Reference for Bava Kamma 234:22
אמר רב פפא התם במאי עסקינן כגון שגזל שדה מחבירו והיתה
Bills.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As their intrinsic value does not lie in their substance; v. also supra p. 364. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> But the Rabbis expound [Scripture] on the principle of generalisation and specification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 3; and supra 54b. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> [thus: The expression,] <i>and lie</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 703, n. 9. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> is a generalisation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 703, n. 10. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> <i>In that which was delivered him to keep</i> …<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 703, n. 9. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> is a specification;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 703, n. 11. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> <i>Or all that [about which he has sworn falsely</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 703, n. 12. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> is again a generalisation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 703, n. 12. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> and where a generalisation is followed by a specification that precedes another generalisation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 703, n. 12. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> you surely cannot include anything save what is similar to the specification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 364. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> So here, just as the specification is an article which is movable and of which the intrinsic value lies in its substance, you include any other matter which is movable and of which the intrinsic value lies in its very substance. Land is thus excluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the general law of robbery. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> as it is not movable; so also are slaves excluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the general law of robbery. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> as they are compared [in law] to lands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXV, 46 and supra p. 364. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> and bills are similarly excluded,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the general law of robbery. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> for though they are movables, their substance does not constitute their intrinsic value. But was it not taught: If one misappropriated a cow and a river swept it away, he would have to present him with another cow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 569, n. 2. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> according to the opinion of R. Eleazar, whereas the Sages maintain that he would be entitled to say to him: 'Here is yours before you'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 569, n. 2. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> Now in what principle did they differ there [in the case of the cow]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is certainly subject to the law of robbery. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> — Said R. papa: We are dealing there with a case where, e.g., he robbed a man of a field on which