If one has a theory, and the result of that theory is an absurdity, or maybe a paradox, one usually rejects that theory because it self-evidently fails logically.
On daf 28a,we have three theories regarding klall u-prat. Two theories have no problems logically, but the third maintains that the first klall comes to minimize (we look at it as a miut rebui to include everything, and then the first klall comes to limit). So we have a klall - an expansive term - that is being interpreted as a minimizer. Expansive terms should not minimize. Therefore theory three should have been rejected because it seems to be a logical failure.
Why wasn't it rejected?
Avrohom Meyer Kohn, Los Angeles, CA USA
Theory three is not a logical failure.
When one faces a God given statement which includes an inclusive, exclusive, then inclusive term back-to-back, the question is, what is Hash-m trying to tell us? One very reasonable option is that the inclusive statement is limited by the exclusive statement for the purpose of being expanded by the second Klal. This is one way the Torah would express that it is talking about a certain thing, plus certain other things. This means that the original inclusive statement was not given solely to remain exclusive, as otherwise the Torah would merely have said the exclusive statement. It was given in order to set up the additional inclusion of the second Klal.
All the best,