Bava Kamma 107

או מבעי ליה לחלק ורבי יהודה לחלק מונפל נפקא ורבנן ונפל טובא משמע

[argued that the word] 'or' was necessary as a disjunctive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it should not be thought that there should be no liability unless both ox and ass fell in together. ');">¹</span> And R. Judah? — [He maintained that] the disjunction could be derived from [the use of the singular] And it fall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So that 'or' carries the disjunction further to include utensils attached to the animal, v. Malbim, a.l.] ');">²</span>

אימא ונפל כלל שור וחמור פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שור וחמור אין מידי אחרינא לא

And the Rabbis? — [They could reply that even the singular] And it fall could also imply many [things].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in Ex. XXXVI, 1; Deut. XIII, 3; I Sam. XVII, 34 etc. ');">³</span> May I say [that the expression] <i>And it fall</i> is intended as a generalisation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To include everything. ');">⁴</span>

אמרי בעל הבור ישלם חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש בעלי חיים אף כל בעלי חיים

while <i>an ox</i> or <i>an ass</i> [follows as] a specification, and where a generalisation is followed by a specification, the generalisation does not apply to anything save what is enumerated in the specification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is one of the principles of hermeneutics (Kelal u-ferat) according to R. Ishmael, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 9.] ');">⁵</span> so that only in the case of an ox or an ass should there be liability, but not for any other object whatsoever? — No; for it could be said that [the clause] <i>The owner of the pit shall make it good</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">⁶</span>

אי מה הפרט מפורש דבר שנבלתה מטמאה במגע ובמשא אף כל דבר שנבלתה מטמאה במגע ובמשא אבל עופות לא

generalises again. Now where there is a generalisation preceding a specification which is in its turn followed by another generalisation, you include only such cases as are similar to the specification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is one of the principles of hermeneutics (Kelal u-ferat) according to R. Ishmael, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 9.] ');">⁵</span> [Thus here] as the specification refers to objects possessing life, so too all objects to be included [must be such] as possess life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus excluding inanimate objects. ');">⁷</span>

א"כ נכתוב רחמנא חד פרטא הי נכתוב אי כתב שור הוה אמינא קרב לגבי מזבח אין שאינו קרב לגבי מזבח לא ואי כתב רחמנא חמור ה"א קדוש בבכורה אין שאין קדוש בבכורה לא

But [why not argue] since the specification refers to [animate] objects whose carcass would cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39-40. ');">⁸</span> should we not include [only animate] objects whose carcass would similarly cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. ibid. 26-28. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר קרא (שמות כא, לד) והמת יהיה לו כל דבר מיתה

so that poultry would thus not be included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these do not cause defilement either by touching or by carrying. ');">¹⁰</span> — If so, the Divine Law would have mentioned only one object in the specification. But which [of the two]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ox and ass. ');">¹¹</span>

בין לרבנן דקא ממעטי להו לכלים ובין לר' יהודה דקא מרבי להו לכלים כלים בני מיתה נינהו אמרי שבירתן זו היא מיתתן

should the Divine Law have mentioned? Had it inserted [only] 'ox', I might have said that an animal which was eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case with ox. ');">¹²</span> should be included, but that which was not eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as an ass, horse, camel and the like. ');">¹³</span>

ולרב דאמר בור שחייבה עליו תורה להבלו ולא לחבטו בין לרבנן בין לרבי יהודה כלים בני הבלא נינהו אמרי בחדתי דמיפקעי מהבלא

should not be included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence ass was inserted to include also animals not eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar. ');">¹⁴</span> If [on the other hand] the Divine Law had [only] 'ass', I might have thought that an animal which was subject to the sanctity of firstborn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case with ass; cf. Ex. XIII, 13. ');">¹⁵</span>

האי והמת יהיה לו מבעי ליה לכדרבא דאמר רבא שור פסולי המוקדשין שנפל לבור פטור שנאמר והמת יהיה לו במי שהמת שלו יצא זה שאין המת שלו

should be included, but that one which was not subject to the sanctity of firstborn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as e.g., a horse, camel and the like. ');">¹⁶</span> should not be included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence 'ox' was inserted, for though the species of ox is subject to the sanctity of firstborn and would in no case have been excluded, its insertion being thus superfluous was surely intended to include even those animals which are not subject to the sanctity of firstborn. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא אמר קרא (שמות כא, לד) כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות כל דאית ליה בעלים א"ה אפילו כלים ואדם נמי

[But still why indeed not exclude poultry?] Scripture says: <i>'And the dead shall be his'</i> [implying] all things that are subject to death. [If so,] whether according to the Rabbis who exclude inanimate objects, or according to R. Judah who includes inanimate objects, [the question maybe raised] are inanimate objects subject to death? It may be said that their breaking is their death. But again according to Rab who stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 289. ');">¹⁸</span> that the liability imposed by the Torah in the case of Pit was for the unhealthy air [of the pit] but not for the blow [it gave], would either the Rabbis or R. Judah maintain that inanimate objects could be damaged by unhealthy air? — It may be said that [this could happen] with new utensils that burst in bad air. But was not this [clause] <i>And the dead shall be his</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר קרא שור ולא אדם חמור ולא כלים ולרבי יהודה דקא מרבי להו לכלים בשלמא שור ממעט ביה אדם אלא חמור מאי ממעט ביה

required for the ruling of Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [How then deduce from it liability in case of poultry?] ');">²⁰</span> For did Raba not say,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 296. ');">²¹</span>

אלא אמר רבא חמור דבור לרבי יהודה ושה דאבידה לדברי הכל קשיא:

'Where a sacred ox which had become disqualified [for the altar] fell into a pit, there would be exemption', as it is said: <i>And the dead shall be his</i> [implying that it was only] in the case of an ox whose carcass could be his [that there would be liability] and thus excluding the case of this ox whose carcass could never be his? — But Scripture says: He should give money unto the owner of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">¹⁹</span> [implying] that everything is included which has an owner. If so, why not also include even inanimate objects and human beings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., slaves. ');">²²</span>

נפל לתוכו שור חרש שוטה וקטן חייב: מאי שור חרש שוטה וקטן אילימא שור של חרש שור של שוטה שור של קטן הא שור של פקח פטור

— Because Scripture says specifically 'an ox', [implying] and not 'a man', 'an ass' [implying] and not inanimate objects. Now according to R. Judah who included inanimate objects we understand the term 'ox' because it was intended to exclude 'man', but what was intended to be excluded by the term an ass? — Raba therefore said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. 27a. ');">²³</span> The term 'ass' in the case of Pit, on the view of R. Judah, as well as the term 'sheep' [occurring in the section dealing] with lost property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 1-3. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן שור שהוא חרש שור שהוא שוטה שור שהוא קטן

on the view unanimously accepted, remains difficult to explain. IF THERE FELL INTO IT AN OX, DEAF, ABNORMAL OR SMALL THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY. What is the meaning of 'AN OX, DEAF, ABNORMAL OR SMALL'? It could hardly be suggested that the meaning is 'an ox of a deaf owner, an ox of an abnormal owner, an ox of a minor', for would not this imply exemption in the case of an ox belonging to a normal owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is of course not the case at all ');">²⁵</span> — R. Johanan said: [It means] 'an ox which was deaf, an ox which was abnormal, an ox which was small.'