Nazir

THERE IS A SEPARATE PENALTY FOR WINE, FOR GRAPES, FOR HARZANIM AND FOR ZAGIM.  R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: THERE IS NO PENALTY [IN THE CASE OF THE LAST TWO SPECIES] UNLESS HE EATS TWO HARZANIM AND ONE ZAG. BY HARZANIM AND ZAGIM ARE MEANT THE FOLLOWING. ACCORDING TO R. JUDAH, HARZANIM MEANS THE OUTER PORTION [OF THE GRAPE].  ZAG THE INNER PORTION,  BUT R. JOSE SAID: THAT YOU MAY NOT ERR, [THINK OF] THE ZOG [BELL] OF AN ANIMAL,  OF WHICH THE OUTER PART IS TERMED THE ZOG [HOOD].  AND THE INNER PART THE INBAL [CLAPPER]. GEMARA. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN TO A NAZIRITE, VIZ.: RITUAL DEFILEMENT etc.: Products of the vine are [forbidden] but not the vine itself, so that our Mishnah differs from R. Eleazar, for it has been taught: R. Eleazar said that even leaves and shoots [of the vine] are included [in the things forbidden to a nazirite]. Some draw the inference  from the subsequent clause, viz.: WHILST THERE IS NO PENALTY UNLESS HE EATS AN OLIVE'S BULK OF GRAPES. GRAPES only [carry a penalty] but not the vine itself, so that our Mishnah differs from R. Eleazar, for it has been taught: R. Eleazar said that even leaves and shoots are included. In what [essentially] does the difference [between R. Eleazar and the Rabbis of our Mishnah] lie? — R. Eleazar interprets [certain scriptural passages as consisting of] 'amplifications and limitations,'  whilst the Rabbis interpret [them as] general statements and specifications.  R. Eleazar [argues as follows:] He shall abstain from wine and strong drink  is a limitation,  whilst, Nothing that is made of the grape-vine  is an amplification. When a limitation is followed by an amplification all things are embraced.  What then does the amplification serves to include [here]? Everything [coining from the vine],  and what does the limitation exclude? Only the twigs. The Rabbis, on the other hand, [argue as follows:] 'He shall abstain from wine and strong drink' is a specification;  '[He shall eat] nothing that is made of the grape-vine' is a general statement; 'from the pressed grapes even to the grape-stone'  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  and fruit refuse  are particularised, and so whatever is fruit  or fruit refuse [is prohibited].  Should you object that in the specification ripe fruit is particularised, and so only what is ripe fruit [is prohibited],  the reply is that [in 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] so as to include only whatever is similar to it, but the general statement widens the scope of the specification,  unless Scripture indicates the specification in the manner in which it is indicated in the case of the nazirite. 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.  [And what is the significance of] 'even to the grape-stone'?  Rabina said that this serves to include the intermediate part. 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