1)

WHEN IS ONE LIABLE FOR EACH ISUR? (Yerushalmi Perek 6 Halachah 1 Daf 24a)

îúðé' ùìùä îéðéï àñåøéï áðæéø äèåîàä åäúâìçú åäéåöà îï äâôï

(a)

(Mishnah): There are three categories of Isurim of a Nazir: Tum'ah, shaving, and [consuming] what comes from grapevines.

åëì äéåöà îï äâôï îöèøôéï æä òí æä åàéðå çééá òã ùéàëì îï äòðáéí ëæéú

(b)

All that comes from vines joins. One is not liable until he eats a k'Zayis (the volume of an olive) of grapes.

îùðä øàùåðä òã ùéùúä øáéòéú ééï

(c)

Mishnah Rishonah (the initial version of the Mishnah) said that one is liable only if he drinks a Revi'is (quarter Log) of wine;

øáé ò÷éáä àåîø àôéìå ùøä ôéúå áééï åéù áä ëãé ìöøó ëæéú çééá:

(d)

R. Akiva says, even if he soaked his bread in wine and there is enough to join to a k'Zayis, he is liable.

[ãó ëã òîåã á] âî' äèåîàä ãëúéá [áîãáø å å] ëì éîé äæéøå ìä' òì ðôù îú ìà éáà

(e)

(Gemara): Tum'ah [is forbidden], for it says "Kol Yemei Haziro la'Shem Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo";

úâìçú ãëúéá [ùí ä] ëì éîé ðãø ðæøå úòø ìà éòáø òì øàùå

(f)

Shaving [is forbidden], for it says "Kol Yemei Neder Nizro Ta'ar Lo Yavo Al Rosho";

äéåöà îï äâôï ãëúéá [ùí ã] ëì éîé ðæøå îëì àùø éòùä îâôï äééï åâåîø

(g)

What comes from vines [is forbidden], for it says "Kol Yemei Nizro mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin..."

úðé øá æëéé ÷åîé øáé éåçðï æéáç å÷éèø åðéñê áäòìí àçã çééá òì ëì àçú åàçú

(h)

(Rav Zakai, in front of R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If one slaughtered, burned, and poured libations [to idolatry] in one Helam, he is liable for each one. (The Torah explicitly forbade bowing, to obligate for each Avodah);

à"ì øáé éåçðï ááìééà òáøú áéãê úìúà ðäøéï åàúáãú åàéðå çééá àìà àçú

(i)

Rebuttal (R. Yochanan): Babylonian! You crossed three rivers [to come to Eretz Yisrael to learn], and you stumbled! He is liable only once.

1.

Note: Shabbos (7:1) learns from "v'Osah me'Achas me'Henah" that sometimes one is liable for Kol Achas v'Achas (a Chatas for each transgression), and sometimes for Henah (many transgressions) he is liable only once. We cite the Gemara's proof there that this cannot refer to idolatry.

òã ãìà éúáøéðä áéãéä éù ëàï àçú åàéï ëàï äðä

2.

Before [R. Yochanan] broke [R. Zakai's teaching], there is "Achas" (liability for each one), but there is no [way to expound] "Henah" (that he is liable only once for all of them);

îï ãúáøä áéãéä éù ëàï äðä åàéï ëàï àçú

3.

After he broke it, there is "Henah" (he is liable only once for all of them), but there is no "Achas" (liability for each one).

øáé áà áø îîì áòà ÷åîé øáé æòéøà åéäà çééá òì ëì àçú ëîä ãúéîà áùáú

(j)

Question (R. Ba bar Mamal, to R. Ze'ira): He should be liable for each one, like you say about Shabbos!

[ùîåú ë é] ìà úòùä ëì îìàëä ëìì [ùí ìä â] ìà úáòøå àù áëì îåùáåúéëí ôøè

1.

"Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah" is a Klal (general term). "Lo Seva'aru Esh b'Chol Moshvoseichem" is a Prat (specific term);

åäìà äáòøä áëìì äéä åéöà îï äëìì ììîã îä äáòøä îéåçãú îòùä éçéãéí åçééáéï òìéä áôðé òöîä àó ëì îòùä åîòùä ùéù áå ìçééá òìéå áôðé òöîå

i.

Burning was in the Klal, and it left (was taught by itself) to teach - just like burning is a lone act, and one is liable for it by itself, also every action (Melachah), we obligate for it by itself.

åëà [ùí ë ä] ìà úòáãí ëìì ìà úùúçåä ôøè åäìà äùúçåéä áëìì äéä åìîä éöàú îï äëìì ììîã ìåîø ìê îä äùúçåéä îéåçãú îòùä éçéãéí åçééáéï òìéä áôðé òöîä àó ëì îòùä åîòùä ùéù áä ìçééá òìéå áôðé òöîå

2.

