Commentary for Bekhorot 101:47

אימא

and notes of indebtedness are excluded because, although they are movables, they are not in themselves money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On these two methods of expositions v. Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 12, n. 3.');">³¹</span> Said Rabina to Meremar: But does Rabbi interpret [Bible texts] on the lines of amplifications and limitations? Does not Rabbi interpret [Bible texts] on the lines of generalizations followed by specifications in connection with [the law of boring a slave's ear with] an awl? For it was taught: [Scripture says], An awl,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 17.');">³²</span> I have here [mentioned] only an awl [wherewith to bore a slave's ear]. Whence do we include a prick, thorn, needle, borer or stylus? The text states: Then thou shalt take, thus including every object which can be taken in the hand. This is the view of R'Jose son of R'Judah. Rabbi, however, says: 'An awl'; just as an awl is exclusively of metal, so anything [used for boring a slave's ear] must be of metal. And we stated elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 21a.');">³³</span> Wherein do they differ? Rabbi interprets [the biblical text] on the lines of generalizations and specifications,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Then thou shalt take' is a general statement, 'An awl' is a specification, 'And thrust it through his ear' is again a general statement.');">³⁴</span> whereas R'Jose son of R'Judah interprets on the lines of amplifications and limitations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The amplification includes everything which can bore the ear, and the limitation only excludes poison as a means of boring the ear.');">³⁵</span> - Yes, elsewhere Rabbi interprets [biblical texts] on the lines of generalizations and specifications. The case however is different here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the redemption of the first-born.');">³⁶</span> as a Tanna of the school of R'Ishmael taught: For a Tanna of the school of R'Ishmael taught, [Scripture says]: 'In the waters, in the waters';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 9.');">³⁷</span> the repetition is not to be interpreted as a general statement followed by a specification, but as an amplification and a limitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The texts 'These may ye eat of all that are in the waters' and 'Whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters' are two general statements intimating that in all waters, in order that the fish may be eaten, we require them to possess fins and scales. This is followed by a specification 'In the seas' and 'In the rivers', implying that only in flowing waters do we require fins and scales, but in gathered waters we can eat fish without fins and scales. And whenever we have two statements in close proximity as is the case here, we do not interpret the biblical text on the lines of a general statement and specifications but of amplifications and limitations (v. Hul. 66b) . Similarly, in the case of redemption, since the two general statements are in close proximity and the specification subsequently follows (v. p. 351, supra n. 7) , Rabbi interprets the texts on the lines of amplification and limitation.');">³⁸</span> And the Rabbis? They say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who expounded the biblical texts on the lines of generalizations and specifications.');">³⁹</span> it was explained in the West [Palestinian colleges]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. (v. R. Gershom) : 'Said Rabina as it was explained, etc.'.');">⁴⁰</span> Wherever you find two general statements in proximity, place the specification between them and interpret them on the lines of generalizations and specifications.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the fact that the specification follows the two generalisations makes no difference.');">⁴¹</span> NOR WITH OBJECTS OF HEKDESH. Surely this is obvious,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we cannot redeem the first-born with consecrated objects.');">⁴²</span> since they do not belong to him! Read

Explore commentary for Bekhorot 101:47. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.