Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in our Mishnah uses the Pasuk "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag" to teach us that one is only Chayav for eating at least two grape-pits and one skin.
How do we initially resolve the problem of reconciling him with the Rabbanan, who require the second 'P'rat' to teach us the 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat')?

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

(c) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that the Torah only writes it to teach us the 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat' (and from where does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah learn his D'rashah)?

(a) We search for Rebbi Elazar's (who in our Sugya, learns 'Ribuyi u'Mi'uti') source for the principle of 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal'.
Perhaps he does not hold of it at all (just like the Rabbanan do not hold of 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut')?

(b) Rebbi Avahu cites the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Chi Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Chamor O Shor O Seh" (P'rat), "ve'Chol Beheimah" (K'lal),
"Lishmor" (P'rat).
What do we learn from that 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat'?

(c) The Rabbanan there, consider that to be a 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal'. What is the basis of their Machlokes?

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

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

(b) What does he learn from that 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat'?

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

(d) What do we now learn from the 'P'rat, u'Ch'lal, u'F'rat'?

4)

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Nasata ha'Kesef be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafsh'cha (K'lal) ba'Bakar ba'Tzon u'va'Yayin u'va'Sheichar (P'rat) u've'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha (K'lal)" (regarding Ma'aser-Sheini money that was brought to Yerushalayim)?

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

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

(a) There is a difference between a 'Klal u'F'rat' and a 'Klal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' on the one hand, and a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal' and a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat' on the other.
What will be the Din in the case of ...

1. ... a 'Klal u'F'rat'?
2. ... a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal'?

(b) Notwithstanding the similarity between a 'Klal u'F'rat' u'Ch'lal' and a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal u'F'rat', what is the difference between them?

(c) What is the reason for this?

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

(b) How will this explanation also answer why it is that the Rabbanan in Bava Metzi'a (regarding the Pasuk ve'Chi Yiten ... Beheimah O Keilim), include from the 'K'lal u'P'rat 'u'Ch'lal' only things that are similar to the P'rat in two points (as we discussed earlier); and Rebbi Elazar holds likewise even though he Darshens the Pasuk with a 'P'rat, u'Ch'lal u'F'rat'?

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

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

1. ... a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal'?
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?

(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 "ve'*Chol* Mishras" (which comes to include)?

Next daf