민수기 6:3의 미드라쉬

(Bamidbar 6:3) "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself": (The intent is) to equate wine of mitzvah with non-mitzvah (i.e., optional) wine, as being forbidden to a Nazirite (viz. Ibid. 4). For (without this verse) it would follow that since a mourner is forbidden to drink wine (viz. Devarim 26:14) and a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine, then since I have learned about a mourner that wine of mitzvah (i.e., second-tithe wine) was not equated with optional wine, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted), also, in the instance of a Nazirite, wine of mitzvah is not to be equated with optional wine, (i.e., the second, being forbidden, the first must be permitted, [wherefore the verse is needed to tell us that mitzvah wine, too, is forbidden to a Nazirite]). — No, this may be so in the instance of a mourner, where mitzvah eating was not equated with optional eating, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted,) wherefore mitzvah wine was not equated with optional wine. But in the instance of the Nazirite, we would say that just as mitzvah eating was equated with optional eating, so, mitzvah wine should be equated with optional wine, (and both should be forbidden. Why, then, is the verse needed to tell us this?). And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that mitzvah wine is forbidden to a Nazirite,) viz.: If in the instance of an officiating (Cohein in the Temple), where the rind was not equated with the fruit, nor eating with drinking, nor the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, (only the last being forbidden), mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, (both being forbidden, viz. [Vayikra 10:9]), then in the instance of the Nazirite, where the rind was equated with the fruit (both being forbidden), and eating with drinking, and the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, how much more so, should mitzvah wine be equated with optional wine (and be forbidden!) Why, then, is the verse needed? — No, (i.e., it is needed.) This (i.e., what you have said), may be so with the officiating (Cohein), whose punishment (for drinking) is death, wherefore mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, whereas in the instance of the Nazirite, whose punishment (for drinking) is not death, we would say that mitzvah wine was not to be equated with optional wine, (and should be permitted.) It must, therefore, be written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself," to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? Because it is written (Devarim 14:23) "and you shall eat before the L-rd your G-d … the (second-) tithe of your grain and wine, etc.", I might think that even Nazirites are included. And how would I satisfy "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? With other wines, excluding mitzvah wines. Or even with mitzvah wines. And how would I satisfy "and you shall eat, etc."? With other men, aside from Nazirites. Or even with Nazirites. It is, therefore, written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself" — to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden.) Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is it written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? For it would follow: Since he (a Nazirite) is forbidden to defile himself (for the dead) and he is forbidden (to drink) wine, then if I learn that (for a Nazirite) a meth-mitzvah [(one who, lacking kin, it is a mitzvah for everyone to bury)] is not equated with a non-meth-mitzvah, then mitzvah wine, likewise, should not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden.) And, further, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If (dead-body) tumah, which voids (one's elapsed period of Nazaritism) does not equate a meth-mitzvah with a non meth-mitzvah, (it being a mitzvah for a Nazirite to render himself tamei for the first, but forbidden to do so for the second), how much more so should mitzvah wine, which does not void (his lapsed Naziritism) not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden)! It must, therefore, be written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself" to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). "From yayin (wine) and shechar he shall separate himself": Now yayin is shechar, and shechar is yayin! — But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues (i.e., synonymously). Similarly: Shechitah (slaughtering) is zevichah, and zevichah is shechitah. Kemitzah (taking the fistful) is haramah, and haramah is kemitzah. Amuka (lowland) is shefelah, and shefelah is amukah. Oth (a sign) is mofeth, and mofeth is oth — but the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. Here, too — "From yayin and shechar he shall separate himself": Now yayin is shechar and shechar is yayin. But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. R. Elazar Hakappar says: "yayin" is diluted; shechar is undiluted. You say this, but perhaps the reverse is the case! — From(Bamidbar 28:7) "And its libation a fourth of a hin for the one lamb. On the holy place (i.e., the altar) shall it be poured (connoting "undiluted"), a pouring of shechar to the L-rd," you must deduce that "yayin" is diluted, and "shechar," undiluted. "From wine and strong drink yazir": "nezirah" in all places connotes separation, viz. (Vayikra 22:2) "and they shall separate ("veyinazru") from the holy things of the children of Israel," and (Ibid. 25:5) "The after-growth of your harvest you shall not reap (in the sabbatical year), and the guarded ("nezirecha," lit., "separated") grapes of your vine you shall not gather," and (Hoshea 9:10)) "And they came to Baal-peor and 'separated themselves' ('vayinazru') to shame," and (Zechariah 7:3) "Shall I weep in the fifth month (Tisha B'av), separating myself ("hinazer"), etc." We find, then, that in all places "nezirah" connotes separation. "From wine and shechar he shall separate himself": I might think, (even) from selling wine or healing (himself with it); it is, therefore, written "he shall not drink," but he is permitted to sell it or to heal himself with it. "Vinegar of wine and vinegar of shechar he shall not drink": We are hereby taught that vinegar is equated with wine. For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since an officiating Cohein may not drink wine, then if I have learned that in his case vinegar is not equated with wine, then for a Nazirite, too, vinegar should not be equated with wine. And, furthermore, this should follow a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) an officiating Cohein, whose punishment (for drinking wine) is death, vinegar is not equated with wine, then (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose punishment is not death, how much more so should vinegar not be equated with wine! (The verse then is needed) to tell us that vinegar is equated with wine. And just as mitzvah wine is equated with optional wine, so, mitzvah vinegar (i.e., second-tithe vinegar) is equated with optional vinegar. What is the intent of "and any steeping of grapes he shall not eat"? We are hereby taught that if he steeped grapes in water, and the taste (of the grapes) was transmitted to the water, it is forbidden. And this serves as a paradigm for everything forbidden by the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re wine) is not for all time, (but only for the period of his Naziritism), and whose prohibition does not extend to derivation of benefit (e.g., selling and healing), and whose prohibition is subject to release (by absolution of his Naziritism), the taste (of the forbidden substance) was regarded as the substance itself, then the other prohibitions in the Torah, whose prohibitions are for all time, and whose prohibition extends to derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is not subject to release — how much more so should the taste (of the forbidden substance) be regarded as the substance itself! "and grapes": Why is this written? It follows (logically) even without being stated, viz.: If he is liable for what issues from the fruit (i.e., wine), should he not be liable for the fruit itself! Rather, what is the intent of "wet" grapes"? To include (as forbidden) half-ripe grapes. You say "to include half-ripe grapes. But perhaps its intent is to exclude dry grapes? (This cannot be) for "and dry" includes dry grapes. What, then, is the intent of "wet"? For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: He is liable for wine and he is liable for grapes. Just as wine is a finished fruit (i.e., product), so, grapes must be a finished product (and not half-ripe). It is, therefore, written "wet" to include half-ripe grapes (as forbidden). Issi b. Yehudah says: What is the intent of "grapes wet and dry"? To impose liability for each in itself (i.e., eating "wet" and "dry" grapes together is regarded as two separate transgressions though one kind of fruit is eaten). (And this serves as a paradigm for all prohibitions in the Torah.) Let it be written "and dry grapes he shall not eat" (i.e., "wet" is understood from "grapes itself," and only "dry" need be written.) If it were stated thus, all dried fruits would be understood (to be forbidden). "wet" and "dry" (in this context) implies what issues from the vine wet and then dried up.