are food and follow the rules of food.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them71A pomegranate berry is much smaller than an olive. It is agreed that eating a whole berry of ‘orlah can be prosecuted since it means eating a complete creature. But if the berry is eaten after being split into two parts, one might assume that R. Joḥanan will agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish that one cannot be prosecuted..
טְרֵיפָה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ נְבֵילָה. רִבִּי יָסָא בַּר בְּרַתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר. חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְדָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל כָּל־נְבֵילָה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּטְרֵיפָה. אִם טְרֵיפָה חַיָה וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר נְבֵילָה. אִם טְרֵיפָה מֵתָה הֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל נְבֵילָה. וְיֵימַר נְבֵילָה הִיא. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף. וַהֲלֹא אֵין לְךָ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים בִּלְבָד. אֶלָּא כְּשִׁיעוּר טוּמְאוֹתֵיהֶן כָּךְ הוּא שִׁיעוּר אֲכִילָתָן. הָתִיב רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. הֲרֵי אֵיבָרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרִין מְטַמְּאִין כָּל־שֶׁהֵן וַאֲכִילָתָן כְּזַיִת. וְקִבְּלָהּ. מַהוּ וְקִבְּלָהּ. כְּאִינַשׁ דַּאֲמַר. בַּעַל דִּינָא קִבְּלֵיהּ. חִייָה בַּר בָּא אָמַר. לֹא כָּל־נְבֵילָה. הַתּוֹרָה הִשְׁװָת כָּל־הָאֲכִילוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כְּאַחַת. הָתִיב רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים מְטַמִּין בְּכַעֲדַשָּׁה וַאֲכִילָתָן כְּזַיִת בֵּין לְדָם בֵּין לְבָשָׂר. A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass72If a “torn” animal was not slaughtered according to the rules, is the meat forbidden under one or two statutes?. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following73Sifra Aḥare Pereq 11(8). supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat74Leviticus.17.15">Lev. 17:15.,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before75No animal is ritually impure while alive. [Even the “impure” animals forbidden as food (Leviticus.11.26">Lev. 11:26, Deuteronomy.14.9">Deut. 14:9) are ritually pure while alive.] If a “torn” animal can survive and was ritually slaughtered, it does not become impure.? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”76If a “torn” animal must die in the short run, it simply becomes impure as a carcass. The mention of “torn” in the verse seems superfluous; it can only be justified as adding another prohibition. (In Sifra, the argument is inverted to prove that a “torn” animal, if ritually slaughtered, is not impure even as it is forbidden food.)? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose77Who seems to accept his son’s argument.: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds78The argument refers to the part of the verse, Leviticus.20.25">Lev. 20:25, which is not quoted: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds, and anything which crawls on the ground, which I separated for you as impure.” Now anything crawling on the ground (and in the water) is forbidden as food, but impurity caused by dead bodies is restricted to mammals, birds, and the Eight Reptiles enumerated in Leviticus.11.29-30">Lev. 11:29–30.,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food79Since even in biblical usage, mammals and birds acceptable as food are called “pure” (Genesis.8.20">Gen. 8:20). By inference, non-kosher animals are called “impure” even while alive and technically pure.. Rebbi Eleazar objected80To R. Abbahu.: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount81Mishnah Ahilut 1:7. but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat82In the Babli, Meilah.15b">Me‘ilah 15b, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina states, as explanation of his inference (Nazir 6:1:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.1.8">Note 78) that eating parts of any of the Eight Reptiles is prosecutable in amounts the size of a lentil (Maimonides Ma‘akhalot asurot 2:7). The identity of the rules for blood and flesh of these reptiles is Meilah 4:3" href="/Mishnah_Meilah.4.3">Mishnah Me‘ilah 4:3, for the rules of impurity Sifra Šemini Parašah 5(2), Pereq 7(6).?
