You caught a lot, you didn’t catch a lot.

I think the logic is that if you grab too much, you'll end up losing everything, even what you were able to grab. For example, if a person wants to clear a lot of books from his desk to his library, he can clear them one by one or all at once, but if he clears them all at once, they'll probably fall out of his hands as he walks from the desk to the library, and then he ends up losing more time than clearing them one by one.

This is the explanation for the common proverb in Hebrew. But it speaks of an interpretive/midrashic rule.

I don't know anything, but the first result on the Dictate website for a search for "tefsat rauv" brings up Gemara Yoma P, which concludes from a verse that eating is impure in the sense of eating eggs (food from food), and to decide whether an egg is regular (chicken) or large (bar Yochani), it says "tefsat moet" (small amount of food) is equal to eating eggs. And this is a truism that already from the sense of eating eggs, the food is impure. It seems that this is not a point of no evidence, nor is it a kind of truism from Makshinan, but rather a matter of interpretation.

On the contrary, that is exactly what it says there. The Torah defiles food, and now the question is to what extent. You take the result to be serious because that is the minimum of novelty. In positive mitzvot it may come out as a quola because that is the minimum of novelty.

But why present it like this in two stages (recalls what you brought as a subject for investigation in torts). Before the verse, everything is pure, the verse comes to defile something and we only know for certain that it is already defilement and we have no evidence for less than that.

I agree that it could be said, but since I understand this rule to mean choosing the minimal innovation, then the intention here is probably the minimal innovation in this way. It should be remembered that this rule is not presented as a rule or any tradition. It is probably the product of conjecture.

I truly see that the Cholin Kalach teach that the shiur of the rishat of the gaz for the priest should be like a priestly garment and conclude that it is like a small sash and not like a large coat because you caught a little, you caught it. And in the subject of the obligation that he is the one who gives it, it is to the kol in action (perhaps money).
I understand from your words that even if it were a prohibition, or if you do not prevent the rishat of your gaz from the priest as a shiur of a priestly garment, then it would also be in a sash, because if it were not for the law of shiur, we would say that one hair of wool exempts the gaz.
It also seems to explain another small point I saw there in passing, that regarding the percentage of the flock that is required at the beginning of the "Gas of Your Sheep" campaign, they disagreed on whether the minimum herd is 2 or 5 and did not say that you caught a small (2) catch. It is possible to explain this in other ways (such as that there are considerations here and not the herd), but perhaps the explanation is that here there are not two stages but only one stage because we have no prior understanding of what a herd called a flock is and therefore it is not relevant to preserve the first stage as much as possible and catch a small one in the second stage. Does that seem possible to you?

Tos’ in the Sukkah, cites 2 explanations from the Midrash:
1. Catch something that has a quota and not something that does not have a quota.
This explanation is valid only for cases where the multiple shiur is without restriction, such as in the case of ‘a few years’ – the small shiur is known, the multiple shiur is without restriction.

The small shiur is certainly correct (because it is included in the large shiur) and the multiple is doubtful, and therefore the small shiur is certain.

In both explanations, there is no doubt about the multiple shiur, but since the Torah is complete – it certainly meant the multiple shiur.

In the case of ‘and mother has already prepared’ the first explanation is appropriate, because if the small shiur is not determined – a hen's egg, there is no egg that we can determine to be the shiur.
The statement “and mother is already Yochani” is a question - it is not possible for them to be obligated only by eating the egg of a Yochani wild boar (whose egg was 60 volumes – without going into the meaning of the sermon) and necessarily the shiur is smaller, and since “he has no allowance” the smaller shiur is determined.

Ezra, in the case of eating uncleanness (for which only the first explanation is appropriate), are you saying that if the largest egg we saw was only twice the size of a chicken egg, then they would have gone with the larger egg? So, given that today we assume that we know all the sizes of eggs that exist and have ever existed, then we should go with the largest.

There is no connection to the information about the largest egg, and if the sages did not have the information they would not have made a wrong decision when they knew they did not have the real information.
It does not make sense that the amount of food eaten is 20 times the weight of an egg (the weight of an ostrich egg)… and therefore there is no amount that can be determined other than the small amount. The Gemara also intended this and Ima Yochanan has already explained it – Will the amount be such that a person cannot eat it?
Your question, as if it concerns an irrelevant fact, because as I think it is, it is.

What is illogical about the amount of food to be 20 times that of an egg? And in the impurity of food, it is not about eating at all, but about the food that will be defiled (or impure), so what is illogical about the amount that a person cannot eat.
In any case, what is wrong with Rabbi Michai's explanation above that one has to think about what makes sense and what does not. Everywhere we ask what we would do without the law of the law, and the answer is that we would do anything, and the law came to abolish the law of anything and set it at a certain amount, so we distance ourselves as little as possible and reduce the novelty. At the beginning of the gas, we distance ourselves from anything towards an abent. In the impurity of food, we distance ourselves from anything towards a chicken egg and not a Yochanan or an ostrich. This is similar to the second explanation you gave, that the small amount is certain, but in a more precise way that also includes the impurity of food (where, on the contrary, only the large amount is certainly defiled/impure and it is the one that includes the small amount, and not vice versa). And it is understood that in the Shavuot payments that without an additional verse there were no payments at all, so we will add as few payments as possible.
Indeed, I was wrong and my question, supposedly concerning this fact, is irrelevant because it seems that the words of R’ Elazar there were rejected anyway by Bitzit Zvirovit.

You are right. I was wrong in the context in which the shiur kevbitza was said.
I still think that the reason that only kevbitza is impure is because of the importance – the importance is for an important eating shiur and not for a quantity of one and a half kilos.

Rabbi Michi's answer makes sense. I think the law and the shiur were said together, and the law should be minimized as much as possible. Regardless of the chumara or kola

But to minimize the law of impurity for eating is to demand the greater amount (which alone would be subject to the law of impurity for eating) and not the lesser amount. That is the whole point.

Exactly.
That's why I tried to answer in the OP.

Ah, okay.

It's not clear to me how you interpret the phrase "you caught a lot" in terms of importance. And why doesn't importance also answer the next question in the Gemara about tiny birds' eggs.
By the way, in your opinion, even when you are satisfied with what is the shiur "sheep"? Was 2 or 5 a place to say "you caught a little"?

Tirgitz, regarding the lack of a herd - sounds reasonable to me.

Tirgitz, the question of the size can be interpreted as – there are larger eggs like a bar yochni, and therefore the shiur will be larger. The answer is that indeed there are large eggs, but the shiur is not already yochni (the largest egg) and therefore the smaller shiur is correct.
I am aware of the problem, and it seems that Rav Michi's interpretation is better
You may have perceived that a large is a rule that always determines a large (as the Toss interpreted Yoma Feb:)

Ezra, ah”n. A search shows that there are very few appearances of this rule in the Gemara, so that it is quite easy to check any suggestion. The more difficult part, and in my opinion also the more interesting, is to check the positive pulse of the theory, that is, given a rule when to use the plural form, to go and check in all the places where it was not used in the Gemara whether the theory really does not predict by mistake that it was supposed to be used. Then one also has to check its relationship to other rules such as di or lahumra machnan, whether the text does not come to a close and why they do not use the laws of doubt. When I get a chance, I will search the Treasury of Wisdom, it has probably already been dealt with from all sides.