Elisha Yagudayev asks:

Hi. Im having trouble fully understanding this sugya so sorry for the many questions but I'm hoping to get a bit more clarity:

1)Why does the Gemara take that just because R' Elazar learns "mechartzanim vead zag" like R' Elazar ben Azariyah, that he must go with miyut ribuy and noy prat klal prat like the first opinion. Just before, we established that even if you hold like R' Elazar ben Azariyah, still you could use it as a prat since it is written after the klal (and if it was just for his teaching, it would have been written with the other pratim in the beginning). So R' Elazar SHOULD learn prat klal prat for if not, why was "mechartzanim vead zag" written last?

2) I am having trouble understanding what is learned out from Rava's Prat klal prat. Do you mind explaining Tosfos's first pshat? Also it seems that he is saying that the second prat of "min hakesavim oh min haizim" is not just there to include the things simillar to the first prat "min" but to define what the category of the first prat is, as it is not evident for just the word "min". Is this correct?

3) Regarding tosfos's second pshat, he seems to be saying that the prat excludes two categories: animals that are over a year old and animals that are not tamim. Why does he say that in the end, due to the klal, we include animals that are over 2. I thought that the halacha by prat klal prat is that we go by the prat, so why are we now limiting the prat to only the tamim animals category?

4) Why do we even need the prat klal prat to teach that the animal cannot have a mum if the pasuk says it straight out "tamim yakrivenu". There is no need for that to be learned from "ke'ein haprat"?

5) Finally, on 35b, it says that by a prat klal prat, it must be similar to the prat in to ways to be included. This seems to contradict the earlier gemara which said that Boser(immature grapes) are included because they fall under the category of "pri" and wormy grapes are included as they are "psolet pri" Here,they are only similar in ONE way to the prat, yet they are included!

Once again, I apologize for the long list of questions. Thank you for taking the time to go through them.

Kol tov.

Elisha Yagudayev

Elisha Yagudayev, flushing, united states

The Kollel replies:


a) It seems to me that the Gemara on 34b already told us that Rebbi Elazar learns Ribuy and Mi'ut since he includes the leaves and strings (Lulavim) of the vine in the prohibition for the Nazir. On 34b we never find that Rebbi Elazar expounds Klal u'Prat. Therefore, when the Gemara wants to say (at the beginning of 35a) that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah expounds Mi'ut v'Ribuy, in the first opinion, it says that this is consistent with Rebbi Elazar because this is how we know Rebbi Elazar's opinion at this stage of the Gemara.

b) The Gemara (middle of 35a) asks: We know that Rebbi Elazar expounds Mi'ut v'Ribuy, but from where do we know that Rebbi Elazar also expounds Klal u'Frat? The Gemara proceeds to cite verses which might be Rebbi Elazar's source for Klal u'Prat. Your question, Elisha, is why do we not learn that there is such a form of Derashah of Klal u'Prat from the fact that "Mechartzanim v'Ad Zag" comes at the end of the verse and not at the beginning, in the same way that the Gemara just said, in the second opinion, that according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azariyah one learns a Din through Klal u'Prat from the fact that "Mechartzanim v'Ad Zag" is stated at the end of the verse, not at the beginning?

c) It seems to me that the answer to this question is that if one already knows that there is such a Derashah in the category of Klal u'Prat, then one can learn a Din, through Klal u'Prat, from the fact that "Mechartzanim v'Ad Zag" is stated at the end of the verse. However, if one does not yet know that there is such a Derashah in the Torah that is called Klal u'Prat, then the fact that "Mechartzanim v'Ad Zag" is stated at the end of the verse is not sufficient to be the source for the fact that there is a Din of Klal u'Prat everywhere in the Torah.

2. Elisha, I assume that when you mention Tosfos' first Pshat, you are referring to the "v'Yesh Mefarshim" in Tosfos 35a, DH Rava. In fact, this Pshat is similar to the Pshat of Rashi, or to be more accurate, the Mefaresh.

