Reference for Bava Kamma 127:7
וכי תימא אילו נאמר קאמר אילו נאמר שור וגניבה ומי מצית אמרת מה הפרט מפורש הוה שור פרט וגניבה כלל פרט וכלל נעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט ואיתרבו להו כל מילי
And if you rejoin that the author of this argument took a hypothetical case, viz.: 'If it were written [first] "<i>ox</i>" and [then] "<i>theft</i>", how in that case would you be able to say, 'Just as the specification mentions etc.,' since <i>'ox'</i> would be the specification and <i>'theft'</i> the generalisation, and in the case of a specification followed by a generalisation the generalisation is considered to add to the specification, so that all objects would be included? If, on the other hand, he based his argument on the actual order of the text, viz.: <i>'theft'</i> and [then] <i>'ox'</i>, how again would you be able to say that 'everything would have been included', or 'just as the specification mentions etc.', since 'theft' would be the generalisation and 'ox' the specification, and in the case of a generalisation followed by a specification there is nothing included in the generalisation except what is explicit in the specification, [so that here] only ox [would be included] but no other object whatsoever? Raba thereupon said: This Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the School of Hezekiah. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>