Commentary for Bava Kamma 155:3
אלא הא דאמר רבא זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר שה אינו אלא להוציא את הכלאים למאי הלכתא אי לקדשים בהדיא כתיב בהו (ויקרא כב, כז) שור או כשב פרט לכלאים
should similarly be employed to exclude. But why not say on the contrary that, as the term '<i>or'</i> in the earlier phrase has to be employed to amplify, so also should the term '<i>or'</i> in the later phrase? — Would this be logical? I grant you that if you say that the term '<i>or'</i> meant to exclude, then it would be necessary to have two [terms 'or'] to exclude, for even when a hybrid has been excluded, it would still be necessary to exclude an animal looking like a hybrid. But if you say it is meant to amplify, why two amplifications [in the two terms 'or']? For once a hybrid is included, what question could there be of an animal looking like a hybrid. To what <i>halachah</i> then would the statement made by Raba refer, that this is a <i>locus classicus</i> for the rule that wherever it says 'sheep'. the purpose is to exclude a hybrid? If to sacrifices, is it not explicitly said: 'A bullock or a sheep which excepts a hybrid'? If to the tithes [of animals], is not the term 'under'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 32. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 155:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.