Musar for Bava Kamma 108:29

שאל רבי חנינא בן עגיל את רבי חייא בר אבא מפני מה בדברות הראשונות לא נאמר בהם טוב ובדברות האחרונות

And thou shalt bestow that money for all that thy soul lusteth after<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26. ');">⁴¹</span> is a generalisation; for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26. ');">⁴¹</span> is a specification; or for all that thy soul desireth is again a generalisation. Now, where a generalisation precedes a specification which is in its turn followed by another generalisation you cannot include anything save what is similar to the specification. As therefore the specification [here]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26. ');">⁴¹</span> mentions products obtained from products<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as wine from grapes. ');">⁴²</span> and which spring from the soil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which characterises also cattle. ');">⁴³</span> there may also be included all kinds of products obtained from products<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excluding water, salt and mushrooms. ');">⁴⁴</span> and which spring from the soil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus excluding fishes. ');">⁴⁵</span> [Does this not prove that the expression 'all' was taken as a generalisation, and not as an amplification?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have included all kinds of food and drink. ');">⁴⁶</span> — I might say that [the expression] 'for all'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H], the particle [H] ('for') is taken as partitive.] ');">⁴⁷</span> is but a generalisation, whereas 'all' would be an amplification. Or if you wish I may say that [the term] 'all' is also a generalisation, but in this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. V, 14. ');">⁴⁸</span> 'all' is an amplification. For why was it not written And thy cattle just as in the first Decalogue? Why did Scripture insert here 'and all thy cattle' unless it was meant to be an amplification? — Now that you decide that 'all' is an amplification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At least in the case of the Sabbath, including thus all kinds of living creatures. ');">⁴⁹</span> why was it necessary to have 'thy cattle' in the first Decalogue and 'ox and ass' in the second Decalogue? — I may reply that 'ox' was inserted [to provide a basis] for comparison of 'ox' with [the term] 'ox' [used in connection] with muzzling; so also 'ass' [to provide a basis] for comparison of 'ass' with the term 'ass' [used in connection] with unloading; so again 'thy cattle' [to provide a basis] for comparison of 'thy cattle' with [the expression] 'thy cattle' [occurring in connection] with heterogeneity. If that is the case [that heterogeneity is compared with Sabbath breaking] why should even human beings not be forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of Sabbath, servants are included. ');">⁵⁰</span> [to plough together with an animal]? Why have we learnt; A human being is allowed to plough [the field] and to pull [a waggon] with any of the beasts?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kil. VIII, 6. ');">⁵¹</span> — R. Papa thereupon said: The reason of this matter was known to the Papunean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Papunia was a place between Bagdad and Pumbeditha, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 79, n. 8.] ');">⁵²</span> that is R. Aha b. Jacob [who said that as] Scripture says that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. V, 14. ');">⁴⁸</span> [it is only] in respect of the law of rest that I should compare them [to cattle] but not of any other matter. R. Hanina b. 'Agil asked R. Hiyya b. Abba: Why in the first Decalogue is there no mention of wellbeing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For honouring father and mother; v. Ex. XX, 12. ');">⁵³</span> whereas in the second Decalogue

Shenei Luchot HaBerit