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סוֹסַרְטִי בָּעֵי. מֵעַתָּה הָאוֹכֵל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִן הַטְּהוֹרִין יְהֵא חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָּל־נְבֵילָה וּמִשּׁוּם לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר. וּמֵשִׁיבִין טְהוֹרִין עַל הַטְּמֵאִים. וְכִי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֹא הֵשִׁיב טְהוֹרִין עַל הַטְּמֵאִים. מֵעַתָּה הָאוֹכֵל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִן הַטְּמֵאִין יְהֵא חַייָב שָׁלֹשׁ. מִשּׁוּם לֹא תֹאכַל כָּל־נְבֵילָה וּמִשּׁוּם לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר וּמִשּׁוּם וּמִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה נְמָלִים כְּאַחַת בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם בִּירְייָה. רְסָסָן וַאֲכָלָן אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא בָהֶן כְּזַיִת. אָכַל מִן הָרִיסּוּסִין וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת חַייָב. אָכַל מִן הָרִיסּוּסִין כְּזַיִת וּנְמָלָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אִין כֵּינִי אָכַל מִן הָרִיסּוּסִין פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת וְהִשְׁלִים לָהֶם נְמָלָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אִין כֵּינִי אָכַל נְמָלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּזַיִת חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אַף בְּצֵירוּפֵי נָזִיר כֵּן. אָכַל מִן הַצֵּירוּפִין וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת חַייָב. אָכַל מִן הַצֵּירוּפִין כְּזַיִת וָעֲנָבָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אִין כֵּינִי אָכַל עֲנָבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּזַיִת חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־הָאִיסּוּרִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לִלְקוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן כְּזַיִת וּנְמָלָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אִין כֵּינִי אָכַל מִן הָאִיסּוּרִין פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת וְהִשְׁלִים לָהֶן נְמָלָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אִין כֵּינִי אָכַל נְמָלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּזַיִת חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarti asked: Then one who eats a limb from a kosher living animal should be guilty on two counts83He argues against R. Joḥanan who stated that one who eats a limb from a “torn” animal violates two laws at the same time. Why should the verses quoted not apply to a completely healthy kosher animal?, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat42Deuteronomy.14.21">Deut. 14:21.84Since the impurity of limbs from a living animal is identical with the impurity of carcasses, and by the argument of R. Yose ben Hanina food prohibitions follow impurity.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh45Deuteronomy.12.23">Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Genesis.9.4">Gen. 9:4: “But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat”, meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.).” Does one argue from kosher abour non-kosher animals? But did not Rebbi Eleazar argue80To R. Abbahu. from kosher about non-kosher animals? Then one who eats a limb from a non-kosher living animal should be guilty on three counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat42Deuteronomy.14.21">Deut. 14:21.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh45Deuteronomy.12.23">Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Genesis.9.4">Gen. 9:4: “But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat”, meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)”; and because of “you shall not eat from their flesh.85Leviticus.11.8">Lev. 11:8. The verse also connects food prohibition and impurity: “you shall not eat from their flesh nor touch their carcasses”. The prohibition of touching applies to people intending to enter the holy precinct.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If somebody ate five ants together, in one forgetting86Even though all sins of the same kind incurred while one was oblivious of the prohibition can be atoned for by one purification sacrifice, each creature is in a category by itself., he is guilty for each one separately because of “creature”61Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Leviticus.11.41">Lev. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.6.1.4">Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Makkot.16b">Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously.. If he fragmented and ate them, he is guilty only once, if together they amount to the volume of an olive. If he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive, he is guilty; if he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive and an ant, he is guilty twice87The same argument, applied to the Babli’s opinion (Nazir 6:1:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.1.7">Note 62), is in the Makkot.16b">Babli Makkot 16b.. If this is correct, then if he ate of the fragments less than the volume of an olive and an ant completed the volume of an olive, is he guilty twice88Since the ant it counted for itself, can it be counted with the volume filled by the forbidden pieces?? If this is correct, if the ate an ant the size of an olive, is he guilty twice? The same rule applies to combinations89As enumerated in Nazir 6:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.2.1">Mishnah 2, combining wine, vinegar, leaves, husks, pomace, etc. of a nazir. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive, he is guilty. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive and a grape berry, is he guilty twice90For eating the volume of an olive from the produce of the vine he violates Numbers.6.4">Num. 6:4; for the single intact grape berry he violates Numbers.6.3">Num. 6:3.? If this is correct, then if he ate a grape berry for the volume ofan olive, is he guilty twice? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All [food] prohibitions combine together91In the Babli, ‘Avodah zarah 66a, this is a tannaitic statement derived from Deuteronomy.14.3">Deut. 14:3. to be whipped for the volume of an olive, but for an ant one is guilty twice. Then if he ate prohibited food and an ant completed the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Then if he ate an ant the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice.
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּלְאִיסּוּר מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ בַּבָּצָל כְּאִילּוּ בַּקֵפַלּוֹט. וְאַתְייָא כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. נְבֵילָה שֶׁבִּיטְּלָהּ בִּשְׁחוּטָה בָּטֵל מַגָּעָהּ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One estimates [food] prohibitions as if they concerned onions or leeks92Cf. Terumot 10:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.10.1.6">Terumot 10:1, Notes 10–11.. This parallels what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If carcass meat disappeared among slaughtered meat93A piece of carcass meat is mixed up with slaughtered meat, and if the volume of the carcass meat were filled by onions and leeks one could not taste the onions after cooking, then the impurity of carcass meat also has disappeared (in the opinion of the Bekhorot.23a">Babli, Bekhorot 23a, only the impurity transmitted by touch has disappeared, not the impurity tranmitted by carrying without touching, Leviticus.11.40">Lev. 11:40.), its [impurity by] touch has disappeared by biblical law.