The word "Min" can potentially teach us that any animal with which a transgression was committed is forbidden as a Korban. This is what Tosfos means when he writes, "and there is a 'Mashma' that this excludes an ox which plowed together with a donkey, or a cow which was muzzled before it threshed the crops."

The second Prat now teaches that not every transgression renders an animal unfit for a Korban. Only if a transgression was done on the actual body of the animal is it disqualified. This means that only "Rove'a" and "Nirva" -- where an Aveirah of "Bi'ah" was committed with the body -- are disqualified. Plowing with a cow and donkey together or muzzling a cow is certainly a transgression, but not a transgression performed with the animal's body.

So you are correct in saying that the second Prat qualifies what we learn from the first Prat. If we only had the first Prat we would reject as a Korban any animal with which a transgression was committed, but the second Prat teaches that only when a transgression was commited with the actual body of the animal is the animal rejected as a Korban.


a) Before we continue, it is worth looking at the treatise, "Concise Rules (Kitzur Klalim) of the 13 Midos by which the Torah is expounded," which is printed at the end of Maseches Berachos in the standard editions of Shas. (It is printed shortly after the Introduction to the Talmud by Rav Shmuel ha'Nagid.) In the section about the 6th Midah, "Klal u'Prat u'Klal," he cites our Gemara (Nazir 35a) which is similar to Klal u'Prat u'Klal, but different because it is Prat u'Klal u'Prat. The "Kitzur Klalim" asks why Rebbi Yishmael did not list "Prat u'Klal u'Prat" together with "Klal u'Prat u'Klal" among his list of 13 Midos (which we recite every morning at the beginning of Tefilah)? He writes that the clearest answer to this question is that Rebbi Yishmael does not in fact agree with this new variation of the Midah. We learn from this that our Sugya in Nazir is slightly different from other Sugyos in Shas.

b) With the help of the above explanation, we may now be able to understand Tosfos' second Pshat. Right at the end, Tosfos writes "v'Narbi mi'ha'Klal" -- "we can include through the Klal" even two-year-olds. As you point out, Elisha, there is something unusual here: we use the Klal, and it does not all depend on the Prat. This is different to the usual rules we are used to. In fact, if we look again at the "Kitzur Klalim" that we saw above, this time on what he writes about the 4th Midah of "Klal u'Prat," we see that he asks the obvious question: Since the rule is that we only learn from the Prat and not from the Klal at all, why did the Torah write the Klal? The "Kitzur Klalim" gives an answer which I will not go into at the moment. However, what I now want to suggest is that our Sugya maintains that there is something we can learn from the Klal, and this may represent a difference between our Sugya and other Sugyos.

c) Therefore, our Sugya learns that there is something that we can learn from the Klal -- namely, that two-year-olds are acceptable. What we learn from the Prat is that animals which are not Tamim are not acceptable.

4. This question is asked by the Keren Orah here, and by other Acharonim.

I would like to suggest an answer based on an idea that I gleaned from the Shitah Mekubetzes here. There is a difference between the words of the Shitah Mekubetzes and the words of Tosfos. The Shitah Mekubetzes writes "li'Me'utei Tereifah." It is not an animal with a Mum which is being excluded, but rather it is a Tereifah animal (for example, an animal with a hole in its lung, which would not be noticed by onlookers and would not be considered a blemish if one knew only the Din that an animal with a recognizable Mum is disqualified) that is excluded.

I propose that when Tosfos uses the word "Mum" he really is referring to a Tereifah. A Tereifah is a kind of "super blemish" because a Tereifah is forbidden for any Jew to eat, while an animal with a Mum is forbidden only to sacrifice on the Mizbe'ach, whereas an ordinary citizen anywhere in the world may eat it. So when Tosfos writes "Mum" he does not mean a standard blemish because that is stated explicity in the Torah as being forbidden. Instead, Tosfos means a Tereifah. There is no explicit verse which states that a Tereifah is disqualified as a Korban. It requires the Gemara in Temurah (29a) to derive from the verse (Vayikra 1:2) "from the cattle" that a Tereifah is invalid as a Korban. What our Tosfos here is really doing is deriving from the "k'Ein ha'Prat' that a Tereifah is Pasul for a Korban.

