Bava Kamma 125

דהא כל חד וחד כלל ופרט באפי נפשיה דרשינן ליה אבל עופות לא

as each item in a generalisation and specification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. omits 'in a&nbsp;… specification'.] ');">¹</span> is expounded by itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 64b. ');">²</span>

א"כ נכתוב רחמנא חד פרטא

so that birds would not be included? — If so, the Divine Law should have inserted only one item in the specification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding objects possessing life. ');">³</span> But which item should the Divine Law have inserted? For were the Divine Law to have inserted only '<i>ox'</i> I might have suggested that an animal which was eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case with ox. ');">⁴</span>

הי נכתוב רחמנא אי כתב רחמנא שור הוה אמינא קרב לגבי מזבח אין שאין קרב לגבי מזבח לא ואי כתב רחמנא חמור הוה אמינא קדוש בבכורה אין שאין קדוש בבכורה לא

should be included, but one which was not eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as an ass, horse, camel and the like. ');">⁵</span> should not be included. If on the other hand the Divine Law had inserted only '<i>ass'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would include also animals not eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar. ');">⁶</span>

אמרי א"כ נכתוב רחמנא שור וחמור שה למה לי ש"מ לאתויי עופות

I might have thought that an animal which is subject to the sanctity of first birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case with ass; cf. Ex. XIII, 13. ');">⁷</span> should be included but that one which is not subject to the sanctity of first birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as horses and camels and the like. ');">⁸</span>

ואימא לאתויי עופות טהורים דומיא דשה דמטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה אבל עופות טמאים דלית בהו טומאה דלא מטמאי בגדים אבית הבליעה לא כל ריבויא הוא

should not be included. [Why then still not exclude birds whose carcasses would, unlike those of the ox and the ass, defile neither by touching nor by carrying?] — It may still be said that if so, the Divine Law would have inserted '<i>ox'</i> and <i>'ass'</i>. Why then was <i>'sheep'</i> inserted, unless to indicate the inclusion of birds [which would otherwise have been excluded]? But still why not say that you can [only] include birds which are [ritually] clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 11. ');">⁹</span> for food, as these in some way resemble sheep in that they defile the garments worn by him who swallows them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hul. 100b. ');">¹⁰</span>

וכל היכא דכתב כל ריבויא הוא והא גבי מעשר דכתיב כל וקא דרשינן ליה בכלל ופרט

[after they have become <i>nebelah</i>],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a living creature which lost its life not through the prescribed method of ritual slaughter; cf. Glos. ');">¹¹</span> whereas birds [ritually] unclean for food<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated in Lev. XI, 13-20 and Deut. XIV, 12-19. ');">¹²</span>

דתני' (דברים יד, כו) ונתת הכסף בכל אשר תאוה נפשך כלל בבקר ובצאן וביין ובשכר פרט ובכל אשר תשאלך נפשך חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע אף כל פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע

which carry no defilement and do not cause the defilement of garments worn by him who swallows them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hul. loc. cit. ');">¹³</span> should not be included? — [The term] 'all' is an amplification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the term 'all' does more than generalise, for it includes everything, v. supra p. 317. n. 7. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמרי בכל כללא כל ריבויא הוא ואיבעית אימא כל כללא הוא מיהו כל דהכא ריבויא הוא

[Does this mean to say that] whenever the Divine Law uses [the word] 'all' it is an amplification? What about tithes, where 'all' occurs and we nevertheless expounded it as a case of generalisation and specification? For it was taught: <i>And thou shalt bestow that money for all that thy soul lusteth after</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26. ');">¹⁵</span> is a generalisation; <i>for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink</i> is a specification; <i>or for all that thy soul desireth</i> is again a generalisation. Now, where a generalisation precedes a specification which is in its turn followed by another generalisation, you include only that which is similar to the specification. As then the specification [here] mentions produce obtained from produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as wine from grapes. ');">¹⁶</span>

מכדי כתיב מעיקרא כלל ופרט וכלל דכתיב (שמות כב, ו) כי יתן איש אל רעהו כלל כסף או כלים פרט לשמור הדר וכלל

which springs from the soil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which characterises also cattle. ');">¹⁷</span> there may also be included all kinds of produce obtained from produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excluding water, salt and mushrooms. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואי סלקא דעתך האי על כל דבר פשע נמי לכלל ופרט הוא דאתא נכתוב רחמנא להני פרטי גבי האיך כלל ופרט על כל דבר פשע למה לי ש"מ ריבויא הוא

which springs from the soil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus excluding fishes. V. supra p. 317. ');">¹⁹</span> [Does this not prove that the expression '<i>all'</i> 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. ');">²⁰</span>

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: