Question: R. Eliezer ben Azaryah expounds "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" to teach that one is liable only for eating two pits and a peel. What is his source for the above rule of Prat u'Chlal u'Frat?

Answer #1: He expounds like R. Eliezer, via Ribuy and Mi'ut.

Answer #2: He expounds like Chachamim. If "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" only came to teach about two pits and one peel, it would have been written with the other Peratim;

It was written after the Klal to also teach the above rule.

Suggestion: Perhaps it teaches only the rule!

Rejection: If so, it would have said "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zagim" or "me'Chartzan v'Ad Zag";

Rather, it says "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" to also teach two pits and one peel.

Question: R. Eliezer expounded via Ribuy and Mi'ut. What is his source for the rule of Prat u'Chlal u'Frat? (We do not find that he argues about everything expounded this way!)

Answer #1 (R. Avahu): "When a man will give to his friend a donkey, ox or sheep" is a Prat. "Or any animal" is a Klal. "To guard" is another Prat;

From a Prat u'Chlal u'Frat we include only what resembles the Peratim. (Chachamim consider "will give" to be a Klal, and call this a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal. All include what resembles the Prat, and exclude slaves, documents and land.)

Answer #2 (Rava): "If from" is a Prat. "The flock" is a Klal. "Sheep and goats" is a Prat;

From a Prat u'Chlal u'Frat we include only what resembles the Peratim (any animal whose body was used for a sin, e.g. bestiality, is Pasul for a Korban. The Rosh does not understand how we learn this from the Peratim. Tosfos connotes that this is the most reasonable Mi'ut to exclude from "from".)

Question (Rav Yehudah mi'Diskarta): Why didn't you say that he learns from an earlier verse? "From" is a Prat. "Beheimah (domestic animals)" is a Klal. "Cattle or flock" - is a Prat;

From a Prat u'Chlal u'Frat we include only what resembles the Peratim (Beheimos, but not Chayos, i.e. wild animals)!

Answer (Rava): We cannot exclude Chayos from "Beheimah", for they are included in "Beheimah"!

Objection (Rav Yehudah): Even if you say so, the verse concludes "cattle and flock." It is a Prat u'Chlal u'Frat. We include what resembles (all) the Peratim. (The last Peratim are Beheimos.)

Question: What is the source that a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal includes only what resembles the Peratim? (See (e:1) above.)

Answer (Beraisa): "You will spend the money (of Ma'aser Sheni) on whatever your soul desires" is a Klal. "On cattle, flock, wine and strong drink" is a Prat; "And all that your soul asks" is a Klal;

From a Prat u'Chlal u'Frat we include only what resembles the Peratim. The Peratim reproduce and are nourished from the ground. We include all such things.

Question: From a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we include what resembles the Peratim. Why is the latter Klal needed?

Answer: It includes whatever resembles the Peratim. If not for the latter Klal, we would include only the Peratim.

Question: From a Prat u'Chlal u'Frat we include only what resembles the Peratim. Why is the latter Prat needed?

Answer: If not for the latter Prat, we would include everything.

Question: We include only what resembles the Peratim from a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, and also from a Prat u'Chlal u'Frat. What is the difference between them?

Answer: When there are two Kelalim and one Prat, we include what resembles the Prat in even one respect. When there are two Peratim and one Klal, we only include what resembles the Prat in two respects.

Question: From a Prat u'Chlal' we include everything. We also include everything from a Mi'ut v'Ribuy. What is the difference between them?

Answer: From a Prat u'Chlal' we include (everything,) even leaves and shoots. From a Mi'ut v'Ribuy we include shoots, but not leaves.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): Heter (what is permitted) joins to Isur (what is forbidden, to comprise a Shi'ur (quantity) to be liable) only regarding Isurei Nazir, for the Torah said "Mishras". (A Nazir is liable for eating bread that absorbed wine.)