ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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).
(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
2. ... a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal' - the K'lal comes to include everything.
(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.
(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.
2. ... a 'Mi'utve'Ribuy' is - that the Ribuy includes everything, too.
(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).