מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹמֶרֶת עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתֶּה רְבִיעִית יַיִן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ שָׁרָה פִּיתּוֹ בְּיַיִן, וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְצָרֵף כַּזַּיִת – חַיָּיב. וְחַיָּיב עַל הַיַּיִן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְעַל הָעֲנָבִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְעַל הַחַרְצַנִּים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, וְעַל הַזַּגִּים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל שְׁנֵי חַרְצַנִּים וְזַג.

An initial version of the mishna says that a nazirite is liable to receive lashes only if he drinks a quarter - log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he soaked his bread in wine and the two together contain enough to combine to the amount of an olive-bulk, he is liable. And furthermore, a nazirite is liable to receive lashes for consuming wine by itself, and for grapes by themselves, and for ḥartzannim by themselves, and for zaggim by themselves, as each of these is forbidden separately by the Torah. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk that includes at least two ḥartzannim and one zag , in accordance with the verse “From ḥartzannim to zag ” (Numbers 6:4), where the first term is in the plural and the second in the singular.

אֵלּוּ הֵן חַרְצַנִּים וְאֵלּוּ הֵן זַגִּים? הַחַרְצַנִּים – אֵלּוּ הַחִיצוֹנִים, הַזַּגִּים – אֵלּוּ הַפְּנִימִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שֶׁלֹּא תִּטְעֶה, כְּזוֹג שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה; הַחִיצוֹן זוֹג, וְהַפְּנִימִי עִינְבָּל.

The mishna discusses the meaning of these terms: Which parts are ḥartzannim and which are zaggim ? The ḥartzannim are the outside parts, the skin of the grape, while the zaggim are the inner parts, the seeds. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: The opposite is the case and this is the mnemonic so that you should not err: It is like a bell [ zog ] worn by an animal, in which the outer part, which corresponds to the skin of a grape, is called zog , and the inner portion of the bell, the clapper, which corresponds to the seeds in a grape, is called inbal .

גמ׳ ״שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין אֲסוּרִין בְּנָזִיר הַטּוּמְאָה״ כו'. הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַגֶּפֶן – אִין, גֶּפֶן עַצְמוֹ – לָא. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עָלִין וְלוּלָבִין בְּמַשְׁמַע.

The mishna taught that three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: Contracting ritual impurity, shaving, and consuming products of the vine. The Gemara infers: That which emerges from the vine, yes, it is included in the prohibition; however, any part of the vine itself, other than its fruit, no, this is not forbidden. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Even the leaves and tendrils of the vine are included in the prohibitions of naziriteship.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לָהּ אַסֵּיפָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִן הָעֲנָבִים כַּזַּיִת. מִן הָעֲנָבִים – אִין, מֵהַגֶּפֶן עַצְמוֹ – לָא. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עָלִין וְלוּלָבִין בְּמַשְׁמַע.

Some say this statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: He is liable to receive lashes only if he eats an olive-bulk of the grapes. The Gemara infers: If he eats from the grapes, yes, he is liable, but if he eats from the vine itself, no, he is not liable. If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Even the leaves and tendrils are included in the prohibition.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי, רַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דָּרֵישׁ רִבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי: ״מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר״ – מִיעֵט. ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן״ – רִיבָּה.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis disagree; what is the basis of their dispute? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar interprets the verses employing the hermeneutical principle of amplifications and restrictions, while the Rabbis interpret them employing the hermeneutical principle of generalizations and details. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Elazar interprets the verses employing the principle of amplifications and restrictions, as the phrase: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3), restricts the prohibition to wine and strong drink, and the subsequent phrase: “Anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4), amplifies the prohibition.

מִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל. מַאי רִיבָּה – רִיבָּה כָּל מִילֵּי, מַאי מִיעֵט – מִיעֵט שְׁבִישְׁתָּא.

The Gemara elaborates: In this manner, the Torah restricts and amplifies, which, according to the principles of exegesis, amplifies and includes virtually all substances. What does it amplify and include? It amplifies and includes all matters and substances that come from the vine. What does it restrict? After all, the phrase “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” must be excluding something. According to this interpretation, the verse restricts only one part of a vine, the branches. A nazirite who eats the branches of the vine has not committed a transgression.

וְרַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי: ״מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר״ – פְּרָט. ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן״ – כְּלָל. ״מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג״ – חָזַר וּפָרַט. פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּפְרָט – אִי אַתָּה דָּן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט. מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – פְּרִי וּפְסוֹלֶת פְּרִי, אַף כֹּל – פְּרִי וּפְסוֹלֶת פְּרִי.

And conversely, the Rabbis interpret the verses employing the principle of generalizations and details, as the phrase “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3) is an example of a detail, the phrase “anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4) is a generalization, and when the verse continues: “From pits to grape skin,” it has given an example of a detail again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail. According to this exegetical method, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a fruit or fruit waste, i.e., grape seeds or skins, so too, everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit or fruit waste, but not leaves or tendrils, as maintained by Rabbi Elazar.

