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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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);

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

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.

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);

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).

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

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

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.

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!

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].

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!

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.

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);

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).

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);

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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.)

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.

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).

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!

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.)

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)!

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.)

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!

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

Question: [Here,] why did it leave?

Answer: It is to exclude leaves and vine sprigs.

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!

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.

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

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

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