Also here (idolatry) - "Lo Sa'avdem" is a Klal. "Lo Sishtachaveh" is a Prat. Bowing was in the Klal. Why did it leave? It is to teach that just like bowing is a lone act, and one is liable for it by itself, also every action (service of idolatry), we obligate for it by itself!

àîø ìê áùáú ëìì áî÷åí àçã åôøè áî÷åí àçø åáò"æ ëìì ùäåà áöã äôøè

(k)

Answer #1 (R. Ze'ira): Regarding Shabbos, the Klal is in one place, and the Prat is elsewhere. Regarding idolatry, the Klal is next to the Prat [so it is not called something that was in the Klal, and left, to teach about the Klal].

à"ì åäëúéá [ùí ìã éã] ìà úùúçåä ìàì àçø äøé ùëìì áî÷åí àçã åôøè áî÷åí àçø

1.

Question (R. Ba bar Mamal, to R. Ze'ira): It says "Lo Sishtachaveh l'El Acher" - the Klal ("Lo Sa'avdem") is in one place, and a Prat is elsewhere!

àîø ìéä îëéåï ùàéï àú ìîã îöéãå àôé' îî÷åí àçø àé àú ìîã

2.

Answer (R. Ze'ira): Since you do not learn from [the Prat] next to [the Klal], even [from a Prat] elsewhere, you do not learn.

çáøééà àîøé ìà ùðééà äéà áéï ùëìì áî÷åí àçã åôøè áî÷åí àçø áéï ùëìì åôøè áî÷åí àçã ëìì åôøè äåà

(l)

Answer #2 (Talmidim): It makes no difference whether the Klal is in one place and the Prat is elsewhere, or the Klal and Prat are in one place - it is a Klal u'Ferat (i.e. something that was in the Klal, and left);

áùáú ëìì åàçø ëê ôøè åáò"æ ôøè åàçø ëê ëìì

1.

Regarding Shabbos, it is a Klal and afterwards a Prat. Regarding idolatry, it is a Prat and afterwards a Klal (it is not called something that was in a Klal, and left).

øáé éåñé àåîø ìà ùðééà áéï ùëìì åàçø ëê ôøè áéï ùôøè åàçø ëê ëìì ëìì åôøè äåà

(m)

Answer #3 (R. Yosi): It makes no difference whether it is a Klal and afterwards a Prat, or a Prat and afterwards a Klal, or a Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal - it is a Klal u'Ferat (i.e. something that was in the Klal, and left);

áùáú ëìì áòáåãúä åôøè áòáåãúä åáò"æ ëìì áòáåãúä åôøè ìîìàëú äâáåä

1.

Regarding Shabbos, the Klal refers to its Melachos, and the Prat refers to its Melachos. Regarding idolatry, Klal refers to its Avodos, and the Prat refers to Avodos of Hash-m.

àîø øáé îðà äáòøä ùìà ìöåøê éöàú äùúçåéä ìöåøê éöàú ììîã òì òöîä ùàéðä îòùä

(n)

Answer #4 (R. Mana): [Regarding Shabbos] burning [is called something that was in the Klal, and left] because it was written without need (we already knew it from "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah". Regarding idolatry,) bowing needed to be written to teach about itself, for it is not an action (it is a Chidush that one is liable for it).

[ãó ëä òîåã à] åúééà ëäãà ãúðé çæ÷éä [ùîåú ëá éè] æåáç ìàìäéí éçøí éöàú æáéçä ììîã òì äëì äùúçåéä ììîã òì òöîä ùàéðä îòùä

1.

Support: This is like Chizkiyah taught "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yacharam" - Shechitah left [the Klal] to teach about the Klal (any way we serve Hash-m in the Mikdash, one is liable for doing so to idolatry, even if the idolatry is not normally served in this way). Bowing left the Klal to teach about itself, for it is not an action.

àå çìó

(o)

Question: Perhaps we should say oppositely (Shechitah teaches about itself, and bowing teaches about the Klal)!

ãáø ùäåà îòùä îìîã ãáø ùàéðå îòùä àéðå îìîã

(p)

Answer #1: Something that is an action teaches. Something that is not an action does not teach.

à"ø éøîéä äáòøä ìöåøê éöàú ììîã òì áúé ãéðéï ùìà éäå éåùáéï áùáú

(q)

Objection (R. Yirmeyah): Burning was taught separately for a need, to teach about Beis Din, that they should not sit (judge capital cases) on Shabbos! (It should not teach about the Klal.)

îä èòîà ðàîø ëàï [ùîåú ìä â] áëì îåùáåúéëí åðàîø ìäìï [áîãáø ìä ëè] åäéå àìä ìëí ìçå÷ú îùôè ìãåøåúéëí áëì îåùáåúéëí îä îåùáåú ùðàîø ìäìï áúé ãéðéï àó îåùáåú ùðàîø ëàï ááúé ãéðéï äëúåá îãáø

1.

What is the source? It says here "b'Chol Moshvoseichem", and it says there "v'Hayu Eleh Lachem l'Chukas Mishpat l'Doroseichem b'Chol Moshvoseichem." Just like Moshvoseichem there refers to Beis Din, also Moshvoseichem here refers to Beis Din.

àîø ø' ùîåàì áø àáãåîà îëéåï ãúéîø ìöåøê éöàú ëîé ùéöàú ùìà ìöåøê åãáø ùéöà ùìà ìöåøê îìîã

(r)

Answer #2 (R. Shmuel bar Avduma): Even if you will say that it left for a need, it is like something that left not for a need (since it should have been written about Stam Melachah, and not specifically about burning), and something written without a need teaches (KEHILAS YAKOV Nazir 18/19).

åëà çøöðéï åæâéï áëìì äéå åéöàå îï äëìì åéçì÷å åìà éöèøôå

(s)

Question: And here, grape pits and peels were in the Klal ("mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin"), and they left the Klal. They should divide (one is liable for each by itself) and not join!

àìà úîï ëìì áî÷åí àçã åôøè áî÷åí àçø åëà ëìì åôøè áî÷åí àçã

1.

Answer: There (Shabbos), the Klal is in one place, and the Prat is elsewhere. Here (Nazir), the Klal and Prat are in one place. (This is like R. Ze'ira answered above.)

åäà çáøééà àîøé ìà ùðééà áéï ëìì áî÷åí àçã åôøè áî÷åí àçø áéï ùëìì åôøè áî÷åí àçã ëìì åôøè äåà

(t)

Question: Talmidim said that it makes no difference whether the Klal is in one place and the Prat is elsewhere, or the Klal and Prat are in one place - it is a Klal u'Ferat (i.e. something that was in the Klal, and left)!

àìà úîï ëìì åàç"ë ôøè åëà ôøè åàç"ë ëìì

1.

Answer: There, it is a Klal and afterwards a Prat. Here, it is a Prat ("mi'Yayin umi'Shechar Yazir...") and afterwards a Klal ("mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh..." We do not judge this like something that was in a Klal, and left, even though there are also Pratim after the Klal - OHR YAKOV.)

åäà øáé éåñé àîø ìà ùðééä áéï ëìì åàçø ëê ôøè áéï ôøè åàçø ëê ëìì ëìì åôøè äåà

(u)

Question: R. Yosi said that it makes no difference whether it is a Klal and afterwards a Prat, or a Prat and afterwards a Klal - it is a Klal u'Ferat!

úîï ùìà ìöåøê éöàå

(v)

Answer #1: There (Shabbos, the Prat) left [the Klal] without need. (Here, it left for a need.)

åìîä éöàå

1.

Question: [Here,] why did it leave?

ìîòè äòìéí åäìåìáéí

2.

Answer: It is to exclude leaves and vine sprigs.

åäà úðé îùåí øáé àìéòæø [ùí å ã] îëì àùø éòùä îâôï äééï îçøöðéí åòã æâ ìà éàëì àó äòìéí åäìåìáéí áîùîò

3.

Objection: It was taught in the name of R. Eliezer ""mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag Lo Yochal" - even leaves and sprigs are implied!

úîï ìöåøê ðëììå áøí äëà ùìà ìöåøê ðëììå åìîä ìöéøåôéï

(w)

Answer #2: There, there was a need for the Klal (to obligate for all Melachos). Here, there was no need for the Klal (all the Pratim were taught - 'Yayin, Shechar, Chometz, Chartzanim and Zag). Why [was a Klal given]? To teach that they join.

àæäøä ìàåëì ðáéìåú îðééï [ãáøéí éã ëà] ìà úàëìå ëì ðáéìä

(x)

What is the Lav against eating Neveilos? "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah."

òã ëãåï ðáéìä èøéôä îðééï

(y)

Question: This is for Neveilah. What is the source for Tereifah?

àîø øáé éåçðï ðáéìä åëì ðáéìä ìøáåú äèøéôä

(z)

Answer (R. Yochanan): [It could have said just] Neveilah. "V'Chol Neveilah" includes Tereifah.