Commentary for Bava Kamma 125:5

ואימא לאתויי עופות טהורים דומיא דשה דמטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה אבל עופות טמאים דלית בהו טומאה דלא מטמאי בגדים אבית הבליעה לא כל ריבויא הוא

should not be included. [Why then still not exclude birds whose carcasses would, unlike those of the ox and the ass, defile neither by touching nor by carrying?] — It may still be said that if so, the Divine Law would have inserted '<i>ox'</i> and <i>'ass'</i>. Why then was <i>'sheep'</i> inserted, unless to indicate the inclusion of birds [which would otherwise have been excluded]? But still why not say that you can [only] include birds which are [ritually] clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 11. ');">⁹</span> for food, as these in some way resemble sheep in that they defile the garments worn by him who swallows them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hul. 100b. ');">¹⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 125:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.