5. It seems from Tosfos in Eruvin (28a, DH Ahani) that Boser and wormy grapes are similar to the Prat in two ways: (1) they are "Pri mi'Pri" -- they grow from fruit, and (2) they are "Gidulei Karka" -- they grow in the ground.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Elisha Yagudayev asks:

First off, I want to express my deepest thanks to the Rav for taking time to answer my questions. I always look forward to receiving that email and learning the responses.

Regarding this last answer, if the Rav is refffering to that first part in Tosfot in eiruvin, I don't see how that is connected to boser and wormy grapes. Those two characteristics that he mentioned are referring to what one can buy with maaser sheni money and he explains (if I understood correctly) that they are counted by our gemara(nazir) as one characteristic collectively. (I believe he makes a similar point by 35b d"h mikdi trei.) I don't see how we know to apply that to the grapes. Further, our gemara makes it clear that boser are included in "pri" and wormy grapes in "psolet pri". Therefore there is only one characteristic they share with the prat unlike the conclusion which says it must be two.

The Kollel replies:

Elisha, you are right about the Tosfos in Eruvin! I will have to try a different answer!

1) I am going to suggest, bs'd, an answer based on Tosfos to 35b (DH Michdei Trei), which you also cited. Tosfos writes in the name of the Rif that the Sugya on 35b follows the opinion that the last Klal is the main one. Tosfos writes that according to the opinion that the first Klal is the main one -- and, similarly, that the first Prat is the main one -- it will work the opposite way around.

2) What this means is: When we discuss Prat u'Klal u'Prat, we consider the first Prat to be the dominant one. Therefore, when a Prat u'Klal exists we say "Na'aseh Prat Mosif Al ha'Klal, and everything is included," as the Gemara on 35b states. Since everything has been included, what does the final Prat achieve? What it achieves is that anything that is not similar to the Prat in any way at all is excluded. (See Bi'urei Tosfos in the Mesivta edition.)

3) This is another way of saying that with a Prat u'Klal u'Prat, it is sufficent if it is similar to the Prat in only one way. This is not like the Gemara on 35b which states that it must be similar to the Prat in two ways. However, we now can say that the Sugya on 34b follows the opinion that the first Prat is the main one. Therefore, it only needs to be similar to the Prat in one way to be included. The Sugya on 35b follows the opinion that the last Prat is the main one, so it has to be similar to the Prat in two ways to be included.

4) I found, bs'd, in Sefer Kerisus (a book by one of the major Rishonim, the Rash of Kinon), basically the same answer that I gave above, but one sees slightly more clearly that he is resolving the contradicition between 34b and 35b.

The Sefer Kerisus deals a lot with the Midos by which the Torah is expounded, so it is not surprising that he cites our Sugya. This is in "Batei Midos, Bayis 7," page 71 (in the 1983 edition of Sefer Kerisus published by Rav Simcha Bunim Sofer). First, he cites the Sugya on 34b of Prat u'Klal u'Prat. Then, he cites 35b, that it must be similar to the Prat in two ways in order to be included. However, the Sefer Kerisus adds that the Sugya on 35b follows the opinion that the last Klal is the main one, while according to the opinion that the first Klal is the main one it is the opposite way around. The Sefer Kerisus writes that according to the opinion that the main one is the first Klal, one includes more with two Pratim and one Klal than one includes with two Klalim and 1 Prat.

This is a confirmation from the Rishonim of what I wrote above, that the Sugya on 34b -- which includes things similar to the Prat in one way -- follows the opinon that the first Prat is the chief one, while the Sugya on 35b follows the opinion that the last Prat is the chief one.

Yasher Koach Gadol!

Dovid Bloom