Question

Hello Rabbi,
If possible, I have a question about Nazir 35b that we learned this week in Daf Yomi. At the end of the passage, the Talmud explains the difference between exclusion and inclusion and between particular and general. It answers that a particular and a general includes everything, including leaves and lulavim. But at the beginning of the passage we said that this verse is expounded as particular, general, and particular, and therefore we excluded leaves and lulavim.
It seems to me that even the reading of the Ramah, which switches between exclusion and inclusion and particular and general, does not solve the problem: (a) Why did we move to expounding it as particular and general instead of particular, general, and particular? (b) Even according to his view, a particular and a general includes lulavim but not leaves, whereas at the beginning of the passage particular, general, and particular excludes both of them.
How does one reconcile the beginning of the passage with its end? (I have not seen anyone address this.) And why don’t we expound the additional particulars that appear later on?
Thank you very much,
Binyamin Kosovski