Commentary for Bava Kamma 154:16

אמר רבא הכא מענייניה דקרא והכא מענייניה דקרא הכא גבי גניבה דכתיב שור או שה שאי אתה יכול להוציא כלאים מביניהם או לרבות כלאים גבי קדשים דכתיב כשב ועז שאתה יכול להוציא כלאים מביניהם או למעט הוא

Why then should a hybrid animal be subject only to the law of slaughter and not to that of sale? We must say therefore that though slaughter is mentioned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a hybrid animal. ');">¹²</span> the same law was meant to apply also to sale; so also according to the Rabbis, though sale is stated in the text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with trefa. ');">¹³</span> the same law was meant to apply to slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [But according to R. Simeon a trefa is not subject even to the law of sale. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Johanan, however, might say that this does not follow. It is true that if you say that the ruling follows R. Simeon, there is no difficulty: since it was necessary to state liability regarding <i>trefa</i> in the one case [of sale] only, it states liability regarding a hybrid animal also in the one case [of slaughter] only. But if you say that this ruling follows the Rabbis, why not join them together, and state thus: 'If the thief misappropriated a hybrid animal and a <i>trefa</i> [sheep or ox] and slaughtered them or sold them, he would have to make four-fold or five-fold payment'! This indeed is a difficulty. [But why should there be liability for four-fold or five-fold payment in the case of] a hybrid animal since Scripture says <i>'sheep'</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹⁵</span> and Raba [elsewhere] said that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'sheep' in Lev. XXII, 28; v. Hul. 78b. ');">¹⁶</span> is a locus classicus for the rule that wherever it says 'sheep', the purpose is to exclude a hybrid animal? — This case here is different, as Scripture says 'or',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹⁷</span> implying the inclusion of a hybrid animal. [Does this mean to say that] the term 'or' everywhere implies an amplification? Was it not taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 38b. ');">¹⁸</span> <i>'When a bullock or a sheep</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27. ');">¹⁹</span> this excepts a hybrid;<i> or a goat</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27. ');">¹⁹</span> this excepts an animal looking like a hybrid'? — Said Raba: The term <i>'or'</i> in the one case is expounded in accordance with the subject matter of the verse, and the term <i>'or'</i> in the other case is similarly expounded in accordance with the subject matter of that verse. Here in connection with theft where it is written <i>'an ox or a sheep'</i>, since it is impossible to produce a hybrid from the union of these two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an ox could not possibly be the father of the offspring of a sheep. ');">²⁰</span> the term <i>'or'</i> should be expounded to include<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if to exclude there was no need for this 'or'. ');">²¹</span> a hybrid [of a different kind], whereas in connection with sacrifices where it is written <i>'a sheep or a goat'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27. ');">¹⁹</span> where it is possible for you to produce a hybrid from their union,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a sheep could be the father of the young of a goat. ');">²²</span> the term <i>'or'</i> should rightly be taken to exclude<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if to include there was no need for this 'or' to be inserted. ');">²³</span> [the hybrid].

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 154:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.