Talmud Nazir (E)

a specification;
18
 ‘[He shall eat] nothing that is made of the grape-vine’ is a general statement; ‘from
the pressed grapes even to the grape-stone’
19
 is again a specification. When we have a specification,
a generalisation, and a [second] specification, only what is similar to the specification may be
adjudged [to be within the scope of the prohibition]. In the specification fruit
20
 and fruit refuse
21
 are
particularised, and so whatever is fruit
22
 or fruit refuse [is prohibited].
23
 Should you object that in
the specification ripe fruit is particularised, and so only what is ripe fruit [is prohibited],
24
 the reply
is that [in this view] nothing would be left implicit in Scripture, everything being explicitly
mentioned.
25
 Fresh grapes and dried grapes are mentioned, as are also wine and vinegar. It follows
that the inference must be drawn not in the latter form,
26
 but in the first form. Again, seeing that we
finally include everything [similar to fruit or fruit refuse], for what purpose is ‘from pressed grapes
even to the grape-stone mentioned [separately from the other specification]?
27
 To tell us that
wherever a specification is followed by a general statement it is not permissible to extend [the terms
of the specification] so as to include only whatever is similar to it, but the general statement widens
the scope of the specification,
28
 unless Scripture indicates the specification in the manner in which it
is indicated in the case of the nazirite.
29
 
    The Master said: ‘In the specification fruit and fruit refuse are particularised, and so whatever is
fruit or fruit refuse [is prohibited].’ ‘Fruit’ means grapes, but what is ‘fruit refuse’? — Vinegar.
What is meant by ‘Whatever is fruit’? — Unripe grapes. And by ‘whatever is fruit refuse’? — R.
Kahana said that this serves to include worm-eaten grapes.
30
 [And what is the significance of] ‘even
to the grape-stone’?
31
 Rabina said that this serves to include the intermediate part.
32
 
    The Master said: ‘Should you object that in the specification raw ripe fruit is particularised, and so
only what is ripe fruit [is prohibited], the reply is that [on this view] nothing would be left implicit in
Scripture, everything being explicitly mentioned. Fresh grapes and dried grapes are mentioned, as
are also wine and vinegar. It follows that the inference must be drawn not in the latter form, but in
the first form. Again, seeing that we finally include everything [similar to fruit or fruit refuse], for
what purpose is from pressed grapes even to the grape-stone mentioned [separately from the other
specification]? To tell us that wherever a specification is followed by a general statement it is not
permissible to extend [the terms of the specification] as as to include only whatever is similar to It,
but the general statement widens the scope of the specification, unless Scripture indicates the
specification
____________________
(1) [Or ‘First Mishnah’, a collection of Halachoth the compilation of which began according to Geonic accounts as early
as Hillel and Shammai; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 163, n. 7.]
(2) A quarter of a log is between 50 and 60 c.c. (== the bulk of one and a half average-sized eggs).
(3) I.e., along with the bread.
(4) According to R. Akiba, an olive's bulk (less than 10 c.c.) carries with it a penalty in the case of liquids.
(5) There is no need to consume more than one variety to incur the penalty. All four species are mentioned in Num. VI,
3-4. harzanim being usually translated ‘pressed grapes’ and zag, ‘grape-stone’, following the opinion of R. Judah given
later in the Mishnah.
(6) The skin.
(7) The stone.
(8) The bell suspended at the animal's neck.
(9) And so, too, zag of a grape is its skin.
(10) That our Mishnah and R. Eleazar differ.
(11) Ribbni u-Mi'ut. I.e., as consisting of clauses that amplify and clauses that restrict.
(12) Kelal u-ferat. The significance of these technical terms will become clearer in the argument set out below. For a full
explanation of these terms, v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 3.
(13) Num. VI, 3.
(14) The things prohibited are confined to the things mentioned.
(15) Num. VI, 3. Lit., Of everything that is made . . he shall not eat.

---

(16) I.e., the scope, in this case of the prohibition, is as wide as possible, the restriction serving merely to exclude some
one thing, here the twigs.
(17) And so also the leaves and the shoots.
(18) Of the things forbidden.
(19) Num. VI, 4; the concluding half of the last verse quoted.
(20) Grapes and wine.
(21) Vinegar.
(22) Including unripe grapes.
(23) Worm-eaten grapes.
(24) And thus unripe grapes would be excluded.
(25) I.e., there is no form of ripe fruit different from those mentioned in the verses quoted.
(26) Restricted to ripe fruit.
(27) I.e., why does not the whole specification precede the generalisation.
(28) And includes also things not similar to the specification.
(29) With the general statement interrupting it.
(30) That went bad before they ripened.
(31) In Num. VI, 3.
(32) What remains of the flesh after the wine has drained off.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 35a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 35a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 35a
in the manner in which it is indicated in the case of the nazirite.
 
    Now, R. Eleazar b. Azariah utilises the clause, ‘from the pressed grapes even to the grape stone’
for the inference that there is no penalty unless he eats two pressed grapes and one grape-stone.
1
Where does he find a [second] specification?
2
 -He will agree with R. Eleazar who interprets [the
passage as a clause that] amplifies [followed by a clause] that limits.
3
 Alternatively, it can be argued
that he agrees with the Rabbis, for [he might say] if [the sole object of this clause were the inference]
of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, the Torah could have included, ‘from the pressed grapes even to the
grape-stone’ with the other items specified.
4
 Why then does it appear after the general statement? To
show that the text is to be construed as a general statement followed by a specification. But why
should not this be its sole object?
5
 If this were so, the verse should have read either ‘pressed grapes
and grape-stones [with both words in the plural] or ‘pressed grape and grape-stone [with both in the
singular]. The reason why the All-merciful says, ‘from the pressed grapes even to the grape-stone’
can only be that we should both interpret as a general statement followed by a specification and infer
[that there is no penalty] unless he eats two pressed-grapes and one grape-stone.
 
    Now R. Eleazar interprets [the text as consisting of] a clause that amplifies and a clause that
limits. Where then does he find [in the Scripture the typical example of] specification, general
statement and second specification?-R. Abbahu said that he finds it in the following verse. If a man
deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep,
6
 is a specification; or any beast is a
generalisation; to keep is a further specification
7
 and so we may infer only what is similar to the
specification.
8
 
    Raba said that [R. Eleazar] could find one in the following verse. And if [his offering] be of [the
flock]
9
 is a specifications the flock a general statement, and [whether of] the sheep, [or of] the goats
a further specification, and so we may infer only what is similar to the specification.
10
 
    Rab Judah of Diskarta
11
 asked Raba: Why should not [R. Eleazar] find it in the following verse?
[Ye shall bring your offering] of
12
 is a specification the cattle [beasts] a general statement, and [of]
the herd [or of] the flock a further specification, and so only what is similar to the specification can
be inferred?
13
 — He replied: This is not a clear case, for if [he inferred it] from there it could be

---