Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 125:11

השתא דאמרת כל ריבויא כל הני פרטי למה לי חד למעוטי קרקע וחד למעוטי עבדים וחד למעוטי שטרות שלמה למעוטי דבר שאינו מסויים על כל אבידה לכדר' חייא בר אבא דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן הטוען טענת גנב

— It may, however, be said that [the expression] '<i>for all'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26. ');">¹⁵</span> is only a generalisation, whereas '<i>all'</i> would be an amplification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 318, n. 2. ');">²¹</span> Or if you wish I may say that [the term] 'all' is also a generalisation, but in this case 'all' is an amplification. For at the very outset we find here a generalisation preceding a specification followed in its turn by another generalisation, as it is written: <i>If a man deliver unto his neighbour</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">²²</span> which is a generalisation, <i>money or stuff</i> which is a specification, <i>to keep</i> which generalises again. Should you assume that this verse <i>for any matter of trespass</i> etc. was similarly inserted in order to give us a generalisation preceding a specification followed in its turn by another generalisation, why did the Divine Law not insert these items of the specification [of the latter verse] along with the items of the former generalisation, specification and generalisation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XXII, 6. ');">²³</span> Why was the verse <i>for any matter of trespass</i> inserted at all, unless to prove that [this <i>'all'</i>] was meant as an amplification?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That is, with reference to the double payment, whereas the generalisation in the preceding verse refers to the oath (v. Shebu. 43a)]. ');">²⁴</span> But now that you have decided that the term '<i>all'</i> is an amplification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 366, n. 3. ');">²⁵</span> why do I need all these terms of the specification?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ox, ass, sheep or raiment. ');">²⁶</span> — One to exclude real estate, a second to exclude slaves and the third to exclude bills; '<i>raiment'</i> to exclude articles which have no specification;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi it means that which has no distinguishing mark, but according to Tosaf, that which is not defined by measure, weight or number; see also Shebu. 42b and B.M. 47a. ');">²⁷</span> '<i>or for any manner of lost thing'</i> was meant as a basis for the view of R. Hiyya b. Abbah, as R. Hiyya b. Abba reported<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 57a. ');">²⁸</span> that R. Johanan said:

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 125:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.