Chasidut for Bava Kamma 127:16
מה יש לך להביא שאר ב"ח כשהוא אומר חיים הרי חיים אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר אם המצא תמצא ל"ל
— If so, I might say that just as the specification mentions an object which is eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar, so also any object eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar is [included]. What does this enable you to include? Sheep.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 370, n. 7. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> But when the text continues 'sheep', we have sheep explicitly stated. What then am I to make of 'theft'? It must be to include any object. [If that is so] should Scripture not have mentioned only 'theft', 'ox', 'sheep' and 'alive' since everything would have then been included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why indeed this emphasis on the verb 'found'? ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — If so, I might still say that just as the specification mentions an object which is subject to the sanctity of first birth, so also any object which is subject to the sanctity of first birth [should be included]. What does this enable you to include? Ass. But when the text continues 'ass', we have ass explicitly stated. What then am I to make of 'theft'? It must be to include any object. [But in that case] should Scripture not have mentioned only 'theft', 'ox', 'sheep', 'ass' and 'alive', since everything would have then been included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why indeed this emphasis on the verb 'found'? ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — If so I might still say that just as the specification mentions objects possessing life, so also any other object possessing life [should be included]. What does this enable you to include? All other objects possessing life. But when the text continues 'alive', objects possessing life are explicitly stated. What then am I to make of 'theft'? [It must be] to include any other object whatsoever. And if so, why do I require the words 'if to be found it be found'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2. This concludes the argument of the School of Hezekiah. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
Kedushat Levi
Let us now look at Rabbi Yishmael’s fourth category of legitimate exegetical tools, the one known as כלל ופרט, generalities and specifics (or the reverse.) This principle corresponds to the Divine attributes of ארך and אפים, respectively. In order to understand this, we will again resort to a parable. A father, regardless of his son’s intelligence, loves him loyally as his flesh and blood. A similar relationship exists between G’d and His “children,” [seeing He is a partner in any human being, having supplied one third of its components by contributing the soul. Ed.] There is another aspect to this love of father for son; because he loves him he constantly tries to teach him so that he will become more intelligent and more mature mentally. This aspect of parental love is known as כלל ופרט וכלל.
Let us know explain the Divine attribute of ארך, i.e. that G’d loves us regardless of whether we are intelligent enough to realize that we ought to revere Him and to love Him, He does not withdraw His love from us. It follows that the attribute of ארך corresponds to the exegetical tool of Torah exegesis known as כלל ופרט, relating collective terms to specific terms.
The Divine attribute of אפים, is how G’d, out of His love for us, teaches us how to serve Him, so that the combined attributes ארך אפים, correspond to Rabbi Yishmael’s exegetical tool known as כלל ופרט וכלל, establishing harmony between collective terms and specifics, so that they do not contradict one another. This is why the Talmud in Baba kamma 54 describes the latter כלל , as adding an additional element.[I have not understood the Talmud there in that way. Ed.]