1)

(a)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in our Mishnah uses the Pasuk "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" to teach us that one is only Chayav for eating at least two grape-pits and one skin. How do we initially reconcile him with the Derashah in our Mishnah, which requires the second 'Prat' to teach us the 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat' [according to the Rabanan])?

(b)How do we even manage to reconcile him with the Rabanan?

(c)On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that the Torah only writes it to teach us the 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat'?

(d)If we had, from where does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah have learned his Derashah?

1)

(a)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in our Mishnah uses the Pasuk "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" to teach us that one is only Chayav if one eats at least two grape-pits and one skin. Initially, we reconcile him with the Derashah in our Mishnah, which requires the second 'Prat' to teach us the 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat' [according to the Rabanan]) - by establishing him like Rebbi Elazar (who learns the Pasuk as a 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut').

(b)We even manage to reconcile him with the Rabanan however - by learning his Derashah from the words themselves (as we shall now see), and the second Prat from the fact that the Torah places it after the Klal (and not before it together with the first Prat).

(c)We reject the suggestion that the Torah only writes it to teach us the 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat' - because then, it ought to have written either "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zagim', or 'me'Chartzan v'Ad Zag'.

(d)If we had however, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah would have learned his Derashah - from the switch from plural to singular.

2)

(a)We now look for the source for the principle of 'Prat, u'Chlal u'Frat' according to Rebbi Elazar (who in our Sugya, learns 'Ribuyi u'Mi'uti'). From where do we know that in principle, he agrees with 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' (just like the Rabanan do not hold of 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut')?

(b)Rebbi Avahu cites the Pasuk in Mishpatim "v'Chi Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Chamor O Shor O Seh" (Pat), "v'Chol Behemah" (Klal), "Lishmor" (Prat). What do we learn from that 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat'?

(c)The Rabanan there, consider that to be a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal'. What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d)Why does Rebbi Elazar not Darshen that too, as a 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut'?

2)

(a)We now look for the source for the principle of 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' according to Rebbi Elazar (who in our Sugya, learns 'Ribuyi u'Mi'uti'). We know that he agrees with it on principle - because on the numerous occasions on which it is quoted, he never disputes it (i.e. to attempt to drop the first Klal and to learn it as a 'Prat, u'Chlal u'Frat').

(b)Rebbi Avahu cites the Pasuk "v'Chi Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Chamor O Shor O Seh" (Klal), "v'Chol Behemah" (Prat) "Lishmor" (Klal). We learn from that 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat' - that only what can be moved and what has intrinsic value is included in the Dinim of Shomrim (to preclude land and documents respectively).

(c)The Rabanan there, consider that to be a 'Klal u'Frat u'Ch'lal'. The basis of their Machlokes is whether "v'Chi Yiten" implies a 'Klal' (Rabanan) or not (Rebbi Elazar).

(d)Rebbi Elazar does not Darshen that too, as a 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut' - because he only adopts that opinion by a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal', but not by a 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat'.

3)

(a)Rava cites the Pasuk in Vayikra "v'Im Min ha'Tzon min ha'Kevasim O min ha'Izim (le'Olah, Zachar Tamim Yakrivenu)" as Rebbi Elazar's source for 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat'. How does he learn it from there?

(b)What does he learn from that 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat'?

(c)Rav Yehudah from Diskarta asked Rava why Rebbi Elazar could not learn it from "min (Prat) ha'Behemah (Klal) Bakar va'Tzon (Prat)" (which precedes the previous Pasuk in Vayikra). How does he refute Rava's answer (that Behemah includes Chayah)?

(d)What do we now learn from the 'Prat, u'Chlal, u'Frat'?

3)

(a)Rava cites the Pasuk "v'Im Min ha'Tzon min ha'Kevasim O min ha'Izim (l'Olah, Zachar Tamim Yakrivenu)" as Rebbi Elazar's source for 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat', which he Darshens - "v'Im min" (Prat) "ha'Tzon" (Klal) "Kevasim v'Izim" (Prat).

(b)He precludes either an animal that raped or that was (raped by a human), or a lamb that is more than a year old from being eligible to be brought as a Korban.

(c)Rav Yehudah from Diskarta asked Rava why Rebbi Elazar could not learn it from "min (Prat) ha'Behemah (Klal) Bakar va'Tzon (Prat)", which precedes the previous Pasuk in Vayikra. He refutes Rava's answer (that Behemah includes Chayah) - because that is only as far as the word "Behemah" (the Klal) is concerned, but why should we not preclude it from "Bakar va'Tzon" (the Prat)?

(d)We now learn from the 'Prat, u'Chlal, u'Frat' - that a Chayah is not eligible to be brought as a Korban either.

35b----------------------------------------35b

4)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Nasata ha'Kesef b'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha (Klal) ba'Bakar ba'Tzon u'va'Yayin u'va'Sheichar (Prat) uv'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha (Klal)" (regarding Ma'aser-Sheni money that was brought to Yerushalayim)?

(b)What are we trying to prove from here?

(c)Why can this only go according to the Rabanan, and not like Rebbi Elazar?

4)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Nasata ha'Kesef b'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha (Klal) ba'Bakar ba'Tzon u'va'Yayin u'va'Shechar (Prat) uv'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nefshecha (Klal)" - that Ma'aser-Sheni money that was brought to Yerushalayim may only be used to purchase something that grows from the ground and that is a fruit which produces fruit.

(b)We are trying to prove from here - that this Midah of 'k'Ein ha'Prat' (by 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal') exists.

(c)This only goes according to the Rabanan, and not according to Rebbi Elazar - who, as we saw earlier, Darshens 'Ribuy, Mi'ut v'Ribuy', and not 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal.

5)

(a)There is a difference between a 'Klal u'Frat' and a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' on the one hand, and a 'Prat u'Chlal' and a 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat' on the other. What will be the Din in the case of ...

1. ... a 'Klal u'Frat'?

2. ... a 'Prat u'Chlal'?

(b)Notwithstanding the similarity between a 'Klal u'Frat' u'Chlal' and a 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat', what is the difference between them?

(c)What is the reason for this?

5)

(a)There is a difference between a 'Klal u'Frat' and a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' on the one hand, and a 'Prat u'Chlal' and a 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat' on the other (which depends on what the Din would be by a 'Klal u'Frat', and by a 'Prat u'Chlal', respectively). In the case of ...

1. ... a 'Klal u'Frat' - the Prat explains the Klal (and is exclusive).

2. ... a 'Prat u'Chlal' - the Klal comes to include everything.

(b)Notwithstanding the similarity between a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' and a 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat', the difference between them is - that in the case of the former, we will even include Pratim which are only similar to the Klal in one point, whereas in the latter, they must be similar in two points.

(c)The reason for this is - because logic dictates that two K'lalim are more inclusive than one.

6)

(a)Our Sugya holds that the last Klal and the last Prat (respectively) are the predominant ones. How will the Din differ if we follow the opinion of those who hold that the first Klal and the first Prat (respectively) are the predominant ones?

(b)How will this explanation also answer why it is that the Rabanan in Bava Metzi'a (regarding the Pasuk "v'Chi Yiten ... Behemah O Kelim"), include from the 'Klal u'Prat 'u'Chlal' only things that are similar to the Prat in two points (as we discussed earlier); and Rebbi Elazar holds likewise even though he Darshens the Pasuk with a 'Prat, u'Chlal u'F'rat'?

(c)Alternatively, how might we explain this case independently, irrespective of the two opinions currently under discussion?

6)

(a)Our Sugya holds that the last Klal and the last Prat (respectively) are the predominant ones. If we were to follow the opinion of those who hold that the first Klal and the first Prat (respectively) are the predominant ones - then the Din would be the reverse: by a 'Prat u'Chlal u'Frat' we would even include Pratim that are only similar to the Klal in one point, whereas in the case of a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal', they would have to be similar in two points.

(b)This explanation also answers why it is that the Rabanan in Bava Metzi'a (regarding the Pasuk "v'Chi Yitein ... Beheimh O Kelim"), include from the 'Klal u'Prat 'u'Chlal' only things that are similar to the Prat in two points (as we discussed earlier); and Rebbi Elazar holds likewise, even though he Darshens the Pasuk as a 'Prat, u'Chlal u'Frat' - because the Rabanan go after the first Klal, whereas Rebbi Elazar follows the second Prat (in which case, it is like a 'Prat u'Chlal', and the first Klal includes only what is like the Prat in two points).

(c)Alterntively, we might explain this case independently, irrespective of the two opinions currently under discussion - on the grounds that the two points 'movables' and 'of intrinsic value' are of equal significance. Consequently, applying the principle 'Hei Minayhu Mafkas' (which of them will you preclude?), even those who require only one similar point to the P'rat, will require both points here.

7)

(a)What is the basic Halachah regarding ...

1. ... a 'Prat u'Chlal'?

2. ... a 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut'?

(b)In that case, what is the difference between them?

(c)How will we reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar, who learned above the 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut', yet he included even the leaves too?

7)

(a)The basic Halachah regarding ...

1. ... a 'Prat u'Chlal' is - that the Klal includes everything.

2. ... a 'Mi'ut v'Ribuy' is - that the Ribuy includes everything, too.

(b)The difference between them is - that in the latter case, everything is not literal. For example, in our case of Nazir, the Ribuy only comes to include the thin branches, but not the leaves.

(c)We reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar, who learned above the 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut', yet he included even the leaves too - by qualifying those leaves as being particularly soft ones, whilst we are speaking about the fully-grown (hard) ones.

8)

(a)What does Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Mishras"?

(b)What is the practical application of this Halachah?

(c)Do we learn this from the implication of "Mishras" or from "v'*Chol* Mishras" (which comes to include)?

8)

(a)Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "Mishras" - that (unlike all other Isurim in the Torah) by the Isurim of Nazir, Heter combines with Isur to make up the Shi'ur for Malkus.

(b)Practically speaking - this means that if a Nazir dipped a piece of bread into wine (which together, totaled a k'Zayis), he would receive Malkus (like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah).

(c)We learn this from the implication of "Mishras" alone - and not because "v'*Chol* Mishras" comes to include (as is evident from the continuation of the Sugya.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF