נזיר ל״ה א

in the manner that it specified with regard to a nazirite: “From pits to grape skin” (Numbers 6:4). The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who establishes this verse: “From pits to grape skin” (Numbers 6:4), as serving to say that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin, if so from where does he derive the detail? It is unclear how he applies this method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail, as according to his interpretation, the phrase “from pits to grape skin” does not serve to limit the previous generalization but to state a different halakha. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who interprets this by saying that a verse restricts and amplifies. And if you wish, say instead that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that this is a case of a detail, a generalization, and a detail. As, if it should enter your mind that the verse is merely teaching that which was stated by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, let the Merciful One write this phrase: “From pits to grape skin,” alongside the other details of wine and vinegar. For what halakha did the Torah write: “From pits to grape skin,” after the generalization? Conclude from it that you should derive this halakha by means of the method of a generalization and a detail. The Gemara asks: But if so, you can say that the entire phrase comes only for this purpose, for a generalization and a detail, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya should not derive his halakha, that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin, from this verse at all. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would say: If so, let the Torah write either two grape seeds and two grape skins, with both terms in the plural, or a grape seed and a grape skin, with both terms in the singular. For what halakha did the Merciful One write: “From pits to grape skin”? Learn from it that one should interpret it in the manner of a generalization and a detail, and one can also interpret from it that a nazirite is liable only if he eats two grape seeds and a grape skin. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, who interprets by the method of restriction and amplification that even tendrils and the leaves of a grapevine are included in the prohibition, from where does he derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail? Rabbi Abbahu says: He derives it from this verse, which deals with a bailee: “And if a man deliver to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to guard, and it dies…the oath of the Lord shall be between them both” (Exodus 22:9). The phrase “a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep” is a detail; “or any animal” is a generalization that includes all animals; and in the phrase “to guard” the Torah detailed again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail. In this case, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail; i.e., items that can be guarded. Rava said: Rabbi Elazar derives the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this verse: “And if his offering is from the flock, whether of the sheep or of the goats, for a burnt-offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish” (Leviticus 1:10). The phrase “and if his offering is from” is a detail, as it indicates part but not all of something, “the flock” is a generalization that includes animals that have been used sinfully, and when it stated: “Sheep,” and: “Goats,” the Torah has detailed again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, and therefore you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. The details teach that only animals that copulated with a person may not be brought as offerings. Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: And let Rabbi Elazar derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this earlier verse, which appears in the same chapter: “From animals, from the herd or from the flock, you shall bring your offering” (Leviticus 1:2), in the following manner: “From” is a detail that excludes an undomesticated animal; “animals” is a generalization which includes undomesticated animals (see Deuteronomy, chapter 14); and when it states: “Herd,” and: “Flock,” the Torah has detailed again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail, and therefore you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail, i.e., domesticated animals. Rava said to Rav Yehuda of Diskarta: One cannot derive the method of a detail, a generalization, and a detail from this verse, as if the source were from there, I would say the phrase “animals”