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם טַעַם מַמָּשׁוֹ שֶׁלְאִיסּוּר. הוֹתִיב רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר יוֹסֵף קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲרֵי בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב וְלֹא טָעַם טַעַם מַמָּשׁוֹ שֶׁלְאִיסּוּר. וְאַתְּ אָמַר. לוֹקֶה. וְקִבְּלָהּ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָה. מַאי וְקִבְּלָהּ. כְּאִינָּשׁ דְּאָמַר. בַּעַל דִּינָא קִבְּלֵיהּ. 94This and the next paragraph are from ‘Orlah 2:6 (Notes 136–152). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Ḥiya bar Yosef objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Take, for example, meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What is meant by: he accepted that? Rebbi Ḥiya bar Abun said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן חוּץ מִנּוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים שֶׁלְּנָזִיר. וְנָזִיר אֲפִילוּ לֹא טָעַם טַעַם מַמָּשׁוֹ שֶׁלְּאִיסּוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. כָּל־נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֵין אִיסּוּר וְהֵיתֵר מִצְטָֽרְפִין. וְהַנָּזִיר אִיסּוּר וְהֵיתֵר מִצְטָֽרְפִין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָה לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָה לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָה לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. כְּזַיִת יַיִן שֶׁנָּפַל לִקְדֵירָה וְאָכַל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כּוּלָּהּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָכַל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת יְהֵא חַייָב. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָה לְרִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. מְמַשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכָל־מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵישִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל. וְכִי מָה הִנִּיחַ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁלֹּא אֲמָרוֹ. אָלָּא לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצָנִים וְעַד זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל. וּכְתִיב מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכָל־מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם שָׁרָה עֲנָבִים בַּמַּיִם וְשָׁרָה פִיתּוֹ בָהֶן וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי לְצָרֵף כְּזַיִת חַייָב. מִיכָּן אַתְּ דָן לְכָל־הָאִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וּמָה הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַגֶּפֶן שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם וְאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר הֲנָייָה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה בוֹ טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר. שְׁאָר אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָייָה וְאֵין לָהֶן הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָן דִּין הוּא שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר. מִיכָּן לָֽמְדוּ חֲכָמִים לְכָל־נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. בְּכָל־אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא טָעַם. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself]95Missing here, added from the text in ‘Orlah since it is required by the following text. except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Numbers.6.3">Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Numbers.6.4">Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Numbers.6.3">Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted152The impure nazir cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir.”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”
מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתֶּה רְבִיעִית יַיִן. דַּהֲווֹן דָּֽרְשִׁין שֵׁכָר. מַה שֵׁכָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן רְבִיעִית אַף כָּאן רְבִיעִית. חָֽזְרוּ לוֹמַר. לֹא יֹאכַל. לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה. מָה אֲכִילָה כְזַיִת אַף שְׁתִייָה כְּזַיִת. “According to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine.” They did explain “liquor”. Since “liquor” mentioned there96Leviticus.10.9">Lev. 10:9, the prohibition for a priest to enter the holy precinct after he drank “wine or liquor”; Sifra Šemini Parašah 1(1). In the Keritot.13a">Babli, Keritut 13a, the rules of priests are deduced from those of the nazir. means a quartarius, so “liquor” mentioned here also means a quartarius. They changed to say “he shall not eat, he shall not drink.97Numbers.6.3">Num. 6:3. Since both expressions appear in the same verse, they should conform to the same standard. Since the volume of an average olive is much smaller than a quartarius, the smaller standard in applicable in both cases.” Since eating is defined by an olive’s size so drinking is by an olive’s size.
רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ שָׁרָה פִיתּוֹ בַיַּיִן וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְצָרַף כַּזַּיִת חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. וְהוּא דִשְׁרָייֵהּ בִּכְזַיִת יַיִן. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כּוֹס מָזוּג מִשׁוּם מִשְׁרָה לוֹקִין עָלָיו. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשׁוּם מִשְׁרָה. אֲבָל אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשׁוּם מִשְׁרָה לֹא בְדָא. כְּתִיב וְכָל־מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים. מִשְׁרַת חַרְצַנִּים מְנַיִין. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר מִשְׁרַת וְכָל־מִשְׁרַת. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַמִּשְׁרִיּוֹת לְמִשְׁרָה. מִשְׁרַת יַיִן בְּיַיִן מִצְטָֽרְפִין. מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים בָּעֲנָבִים מִצְטָֽרְפִין. מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים בְּיַיִן מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָֽרְפוּ. אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת יַיִן וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִשְׁרָה אֵינוֹ חַייָב. זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצִּירֵף חַייָב. אָכַל כְּזַיִת יַיִן וּכְזַיִת מִשְׁרָה אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצִּירֵף לֹא יְהֵא חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. “Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume3The bread plus the wine absorbed in it. of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup98One third wine mixed with two thirds water. one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not)99This word seems to be an error. It seems that R. Immi stated that if the nazir drank wine mixed with water when was he warned not to drink wine, he is whipped for drinking wine, but if he was warned not to drink anything soaked with the fruit of the vine, he is whipped for that. The next sentence then should read לֹא הִתְרוּ “did not warn” instead of הִתְרוּ “warned”. warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes100Numbers.6.3">Num. 6:3..” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted101Cf. Nazir 6:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.1.6">Note 44.. Mixed wine combines with pure wine102Half an olive’s volume pure wine and half an olive mixed wine result in an olive of forbidden drink for the nazir.. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty103The context shows that this sentence is interrogatory.. Separately104Drinking the two parts at different times., he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once105This is quite obvious; it is stated only as contrast to the preceding case, in which combining made things worse..