אִי מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ פְּרִי גָּמוּר, אַף כֹּל פְּרִי גָּמוּר! אָמַרְתָּ: אִם כֵּן מַה הִנִּיחַ לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא אֲמָרוֹ? עֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים – הָא כְּתִיבִי, יַיִן וְחוֹמֶץ – הָא כְּתִיבִי! הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לָדוּן כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן אֶלָּא כְּלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

The Gemara asks: If so, one can suggest an alternative derivation: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a complete, i.e., ripe, fruit, so too, everything forbidden must be a complete fruit, excluding unripe fruit. Why, according to the Rabbis, are unripe grapes included in the prohibition? You will say the following counterargument: If so, what has the verse left you to derive from its meaning that it has not stated? If you say grapes and raisins, these are explicitly written; if you say wine and vinegar, these are also written. What, then, does the generalization come to add? Evidently, you cannot learn in accordance with the last version, which excludes unripe fruit; rather, you must learn in accordance with the first version, which includes this fruit and excludes only leaves and tendrils.

וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁסּוֹפֵינוּ לְרַבּוֹת כָּל דָּבָר, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג״? לוֹמַר לְךָ: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא פְּרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְמָשְׁכוֹ וּלְדוּנוֹ כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט,

The Gemara asks: And as we eventually include everything that is similar to the detail of fruit and the waste of fruit, what is the meaning when the verse states: “From pits to grape skin”? This serves to tell you a general principle of exegesis that applies throughout the Torah: Wherever you find only a detail and a generalization, you cannot broaden it and learn that the generalization is limited to be like the detail, by saying that the generalization merely clarifies the previous detail.

אֶלָּא נַעֲשָׂה כְּלָל מוּסָף עַל הַפְּרָט, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרוֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁפָּרַט לְךָ בְּנָזִיר.

Rather, the generalization becomes added to the detail so that it includes all matters, even those dissimilar to the detail, until the verse specifies and adds another detail after the generalization, in the manner that it specified with regard to a nazirite, by inserting the phrase “from pits to grape skin” after “anything that is made of the grapevine.” The exegetical method of: A detail, a generalization, and a detail, means that the generalization includes only something that is similar to the detail. In this particular example, leaves and tendrils are excluded.

אָמַר מָר: מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – פְּרִי וּפְסוֹלֶת פְּרִי, אַף כֹּל – פְּרִי וּפְסוֹלֶת פְּרִי. פְּרִי – עִינְבֵי, פְּסוֹלֶת פְּרִי מַאי הִיא – חוֹמֶץ.

The Gemara analyzes the details of this baraita . The Master said above: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a fruit or fruit waste, so too everything forbidden to the nazirite by the Torah is a fruit or fruit waste. The Gemara clarifies: The fruit mentioned by the Torah is grapes. What is fruit waste? Vinegar, as in the verse: “He shall drink no vinegar of wine or vinegar of strong drink” (Numbers 6:3).

״אַף כֹּל פְּרִי״ מַאי הִיא – גּוֹהַרְקֵי. ״אַף כֹּל״ דִּפְסוֹלֶת פְּרִי – מַאי הִיא? אֲמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לְאִיתוּיֵי עִינְבֵי דִּכְרִין. ״וְעַד זָג״, אֲמַר רָבִינָא, לְאִיתוּיֵי דְּבֵין הַבֵּינַיִם.

What is the statement: So too everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit, serving to include? It serves to include unripe grapes. And what is the statement: So too everything, forbidden by the generalization is a fruit or fruit waste, stated with regard to fruit waste, serving to include? Which fruit waste unspecified by the verse is added by means of this derivation? Rav Kahana said: This serves to include grapes that have become wormy. With regard to the phrase “from pits to grape skin,” Ravina said: This serves to include the part of the fruit that is in between the seeds and the skin.

אֲמַר מָר: [אִי] מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ פְּרִי גָּמוּר – אַף כֹּל פְּרִי גָּמוּר! אָמַרְתָּ: אִם כֵּן מַה הִנִּיחַ הַכָּתוּב בְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא אֲמָרוֹ, עֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים – הָא כְּתִיבִי, יַיִן וְחוֹמֶץ – הָא כְּתִיבִי! הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לָדוּן כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן אֶלָּא כְּלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁסּוֹפֵינוּ לְרַבּוֹת כָּל דָּבָר, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג״ – לוֹמַר לְךָ: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא פְּרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְמוֹשְׁכוֹ וּלְדוּנוֹ כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט, אֶלָּא נַעֲשָׂה כְּלָל מוּסָף עַל הַפְּרָט, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרוֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב

The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita , which it cites at length. The Master said above: If so, just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a complete fruit, so too everything is a complete fruit. You say: If so, what has the verse left you to derive from its meaning that it has not stated? Grapes and raisins, these are written; wine and vinegar, these are written. You cannot learn in accordance with the last version; rather, you must learn in accordance with the first version. And as we eventually include everything, what is the meaning when the verse states: “From pit to grape skin”? This serves to tell you that wherever you find a detail and a generalization, you cannot broaden it and learn that the generalization is limited to be like the detail; rather, the generalization becomes added to the detail, until the verse specifies for you