(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nazir 35



(a) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in our Mishnah uses the Pasuk "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag" to teach us that one is only Chayav if one eats at least two grape-pits and one skin. Initially, we resolve the problem of requiring the second 'P'rat' (from which the Rabbanan learn the 'P'rat u'Chelal u'Ferat') - by establishing him like Rebbi Elazar (who argues with the Rabbanan, learning a 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut').

(b) We even manage to reconcile him with the Rabbanan however - by learning his D'rashah from the words themselves (as we shall now see), and the second P'rat from the fact that the Torah places it after the K'lal (and not before it together with the first P'rat).

(c) We reject the suggestion that the Torah only writes it to teach us the 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat' - because then, it ought to have written either "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zagim', or 'me'Chartzan ve'Ad Zag', and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah learns his D'rashah - from the switch from plural to singular.

(a) We search for Rebbi Elazar's (who in our Sugya, learns 'Ribuyi u'Mi'uti') source for the principle of 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal', with which we know he agrees on principle - because on the numerous occasions on that it is quoted, he never argues (Tosfos).

(b) Rebbi Avahu cites the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Chamor O Shor O Seh" (K'lal), "ve'Chol Beheimah" (P'rat) "Lishmor" (K'lal). We learn from that 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat' - that only what can be moved and what has intrinsic value is included in the Dinim of Shomrim (to preclude land and documents respectively).

(c) The Rabbanan there, consider that to be a 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal'. The basis of their Machlokes is whether "ve'Chi" implies a 'K'lal' (Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Elazar).

(d) Rebbi Elazar does not Darshen that too, as a 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut' - because he only adopts that opinion by a 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal', but not by a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat'.

(a) Rava cites the Pasuk "ve'Im Min ha'Tzon min ha'Kevasim O min ha'Izim (le'Olah, Zachar Tamim Yakrivenu)" as Rebbi Elazar's source for 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat'. He Darshens it as follows "ve'Im min" (P'rat) "ha'Tzon" (K'lal) "Kevasim ve'Izim" (P'rat).

(b) He precludes either an animal that raped or that was (raped by a human), or a lamb that is more than a year old from being eligible to be brought as a Korban (Tosfos).

(c) Rav Yehudah from Diskarta asked Rava why Rebbi Elazar could not learn it from "min (P'rat) ha'Beheimah (K'lal) Bakar va'Tzon (P'rat)". (which precedes the previous Pasuk in Vayikra). He repudiates Rava's answer (that Beheimah includes Chayah) - because that is only as far as the word "Beheimah" (the K'lal) is concerned, but why should we not preclude it from "Bakar va'Tzon" (the P'rat)?

(d) We now learn from the 'P'rat, u'Ch'lal, u'F'rat' - that a Chayah is not eligible to be brought as a Korban either.




(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasata ha'Kesef be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafsh'cha (Kl'al) ba'Bakar ba'Tzon u'va'Yayin u'va'Sheichar (P'rat) u've'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nefshecha (K'lal)" - that Ma'aser-Sheini money that was brought to Yerushalayim - may only be used to purchase something that grows from the ground and which is a fruit which produces fruit.

(b) We are trying to prove from here - that this Midah of 'k'Ein ha'P'rat' (by 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal') exists.

(c) This only goes according to the Rabbanan, and not according to Rebbi Elazar - who, as we saw earlier, Darshens 'Ribuy, Mi'ut ve'Ribuy', and not 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal.

(a) There is a difference between a 'Klal u'F'rat' and a 'Klal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' on the one hand, and a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal' and a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat' on the other (which depends on what the would be by a 'Klal u'F'rat', and by a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal', respectively). In the case of ...
1. ... a 'Klal u'F'rat' - the P'rat explains the K'lal (and is exclusive).
2. ... a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal' - the K'lal comes to include everything.
(b) Notwithstanding the similarity between a 'Klal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' and a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat', the difference between them is - that in the case of the former, we will even include P'ratim which are only similar to the K'lal in one point, whereas in the latter, they must be similar in two points.

(c) The reason for this is - because it is logical that two K'lalim are more inclusive than one.

(a) Our Sugya holds that the last K'lal and the last P'rat (respectively) arre the predominant ones. If we were to follow the opinion of those who hold that the first K'lal and the first P'rat (respectively) are the predominant ones - then the Din would be the reverse: by a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat' we would even include P'ratim which are only similar to the K'lal in one point, whereas in the case of a 'Klal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal', they must be similar in two points.

(b) This explanation also answers why it is that the Rabbanan in Bava Metzi'a (regarding the Pasuk ve'Chi Yitein ... Beheimh O Keilim), include from the 'K'lal u'P'rat 'u'Ch'lal' only things that are similar to the P'rat in two points (as we discussed earlier); and Rebbi Elazar holds likewise even though he Darshens the Pasuk with a 'P'rat, u'Ch'lal - because the Rabbanan go after the first K'lal, whereas Rebbi Elazar follows the second P'rat (in which case, it is like a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal', and the first K'lal includes only what is like the P'rat in two points) Tosfos.

(c) Alterntively, we might explain this case independently, irrespective of the two opinions currently under discussion - on the grounds that the two points 'movables' and 'of intrinsic value' are of equal significance. Consequently, applying the principle 'Hei Minayhu Mafkas' (which of them will you preclude?), even those who require only one similar point to the P'rat, will require both points here.

(a) The basic Halachah regarding ...
1. ... a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal' is - that the K'lal includes everything.
2. ... a 'Mi'utve'Ribuy' is - that the Ribuy includes everything, too.
(b) The difference between them is - that in the latter case, everything is not literal. For example, in our case of Nazir, the Ribuy only comes to include the thin branches, but not the leaves.

(c) We reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar, who learned above the 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut', yet he included even the leaves too - by qualifying those leaves as being particularly soft ones, whilst we are speaking about the fully-grown (hard) ones.

(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "Mishras" - that (unlike all other Isurim in the Torah) by the Isurim of Nazir, Heter combines with Isur to make up the Shiur for Malkos.

(b) Practically speaking - this means that if a Nazir dipped a piece of bread in wine (which together, totaled a k'Zayis), he would receive Malkos (like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah).

(c) We learn this from the implication of "Mishras" alone - and not because "ve'*Chol* Mishras" comes to include (as is evident from the continuation of the Sugya (Tosfos).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,