Hi
a) Id like to know if the man deamar that sustains that we do not stufy KLAL UPRAT UKLAL holds that Charisha is only miderabanan?
b) Is it correct to say that Rava sustains that we do not study KLAL UPRAT UKLAL, because otherwise it is strange that the Torah diminishes other melachot by the principle that he proposes "ahane tolados asar rahmana, acharine lo asar rahmana" and afterwards adds them by the principle of KLAL UPRAT UKLAL?!
c) How does the man deamar which does not study KLAL UPRAT UKLAL explains the opinion of R Akiva? Does he hold that R Akiva and R Ishmael also disagree in that point, that R Akiva agrees with KLAL UPRAT UKLAL and R Ishamel disagrees?
d) Is it correct to say that Abaye holds the principle of KLAL UPRAT UKLAL since he said "Rebbi hi", because otherwise it could be Rabanan also, not only Rebbi, because Charisha is only miderabanan (if my point in (A) is correct).
Joseph Kayeri, Sao Paulo, Brazil
The Sugya is very tricky, bearing in mind that apart from the Klal u'Prat u'Klal, Rebbi Akiva learns that Shevi'is is d'Oraisa from the verse, "b'Charish uv'Katzir Tishbos." Consequently, according to one explanation, the question as to whether we hold of the Klal u'Prat u'Klal is only according to Rebbi Yishmael, who establishes the verse to be discussing Shabbos and not Shemitah.
Having said that, Abaye holds like Rebbi Akiva, who holds that Charishah in Shemitah is Asur mid'Oraisa and subject to Malkos, even though the verse is only an Aseh (See Tosfos 3b, DH Yachol). This is borne out by Rashi on 2b, DH Charishah bi'Shevi'is.
Whereas Rava, who holds that Charishah bi'Shevi'is is only mid'Rabanan -- as you suggest -- is following the tone of the Sugya which, as I wrote earlier, is going according to Rebbi Yishmael (although it does not necessarily mean that it is Rava's personal opinion).
I understand that there are other ways of learning the Sugya, but this seems to be the simple Peshat, and I think that it answers your questions.
B'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler