Objection: What was the Havah Amina that we would not say that the Klal adds to the Prat?!

Answer #2: It seems that we ask "the Torah should have written 'Chartzan v'Zag.'

Explanation #1: This is the grape itself. The verse connotes like this. "Me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" is what is between the peel and the pit.

Question: [How can this be] the grape itself? The Torah already wrote grapes!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): These are small grapes [that grow] between big grapes. They do not see the sun, and they do not ripen so much. They will never be big.

Question: Why do we need "v'Ad" to teach about Bein ha'Beinayim? We already include even Boser, for it is similar to the Prat!

Answer #1: Perhaps indeed, they (Bein ha'Beinayim) are worse than Boser. Boser will become big grapes.

Answer #2: If not for "Ad", to include Bein ha'Beinayim, we would include d'Bein ha'Beinayim, which are similar to the Prat, and not Boser.

Defense of Explanation #1: The Gemara means that if one collected a k'Zayis of the food [essence of the grape] between the peel and pit, and ate it, he is lashed. We do not say that his opinion [unusual eating habits] is Batel to that of everyone else;

We do not know this from "Anavim" in the verse.

Question: Perhaps he does not expound through this Midah anywhere, just like Rabanan do not expound Mi'et v'Ribah!

Answer #1: If so, he should have argued everywhere that we expound Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, and include from the Ribuy what is similar to the Prat, e.g. the verse "v'Chi Yiten" below!

Rabanan expound it through Klal u'Frat u'Chlal in Bava Metzi'a (57b) to include what is similar to the Prat, i.e. Metaltelim with intrinsic worth. It excludes documents, land and slaves;

We do not find that R. Elazar argues with these Midos, and includes more from the Midah of Ribah v'Mi'et;

Rather, also he agrees that we do not swear about documents, land and slaves. Therefore, it is obvious to the Gemara that where we expound Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, he will expound Prat u'Chlal u'Frat, if he can;

If he cannot, then he expounds Ribah u'Mi'et, for so he received the Midos.

Observation: When he expounds Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat, he includes what is similar to the Prat, just like Rabanan [expound from] Klal u'Frat u'Chlal. However, there is a distinction between them according to Rabanan, like it explains below (35b).

Answer #2 (Ri): You are forced to say that elsewhere, he expounds Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat;

If he expounded Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et, the Gemara holds that also regarding Nazir, he would expound Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et, and he would not expound the last Mi'ut like R. Elazar ben Azaryah, for this would be better.

Rather, surely it is like I explained. [R. Elazar] does not expound the Midah of Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et, rather, Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat.

This is because Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et is not a Midah to expound the Torah.

Question: Still, since normally he expounds Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat, also regarding Nazir he should expound like Rabanan!

Answer: Since normally he expounds the entire Torah through Ribah u'Mi'et, and similarly Mi'et v'Ribah, and similarly Ribah u'Mi'et v'Ribah...

Even though Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat was given to expound, since in most places it was not given to expound Klal u'Ferat (i.e. Kelalim and Peratim), he prefers to expound the final Prat like R. Elazar, rather than expound it like Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat;

However, when he has nothing to expound from the final Prat, then we expound Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat.

Explanation: Also in this verse, R. Elazar expounds Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat - "v'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano Min ha'Kesavim Oh Min ha'Izim l'Olah Zachar Tamim Yakrivenu";

"Min" is a Prat. It connotes some Tzon, but not all Tzon. Korbano Min ha'Kesavim Oh Min ha'Izim l'Olah Zachar Tamim Yakrivenu";

"Tzon" is a Klal. Kesavim and Izim are Peratim. This is a Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat.

Explanation #1: Some explain that the Prat excludes Rove'a and Nirva (animals that played the male or female roles in bestiality), and it connotes to exclude one who plowed with an ox and donkey together, or muzzled a cow and threshed with it;

Now we expound as follows. The Prat is something in which no Aveirah was done with the animal's body. This excludes Rove'a and Nirva, which are Pesulim for a Korban;

From the Klal we include one who plowed with an ox and donkey together, or muzzled a cow, since no Aveirah was done with the animal's body.

Question #1: How does the Prat connote to exclude when an Aveirah was done with the animal's body? They are called sheep and goats if they were Nirva, just like if they were not Nirva!

Question #2: We learn from another verse that Rove'a and Nirva are Pasul for Hakravah!

Explanation #2: The Prat connotes to exclude second year animals. Stam "Keves" connotes a yearling, and Stam "Ez" connotes a yearling;

Similarly, it excludes a Ba'al Mum, for it says "Zachar Tamim";

Conclusion: Now, we learn from what is similar to the Prat to exclude a Ba'al Mum, and we include due to the Klal a second year animal.

Explanation: This is in the first Parshah. Why didn't [Rava] say that R. Elazar expounds [from] there Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat?

"Min" is a Prat. It connotes some Behemos, but not all Behemos, to exclude Chayos. "Ha'Behemah" is a Klal, to include Chayah, for Behemah is included in Chayah, and Chayah is included in Behemah.

"Bakar va'Tzon" is a closing Prat, for Chayah is not included in Bakar v'Tzon. We learn what is similar to the Prat. The Prat is explicit [in the Torah], to exclude a Chayah from being a Korban.

Question: How does the Klal help? We do not include anything similar to the Prat!

Answer (R. Peretz): The Klal helps to include a wild ox. It is a Behemah, even though it is normally amidst Chayos and it is like a Chayah. Even so, it is Kosher for a Korban.

Explanation: [We ask] is there any difference between these two Midos?

[We answer that] there is a difference. When there are two Kelalim and a Prat, we include anything that resembles it (the Prat) even in one way;

When there are two Peratim and a Klal, we include what resembles it (the Peratim) in two ways, but not what resembles it in one way;

This is reasonable, that when there are two Kelalim, we include more than when there is one Klal.

Remark: The Rif explains that our Sugya is like the opinion that the latter Klal is primary [in a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal], and it is like a Prat u'Chlal, therefore we include what resembles the Prat even in one way;

Similarly, when there are two Peratim and a Klal, the latter Prat is primary, and it is like a Klal u'Ferat, and the Klal helps to include only what resembles the Prat in two ways. (Without the Klal, we would not add anything to the Prat.)

Distinction: However, according to the opinion that the first Klal is primary [in a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal], and similarly [when there are two Peratim and a Klal] the first Prat is primary, the same [difference] applies oppositely. (A Klal u'Frat u'Chlal is like a Klal u'Ferat, so we include only what resembles the Prat in two ways. A Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat is like a Prat u'Chlal, so we include what resembles the Prat even in one way.)

Question: The verse "v'Chi Yiten...", Rabanan expound it through Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, and they require something that resembles [the Peratim] in two ways, i.e. Metaltelim and it has intrinsic worth!

We exclude land, even though it has intrinsic worth, and we exclude documents, even though they are Metaltelim, since they lack intrinsic worth!

Inference: Even when there are two Kelalim and a Prat, we require [resemblance] in two ways!

R. Elazar expounds the verse through Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat, and also he excludes land and documents. This shows that these Midos are the same!

Answer #1: Based on what I explained, this is fine. Rabanan hold that the first Klal is primary and it is like a Klal u'Ferat. The latter Prat helps to include what resembles [the Peratim] in two ways;

R. Elazar holds that the latter Prat is primary and it is like a Klal u'Ferat. The first Prat helps to include all that resembles [the Peratim] in two ways;

Answer #2: These two resemblances of land and documents, that they are Metaltelim and have intrinsic worth, are equal (there is no reason to favor one over the other). They are considered like one resemblance.

Consequence: Therefore, both according to Rabanan, who expound two Kelalim and a Prat, and according to R. Elazar, who expounds two Peratim and a Klal, we require these two resemblances. Since they are equal, they are considered like one. Which would we exclude?!

Support: In the Sugya of Sal'am and Chargol (kinds of permitted locusts), we require four resemblances, since they are considered equal one like another. They are all considered like one. Therefore, we require all of them;

Only a long head is inferior. The others are all considered like one. Investigate there!

Question: R. Elazar expounded Mi'et v'Ribah at the beginning of our Sugya. He included even leaves!

Answer: Above, we discuss soft leaves, similar to sprigs. Here we discuss hard [leaves], similar to branches.

Question: The Midah of Mi'et v'Ribah does not include as much as the Midah of Perat u'Chelal. Why does the Midah of Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et include more than the Midah of Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, like it connotes in Eruvin (27b)?

Answer: R. Peretz used to explain, like Rashi explained everywhere, that when there is Klal u'Ferat, the Prat explains the Klal, and destroys and totally nullifies the Klal, as if it did not exist;

However, Mi'et v'Ribah, the Mi'ut does not explain the Ribuy and totally nullify the Ribuy, as if it did not exist. Rather, it adds a little, and detracts a little;

Therefore, when the Prat precedes the Klal, the Klal adds to the Prat, and totally nullifies the Prat, as if it did not exist;

We cannot say that the Prat explains the Klal, since it precedes it. Also, we do not expound it like an exclusion. Therefore, we include everything from the Klal after it.

Distinction: However, according to the opinion that expounds Mi'et v'Ribah, he should expound the Mi'ut to exclude, also if it is before the Ribuy, just like if it were after the Ribuy.

Also now that the Mi'ut is before, it excludes a little. The Ribuy after it does not have power to include so much.

Question: [When there is] Klal u'Ferat, the Klal is limited to the Prat. If so, how does the Klal help?

Answer (R. Peretz): It helps so that we will not learn from a Gezeirah Shavah or Mah Matzinu more than the Prat;

Similarly, regarding Perat u'Chelal, we include everything. If so, how does the Prat help? [It helps so that] we will not learn from a Gezeirah Shavah or Mah Matzinu [to exclude].

Implied question: What is the difference between Ribah u'Mi'et v'Ribah, and Mi'et v'Ribah?

Answer: Rashi explained elsewhere (Sanhedrin 46a) that Ribah u'Mi'et is like Klal u'Frat u'Chlal. We include what is like the Mi'ut, but no more;

Ribah u'Mi'et v'Ribah includes everything. The Prat helps to exclude one matter.

Question: In Ribah u'Mi'et v'Ribah, how does the first Ribuy help? From Mi'et v'Ribah alone, we include everything, and exclude one matter, like we said above (34b), "he expounds Mi'et v'Ribah. He includes everything, and excludes thick branches."

Answer (R. Tam): Indeed, it is the style of the verse to write an initial Ribuy [but it does not change the Halachah], e.g. "v'Lakachta Es ha'Martze'a." Some expound this (Kidushin 21a) through Ribah u'Mi'et v'Ribah, and v'Lakachta is the style of the verse. (We exclude only one matter, just like if it was Mi'et v'Ribah.)

Support: Through this, we can resolve R. Tam's opinion that there is no Midah of expounding Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et, even according to the opinion that expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utim;

Question: This is astounding! Why is it different than Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat, which we expound according to the opinion that expounds Kelalim and Peratim?

Answer: It is different. Granted, we can expound Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat [to include what is] similar to the Prat, just like Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, just there is a small difference, like the Gemara said;

Now we cannot ask why we need the latter Prat. If not for the latter Prat, it would be a Perat u'Chelal, and we would include everything!

Distinction: However, if we would expound Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et, you are forced to expound like Ribah u'Mi'et v'Ribah, just like we expound Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat like [the methodology of] Klal u'Frat u'Chlal;

Now it would be difficult. In Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et, what does the latter Mi'ut help for?

Note: Bava Kama 64b connotes that for each Mi'ut, we exclude another matter. Tosfos must ask why the latter Mi'ut was not written together with the first. Birkas Rosh explains that it is not so normal to written the Peratim separately.