Bava Kamma 128

אי הכי שפיר קשיא ליה

But if this is so, is not this a real difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And how are we to meet the question of that Tanna? ');">¹</span>

משום דאית ליה פירכא לרבות כל דבר מהיכא קמייתי ליה מכלל בתרא כללא גופיה חיים כתיב ביה

— There is, however, a refutation of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the emphasis on the verb becomes essential. ');">²</span>

כלל ופרט וכלל מאי קא מהני ליה אי לאתויי כל דבר הא חיים כתיב בעלי חיים אין מידי אחרינא לא משום הכא איצטריך אם המצא

For whence would you include any 'other object'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be subject to the law of theft. ');">³</span>

אמרי והא שני כללות דסמיכי אהדדי נינהו אמר רבינא כדאמרי במערבא כל מקום שאתה מוצא שני כללות הסמוכים זה לזה הטל פרט ביניהם ודונם בכלל ופרט

From [the implication of] the last generalisation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [It is a general principle that, in a proposition consisting of a generalisation followed by a specification which in its turn is followed by another generalisation, the inclusion of all things that are similar to the specification is in virtue of the last generalisation, since without it the proposition would include only what is included in the specification, v. p. 371, n. 3.] ');">⁴</span>

שדי שור בין המצא לתמצא לאתויי מאי אי לאתויי ב"ח מחיים נפקא אלא לאתויי דבר שאין בעלי חיים ודרוש הכי מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון

Now, since this very generalisation consists in the term 'alive', of what service then is the argument based upon the generalisation followed by a specification which is in its turn followed by another generalisation? It can hardly be to add any [inanimate] object, since the word 'alive' is used there, implying only objects possessing life, but not any other object whatsoever. It was therefore because of this that it was necessary to state 'if to be found it be found.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [To apply here the principle of generalisation, specification and generalisation.] ');">⁵</span>

ותו שדי חמור בין המצא לתמצא לאתויי מאי אי לאתויי דבר שאין בעלי חיים משור נפקא אלא לאתויי דבר מסויים

It may however still be argued, does not this text contain two generalisations which are placed near each other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the doubling of the verb expressing 'found'. ');">⁶</span>

א"ה שה למה לי אלא ריבה ומיעט וריבה הוא כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

— Rabina thereupon said: [We dispose of this difficulty] as stated in the West,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Land of Israel. ');">⁷</span>

דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל במים במים ב' פעמים אין זה כלל ופרט אלא ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל

that wherever you find two generalisations near each other, place a specification between them and explain them as a case of a generalisation followed by a specification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shebu. 5a. ');">⁸</span>

מאי רבי רבי כל מילי אי הכי כל הני פרטי למה לי חד למעוטי קרקע וחד למעוטי עבדים וחד למעוטי שטרות גניבה וחיים לכדרב דאמר אחייה לקרן כעין שגנב

[Here then] place 'ox' between [the infinitive and the finite verb],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the doubling of the verb expressing 'found'. ');">⁶</span>

ולמ"ד חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב וגנב עצמו נפקא ליה מאם ימצא הגנב האי אם המצא תמצא מאי דריש ביה

'if to be found it be found.' Now, what additional objects would this introduce? If objects possessing life, are these not to be derived from the term 'alive'? It must therefore be an object which does not possess life, and we expound thus: Just as the specification mentions an object which is movable and which has an intrinsic value, so also any object which is movable and which has an intrinsic value [should be included to be subject to the double payment]. Now, when you again place 'ass' between [the infinitive and the finite verb], 'if to be found it be found', what additional objects could this introduce? If an object not possessing life, was not this derived from [placing] 'ox' [between the two generalisations]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the doubling of the verb expressing 'found'. ');">⁶</span>

מבעי לי' לכדרבא בר אהילאי דאמר רבא בר אהילאי מאי טעמא דרב דאמר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור דכתיב אם המצא תמצא אם המצא בעדים תמצא בדיינים פרט למרשיע את עצמו

It must therefore serve to introduce an object having specification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the exclusion of such as have no marks of identification. Cf. p. 367, n. 4. ');">⁹</span>

ולמ"ד תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב דהאי אם המצא תמצא מפיק ליה לגנב עצמו מרשיע עצמו מנלן (שמות כב, ח) מאשר ירשיעון אלהים ולא המרשיע את עצמו

But if so why do I require the word 'sheep'? — It must therefore be taken as a case of an amplification preceding a diminution followed in its turn by another amplification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 366. ');">¹⁰</span>

ולמ"ד חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב דאייתי ליה מהמצא תמצא למרשיע את עצמו האי אשר ירשיעון מאי דריש ביה אמר לך ההוא מיבעי ליה למודה בקנס דפטור

as indeed taught at the School of R. Ishmael. For it was taught at the School of R. Ishmael:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 373, n. 6. ');">¹¹</span>

ומ"ד תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב קסבר מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים חייב

[The words 'in the waters',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 9. ');">¹²</span>

ולמ"ד חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב דנפקא ליה גנב מהתם בשלמא אם המצא תמצא לכדרבא בר אהילאי אבל כל הני פרטי למה לי

'In the waters', occurring twice in the text should not be treated as a generalisation followed by a specification, but as an amplification followed by a diminution followed in its turn by another amplification, to add everything. What, then, does it add in this case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would otherwise not have been subject to the law. ');">¹³</span>

כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל פרשה שנאמרה ונשנית לא נשנית אלא לדבר שנתחדש בה

It adds all objects, But if so, why do I require all these specifications?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Strictly speaking, 'diminutions'.] ');">¹⁴</span>

ואימא גנב עצמו בשבועה

— One to exclude real estate; the second to exclude slaves, and the third to exclude bills; while 'theft' and 'alive' furnish a basis for the view of Rab who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 376. ');">¹⁵</span>

לא ס"ד דתניא רבי יעקב אומר שנים ישלם שלא בשבועה אתה אומר שלא בשבועה או אינו אלא בשבועה אמרת לא כך היה

that the value of the principal is to be resuscitated as it was at the time of theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the payment of principal for a stolen article will be in accordance with its value at the time of the theft. ');">¹⁶</span>

מאי לא כך היה אמר אביי לא לכתוב רחמנא שנים ישלם בגנב וליתי בק"ו מטוען טענת גנב ומה טוען טענת גנב דבהיתירא אתא לידיה אמר קרא לישלם תרי גנב עצמו דבאיסורא אתא לידיה לא כל שכן

But according to the view that one verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא שנים ישלם דכתב רחמנא בגנב עצמו למה לי דאפילו שלא בשבועה

deals with a thief himself and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. ');">¹⁸</span>

והאי אם המצא להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ידו

with a bailee [falsely] alleging theft, so that the liability of a thief himself to pay double payment is thus derived from the text '<i>if the thief be found'</i>, how is the text '<i>If to be found it be found'</i> etc. to be expounded? — He may employ it for teaching the view expressed by Raba b. Ahilai; for Raba b. Ahilai said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 75a. ');">¹⁹</span> What was the reason of Rab who maintained that a defendant admitting an offence for which the penalty is a fine would [even] where witnesses subsequently appeared still be exempt? As it is written: 'If to be found it be found' implying that if at the very outset it is found by witnesses then it will 'be' [considered] 'found' in the consideration of the Judges, excepting thus a case where it was the defendant who incriminated himself. Now again, according to the view that both verses deal with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft, in which case the text 'If to be found it be found' is employed to teach that there is double payment in the case of a thief himself, whence [in Scripture] do we derive the rule regarding a defendant incriminating himself? — From the text, 'Whom the judges shall condemn'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 8. ');">²⁰</span> [which implies], 'but not him who condemns himself.' But according to the view that one verse deals with a thief and the other with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft and that the text of 'if to be found it be found' is to introduce the law where the defendant incriminates himself, how could the text, 'whom the judges shall condemn', be expounded? — He might say to you: That text was in the first instance employed to imply that a defendant admitting [an offence entailing] a fine [without witnesses subsequently appearing] would be exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [While the other verse is to extend the exemption to the case where witnesses do subsequently appear. Had there been one verse only available, the exemption would have been limited to the former only.] ');">²¹</span> whereas the other view, that both of the verses deal with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft holds that a defendant admitting [an offence entailing] a fine for which witnesses subsequently appear is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indeed maintained by Samuel, infra 75a. ');">²²</span> According to the view that one verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 374, n. 8. ');">²³</span> deals with a thief and the other with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft, so that the case of a thief is derived from the verse there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If the thief be found'. ');">²⁴</span> we have no difficulty with the text 'if to be found it be found', which is employed as a basis for the statement of Raba b. Ahilai, but why do I require all these specifications?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since the exclusion of 'real estate, slaves and bills' is already provided for in the verse, For all manner of trespass, etc.; v. supra p. 364.] ');">²⁵</span> — For the reason taught at the school of R. Ishmael,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 3a; Shebu. 19a. ');">²⁶</span> that any section written in Scripture and then repeated is repeated only for the sake of a new point that is added to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the exclusion of self-admission in case of a fine, as supra.] ');">²⁷</span> But why not say that even the thief himself should be subject to double payment only after having taken an oath falsely?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law in this case is derived from the section dealing with the unpaid bailee who is not subject to pay double unless where he first took a false oath on the plea of alleged theft. ');">²⁸</span> — Let not this enter your mind, for it was taught: 'R. Jacob says, He shall pay double<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 3. ');">²⁹</span> [even] where he took no oath. Why not rather say only where he took a false oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law in this case is derived from the section dealing with the unpaid bailee who is not subject to pay double unless where he first took a false oath on the plea of alleged theft. ');">²⁸</span> You can safely say that this could not be so.' Why could this not be so? — Said Abaye: For the Divine Law should then not have written 'he shall pay double' in the case of a thief, as this would have been derived by an <i>a fortiori</i> from the law applicable to a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft: If a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft, into whose hands the article had come lawfully, is ordered by Scripture to pay twice, should this not apply all the more strongly in the case of the thief himself, into whose hands the article came unlawfully? Why then did Scripture say 'He shall pay double' in the case of a thief himself, unless to imply liability even in the absence of an oath! But how could this [text] <i>'If to be found it be found'</i> be employed to teach this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any of the above implications. ');">³⁰</span> Is it not required for what was taught: <i>'his hand'</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 3. ');">³¹</span>