Nazir 35A

כדרך שפרט לך בנזיר ״מחרצנים ועד זג״. ולרבי אלעזר בן עזריה דקא מוקים להאי ״מחרצנים ועד זג״ לומר שאינו חייב עד שיאכל שני חרצנים וזג, פרטא מנא ליה! סבר לה כרבי אלעזר דדריש מיעט וריבה.

in the manner that it specified with regard to a nazirite: “From pits to grape skin” (Numbers 6:4). The Talmud asks: And according to the opinion of R' 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 Talmud answers: R' Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Elazar, who interprets this by saying that a verse restricts and amplifies.

ואי בעית אימא כרבנן, דאי סלקא דעתך כדאמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, ליכתביה רחמנא להאי ״מחרצנים ועד זג״ גבי פרטי, למאי הלכתא כתביה בתר כלל? שמע מינה למידייניה בכלל ופרט.

And if you wish, say instead that R' 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 R' Elazar ben Azarya, let God 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.