Nazir

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: What can his master compel him [to disregard]? [The vow of] Naziriteship, but not [other] vows, or [vows involving] 'Arakin. Why this difference in the case of the nazirite-vow? — The Allmerciful has said, To bind his soul with a bond,  showing that only those who are their own masters  are referred to, and excluding slaves, who are not their own masters. But if this is the reason, the same should be true of [other] vows?  — R. Shesheth replied: We suppose here  that a cluster of grapes lay before [the slave].  In the case of vows, where if this [cluster] becomes prohibited to him, others will not become prohibited, [his master] cannot compel him [to eat this one]. But in the case of a nazirite-vow, if this one becomes forbidden,  all others become forbidden; and that is why he can compel him [to eat it]. But do not [ordinary] vows  include the possibility that there is available Only the one cluster of grapes in question, so that if he does not eat it he will grow weak  [and yet the vow takes effect]? — Raba therefore said: We suppose that a pressed grape lay before him.  In the case of vows, he is prohibited from eating that one only, and so [his master] cannot compel him [to break his vow]. But in the case of the nazirite-vow where he is also prohibited from eating others, he can compel him [to break his vow]. But do not [ordinary] vows include the possibility that there is available only the one pressed grape in question, so that if he does not eat it he will grow weak [and yet the vow takes effect]? Abaye therefore replied: [The Baraitha really means] what is his master obliged to compel him [to disregard]? [The vow of] naziriteship.  but he does not [even] have to compel him [to disregard ordinary] vows or oaths.  This is because the verse says [If any one swear] to do evil or to do good.  Just as doing good is a voluntary undertaking, so must the doing of evil be a voluntary undertaking, the doing of evil to others being thereby excluded, since he has not the right [to harm others]. MISHNAH. SHOULD [THE SLAVE] FLEE FROM [HIS MASTER'S] PRESENCE,  R. MEIR SAID THAT HE MUST NOT DRINK WINE, BUT R. JOSE SAID THAT HE MAY. GEMARA. Is it possible that R. Meir and R. Jose] differ in regard to the following dictum of Samuel? For Samuel has said: Should a man renounce ownership of his slave, he becomes free, no deed of emancipation being required. Does R. Meir agree with Samuel  and R. Jose differ from him? — No; both hold this opinion of Samuel.  But the one who says he should drink considers that since he is ultimately to return to his master, he ought to drink in order not to grow emaciated. The other, who says that he should not drink considers that he should feel the pangs of deprivation in order that he should return [to his master].