Avot055

18:
The fifth middah is called Kelal u-ferat u-ferat u-kelal. These are in fact two middot, but they are considered as one since they are only 'two sides of the same coin', as it were.

Sometimes a verse dealing with a mitzvah will use some general term – Kelal in Hebrew, and yet follow this up with one or more details – Perat in Hebrew. Is the generalization to be understood as the law with the details added only as illustrations, or are we to understand that the general law only applies in the specific circumstances particularized, the generalization being offered merely to indicate what the particulars have in common?

There are three possibilities here, and which middah should be applied to the case will be determined by the relationship between the generalization (kelal) and the particularization (perat).

1. If the generalization preceeds the particularization then "the generalization must be understood as indicating only what is in the given details".
2. If the details come before the generalization then we must assume that the generalization is adding something to what was implied in the particularization.
3. When a generalization is followed by a particularization which, in its turn, is followed by yet another generalization, we must assume that the details are meant to illustrate or give examples of possible cases, but the rule can and should be applied to more cases than are contained in the details.

19:
Three simple examples must suffice to illustrate these three aspects of the one middah:

• The Torah [Deuteronomy 22:11] says: You shall not wear 'cloth of a combined weave' [Sha'atnez] – cloth combining wool and linen together. Here the 'combined weave' is a generalization and the 'wool and linen' are specifications. According to what we have said above in A Sha'atnez applies only in the case of wool and linen being woven together and a combination of other yarns is not prohibited.
• The Torah [Exodus 22:9] says: When a man gives to another an ass, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to guard, and it dies or is injured or is carried off, with no witness about… Here the details – 'ass, ox, sheep' are followed by a generalization – 'any other animal'. According to what we have said above in B the law must be applied regarding all animals, the three animals specified being only illustrations.
• The Torah [Deuteronomy 14:25-26] legislates: …Wrap up the money and take it with you to the place that God has chosen, and spend the money on anything you want – cattle, sheep, wine, or other intoxicant, or anything you may desire… Here a generalization, 'anything you want', is followed by specifics: 'cattle, sheep, wine, or other intoxicant'; but then there follows yet another generalization: 'anything you may desire'. According to what we have said above in C the particularizations in this case are meant to indicate what kind of things are implied in the generalizations: food and drink.

20:
I shall not illustrate the remaining two middot in order not to tax your patience overduly. The sixth is called Ka-yotsé bo be-makom aĥer ("something similar to this is said in another passage"): this middah is similar to a Gezerah Shavvah, but is less restrictive in usage. The last of the seven middot is called Davar ha-lamed mé-inyano, and it refers to an argument adduced from the context.

21:
I hope that the details I have given in this and the preceeding shiurim have helped to illustrate Hillel's unique contribution to the development of the oral tradition. However, Hillel's greatness is not circumscribed by his halakhic contribution. We can now approach his ethical contribution to Judaism, a contribution exquisitely illustrated in our present mishnah. In our next shiur we shall address ourselves to the contents of this present mishnah.

Thank you very much indeed for having the endurance to wade through the difficult material of these last two shiurim

.

To be continued.