משנה: וְחַייָב עַל הַיַּיִן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל הָעֲנָבִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְעַל הַחַרְצַנִּים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְעַל הַזַּגִּים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶיֹּאכַל שְׁנֵי חַרְצַנִּים וְזַגִּין. אֵילּוּ הֵן הַחַרְצַנִּים וְאֵילּוּ הֵן הַזַּגִּים. הַחַרְצַנִּים אֵילּוּ הַחִיצוֹנִים הַזַּגִּים אֵילּוּ הַפְּנִימִיִין דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא תִטְעֶה כְּזוּג שֶׁלַּבְּהֵמָה הַחִיצוֹן זוּג וְהַפְּנִימִי עִינְבּוֹל. MISHNAH: One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately, for grape skins separately, for seeds separately106All types of produce of the vine enumerated in the verses represent separate prohibitions; cf. Nazir 6:1:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.1.5">Note 35.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, he is guilty only if he eats two חרצנים and their זגים107Since a plural implies a minimum of 2.. What are חרצנים and what זגים108Both expressions are unexplained hapax legomena.? חרצנים are the outer skins, זגים the inner (seeds), the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, that you should make no mistake109He disagrees with R. Jehudah and defines חרצן as seed, זג as skin (cf. Arabic زجّ “to be transparent”). The interpretation of R. Yose is accepted in the Nazir.39a">Babli (39a) and Targum Onkelos. Targum Yerushalmi follows R. Jehudah., like an animal’s bell, the outer shell is זוג, the inner the clapper.
הלכה: וְחַייָב עַל הַיַּיִן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל הָעֲנָבִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן כול׳. כְּתִיב וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵישִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל. מְמַשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עֲנָבִים אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵן לַחִין. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵישִׁים. לְחַייֵב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאַתְייָא כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. מָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה פְּסוֹלֶת פֶּרִי כְפֶרִי עָשָׂה לַחִים כִּיבֵישִׁין. כָּאן שֶׁעָשָׂה פְסוֹלֶת פֶּרִי כְפֶרִי אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה לַחִין כִּיבֵישִׁין. מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לַחִים וִיבֵישִׁים. לְחַייֵב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאַתְייָא כְּהַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. לֹא יַחֲבֹל רֵחַיִם וָרֶכֶב. מְמַשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר רֶכֶב אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהַרֵיחַיִם בִּכְלָל. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר רֵיחַיִם וָרֶכֶב. לְחַייֵב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. HALAKHAH: “One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately,” etc. It is written110Numbers.6.3">Num. 6:3.: “Also grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” One understands, since it said “grapes”, do we not know that they are fresh111Since raisins are called צִמּוּקִים.? Why does the verse say, “grapes, fresh or dried”? To declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Ḥizqiah stated: Since at a place where He did not treat the waste of fruits like fruits112The biblical rules of ‘orlah, the prohibition of fruits for the first three years of a fruit tree, do not extend to branches, leaves, or flowers (Mishnah ‘Orlah 1:7)., He treated fresh and dried equally, here, where He treated the waste of fruits like fruits, would it not be logical that we treat fresh and dried equally? The verse said, “fresh or dried”, to declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Rebbi Hila said: “One may not impound the movable and the fixed part of a flour-mill.113Deuteronomy.24.6">Deut. 24:6. “One understands, since it said “the fixed part”, do we not know that the entire mill is understood? Why does the verse say, “the movable and the fixed part”? To declare guilty for either part separately114In Sifry Deut. 272, the conclusion arrived at here is taken as the obvious meaning of the verse..
לַחִים לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבּוֹסֵר. לַחִים לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסְּמָדַר. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. סְמָדַר אָסוּר בַּנָּזִיר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי. יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל אֶשְׁכּוֹל וְחַייָב מִשּׁוּם עֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵישִׁים וְחַרְצַנִּים וְזַגִּין. שְׁרִייָן לְשֵׁם מִשְׁרָה. סְחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם יַיִן. וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן. וגו׳. “Fresh”, to include unripe berries.115Sifry Num. 23. “Fresh”, to include the flower. The baraita follows Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden for the nazir because it is a fruit116Cf. Mishnah ‘Orlah 1:6, Note 182 (Berakhot.36b">Babli Berakhot 36b). Probably the reference is to the bottom of the flower, from which the fruit develops.. It is possible to eat a bunch of grapes and to be guilty in reference to “grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.117If some grapes in the bunch dried on the stem.” If he soaked it for soaking, pressed it for wine, and they warned him about “anything that comes from the wine-vine”118Judges.13.14">Jud. 13:14, as substitute of Numbers.6.4">Num. 6:4. If the nazir took a bunch of grapes some of which where dried up, soaked it in water to fill the raisins with water as one does to prepare raisin wine, and then presses the bunch for its juice, and drinks after being duly warned, he can be convicted of four simultaneous crimes., etc.
אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר אָחָא. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מִשּׁוּם בִּירְיָה. וְתַנֵּי. חַרְצַנִּים וְזַגִּין. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַשָּׁלִשׁ שֶׁבֵּנְתַיִים. וְהָא תַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן. אַף הֶעָלִין וְהַלּוּלָבִין בְּמִשְׁמַע. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הַכֹּל בִּכְלָל. וּכִדְרַבָּה מִן דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ כְּלָל וּפְרָט הַכֹּל בִּכְלָל. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר חַרְצַנִּין וְזַגִּין. לְהָבִיא הַשָּׁלִשׁ שֶׁבֵּינְתַיִים. Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa said: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah is because of a creature119Even if skin and the seed inside do not fill the volume of an olive, the nazir who eats them is guilty for eating a complete creature.. But it was stated: “Skins and seeds,” to include the third [kind] between them120The flesh of the fruit. Since one speaks of skins and seeds as separate from the grape berry, one speaks of the husks left after pressing. Therefore, the “third” is what is left of the flesh after all juice has been squeezed out.. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer38Nazir.34b">Babli 34b, Sifry Num. #24; rejected in the Babli.: “From anything made from the wine-vine”, leaves and twigs are also understood? Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, [if you have] a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle121In the Babylonian sources (35a; Sifra Introduction 7), R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rule 5 is stated as: If the detail precedes the general statement, the general statement receives the maximal extension. If the general statement precedes the detail, the extension of the general statement is defined by the detail. This interpretation must be rejected by the Yerushalmi since Numbers.6.4">Num. 6:4 contains first a general statement (all that comes from the vine) and then a detail (skins and seeds). The discussion disregards that v. 3 contains a list of details only.. And more than that, since Rebbi Ismael said, with a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle; why are “skins and seeds” said? To include the third [kind] in between122Previously (Note 56), the expression “from skins unto seeds” was meant to imply that the nazir is guilty separately for skins and for seeds. This was derived from the additional word unto. Here, the argument refers to the mention of skins and seeds themselves, which does not seem to add anything to “everything coming from the vine.” For a different formulation, cf. Sifry Num. 24..
מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת חַרְצַנִּים וְזַגִּין מֵעֲנָבָה אַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה חַייָב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנִין פָּטוּר. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָכַל כְּזַיִת חַרְצַנִּים וְזַגִּין מִשְׁתֵּי עֲנָבוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנִין חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. אַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִין תֵּימַר כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָכַל כְּזַיִת שְׁנֵי זוֹגִין וְחַרְצַנִּין. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason123R. Yose clearly must think that his interpretation of the words is linguistically correct. The question is, what are the legal implications of his definition; how would he rule differently from R. Jehudah?? If one ate half the volume of an olive of seeds and peels from one grape berry, in Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s opinion he is guilty124If a single berry was squeezed dry but two seeds and the skin were left, for R. Eleazar ben Azariah this would represent a creature and the nazir who eats them would be guilty. For the rabbis, anything less than the volume of an olive cannot lead to a conviction. But for R. Jehudah, two חרצנים means skins from two berries; there is no creature and the nazir is not prosecutable.., in the rabbis’ opinion he is not prosecutable. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? If he ate the volume of an olive of peels and seeds from two grape berries, in Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s opinion he is guilty only once125According to R. Jehudah, R. Eleazar ben Azariah’s requirement that the nazir must eat two חרצנים to be guilty means that even if each grape berry has the size of an olive, he must eat two of them to become guilty. For the rabbis, eating a single berry the size of an olive is a punishable offense., in the rabbis’ opinion he is guilty twice. Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah holds with Rebbi Jehudah, if he ate the volume of an olive of two זגים and their חרצנים126He holds that the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah cannot be reconciled with the opinion of R. Jehudah since then he should have switched the mention of חרצן and זג as explained in Nazir 6:2:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.2.5">Note 124.?