Nazir Chart #6
Chart for Nazir Daf 34b-35b
THE MACHLOKES TANA'IM REGARDING SEEING VERSES AS "KLALEI U'PRATEI" OR "RIBUYEI U'MI'UTEI"
| (A) THE TANA WHO LEARNS "KLALEI U'PRATEI" (1) |
(B) THE TANA WHO LEARNS "RIBUYEI U'MI'UTEI" (1) |
||
| 1 | GENERAL TERM, SPECIFIC TERM |
"Klal u'Prat," includes only the Prat (2) | "Ribuy u'Mi'ut," includes things similar to Prat (4) |
| 2 | SPECIFIC TERM, GENERAL TERM |
"Prat u'Klal," includes everything (3) | "Mi'ut v'Ribuy," includes everything except for one thing (5) |
| 3 | GENERAL TERM, SPECIFIC TERM, GENERAL TERM | "Klal Prat u'Klal," includes things similar to Prat (6) | "Ribuy Mi'ut v'Ribuy," includes everything except for one thing (7) |
| 4 | SPECIFIC TERM, GENERAL TERM, SPECIFIC TERM |
"Prat Klal u'Prat," includes things similar to Prat (8) | "Prat Klal u'Prat," includes things similar to Prat (9) |
==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
(1) RASHI in Shevuos (4b) and TOSFOS here (35b, DH Ika, in the name of Maharaf) give an explanation for the difference in these two methods of interpreting a verse: a Prat does not negate or contradict a Klal, but rather it explains the Klal (and the same for a Klal that follows a Prat -- the Klal explains the Prat). In contrast, a Mi'ut takes away from a Ribuy, in the sense that the Ribuy includes everything and the Mi'ut removes one item from being included. Because of this, both the Mi'ut and the Ribuy must be upheld to some extent, and must include (if it is a Ribuy), or exclude (if it is a Mi'ut), at least one item. We can understand all of the exegetical differences between these two methodologies based on this difference.
(2) It might be asked, then, why does the Torah write the Klal altogether? TOSFOS answers that the Klal serves to exclude something that we would have included for external reasons (such as a Binyan Av, Kal v'Chomer, or Gezeirah Shavah) had the Torah written only the Prat.
(3) It might be asked, then, why does the Torah write the Prat altogether? TOSFOS answers that the Prat serves to include something that we would have excluded for external reasons (such as a Binyan Av, Kal v'Chomer, or Gezeirah Shavah) had the Torah written only the Klal.
(4) So writes TOSFOS, based on the Sugya in Shevuos (4b). The reason for this is that the later term is always the primary one (just like the Tana who learns "Klalei u'Pratei" holds), but in order to preserve the Ribuy in some way, we include things that are similar to the Mi'ut.
(5) The reason for this is that the later term is always the primary one (just like the Tana who learns "Klalei u'Pratei" holds), but in order to preserve the Mi'ut in some way, we exclude one thing.
(6) The reason for this is that without the second Klal, the verse would be interpreted as a "Klal u'Prat," and thus the only thing included would be the Prat. Now that an additional Klal is added, it serves to add something else - - specifically, anything that is similar to the Prat (Gemara, here).
(7) According to the Tana who learns "Ribuyei u'Mi'utei," this Midah teaches exactly the same thing as the Midah of "Mi'ut v'Ribuy" (see 2:B). This Tana holds that the first Ribuy is not taken into account, but rather it is the way of the verse ("Orchei d'Kra") to add a general term at the beginning.
(8) There is a slight difference between this Midah and the Midah of "Klal Prat u'Klal." In a "Prat Klal u'Prat," since the terms of "Prat" outnumber the term of "Klal," we exclude a little more than what we exclude in a "Klal Prat u'Klal." Thus, we include things that are similar to the Prat only when they are similar in two respects, and not those things that are similar to the Prat in only one respect. In a "Klal Prat u'Klal," on the other hand, we include even things that are similar to the Prat in only one respect.
(9) In this situation, all Tana'im agree that we learn "Klalei u'Pratei," and we do not apply the tools of "Ribuyei u'Mi'utei" (see Insights to 34b). Nevertheless, we include only things that are similar to the Prat in two respects (see footnote 8, and see Insights to 34b).