Bava Kamma 108

הא שור שהוא פקח פטור

Still, would not this imply exemption in the case of an ox which was normal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And why should this be so? ');">¹</span> — R. Jeremiah thereupon said: A particularly strong case is taken:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'He states (a case) where there can be no question'. ');">²</span>

אמר ר' ירמיה לא מבעיא קאמר לא מבעיא שור שהוא פקח דחייב אבל שור חרש שוטה וקטן אימא חרשותו גרמה לו קטנותו גרמה לו וליפטר קמ"ל

There could be no question that in the case of a normal ox there should be liability, but in the case of an ox which is deaf or abnormal or small it might have been thought that it was its deafness that caused [the damage to it] or that it was its smallness that caused it [to fall] so that the owner of the pit should be exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Putting in contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff as a defence. ');">³</span> We are therefore told [that even here he is liable]. Said R. Aha to Rabina: But it has been taught: If a creature possessing sense fell into it there would be exemption. Does this not mean an ox possession sense? — He replied: No, it means a man. [If that is so,] would not this imply that only in the case of a man who possesses sense that there would be exemption, whereas if he did not possess sense there would be liability, [and how can this be, seeing that] it is written 'ox' [which implies] 'and not man'? — The meaning of 'one possessing sense' must therefore be 'one of the species of rational being'. But he again said to him: Was it not taught: If there fell into it an ox possessing sense there would be exemption? — Raba therefore said: [The Mishnaic text indeed means] precisely an ox which was deaf, an ox which was abnormal, an ox which was small, for in the case of an ox which was normal there would be exemption, the reason being that such an ox should have looked more carefully while walking. So indeed was it taught likewise:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 305. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל רב אחא לרבינא והתניא נפל לתוכו בר דעת פטור מאי לאו שור בר דעת א"ל לא אדם אלא מעתה אדם בן דעת הוא דפטור הא לאו בן דעת הוא דחייב שור ולא אדם כתיב

Where there fell into it an ox which was deaf, or abnormal or small, or blind or while walking at night time, there would be liability whereas if it was normal and walking during the day there would be exemption. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BOTH AN OX AND ANY OTHER ANIMAL ARE ALIKE [BEFORE THE LAW WITH REFERENCE] TO FALLING INTO A PIT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 33. ');">⁵</span>

אלא מאי בן דעת מין בן דעת א"ל והתניא נפל לתוכו שור בן דעת פטור

TO EXCLUSION FROM MOUNT SINAI,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid., XIX, 13. ');">⁶</span> TO PAYING DOUBLE [IN CASES OF THEFT],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. XXII, 3. ');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר רבא שור והוא חרש שור והוא שוטה שור והוא קטן דוקא אבל שור והוא פקח פטור מאי טעמא דבעי ליה עיוני ומיזל תניא נמי הכי נפל לתוכו שור חרש שוטה וקטן וסומא ומהלך בלילה חייב פקח ומהלך ביום פטור:

TO RESTORING LOST PROPERTY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXII, 1-3. ');">⁸</span> TO UNLOADING [BURDENS TOO HEAVY FOR AN ANIMAL TO BEAR],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXIII, 5 and Deut. XXII, 4. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אחד שור ואחד כל בהמה לנפילת הבור ולהפרשת הר סיני ולתשלומי כפל ולהשבת אבידה לפריקה לחסימה לכלאים ולשבת

TO ABSTAINING FROM MUZZLING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXV, 4. ');">¹⁰</span> TO HETEROGENEOUS ANIMALS [BEING COUPLED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIX, 19. ');">¹¹</span>

וכן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן א"כ למה נאמר שור או חמור אלא שדבר הכתוב בהווה:

OR WORKING TOGETHER],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXII, 10. ');">¹²</span> TO SABBATH REST.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XX, 10 and Deut. V, 14. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לנפילת הבור (שמות כא, לד) כסף ישיב לבעליו כתיב כל דאית ליה בעלים כדאמרן להפרשת הר סיני (שמות יט, יג) אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה וחיה בכלל בהמה הויא אם לרבות את העופות

SO ALSO BEASTS AND BIRDS ARE LIKE THEM. IF SO WHY DO WE READ, AN OX OR AN ASS? ONLY BECAUSE SCRIPTURE SPOKE OF THE MORE USUAL [ANIMALS IN DOMESTIC LIFE]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [WITH REFERENCE] TO FALLING INTO A PIT, since it is written, He should give money unto the owner of it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">¹⁴</span>

לתשלומי כפל כדאמרינן (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע כלל כל דבר פשיעה להשבת אבידה (דברים כב, ג) לכל אבדת אחיך לפריקה יליף חמור חמור משבת

[to include] everything that an owner has, as indeed already stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 313. ');">¹⁵</span> TO EXCLUSION FROM MOUNT SINAI [as it is written] Whether it be animal or man, it shall not live.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid., XIX, 13. ');">⁶</span>

לחסימה יליף שור שור משבת

Beast<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., non-domesticated animals.] ');">¹⁶</span> is included in 'animal' and [the word] 'whether' includes 'birds'. TO PAYING DOUBLE, as we said elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 364. ');">¹⁷</span>

לכלאים אי כלאים דחרישה יליף שור שור משבת

[The expression] for all manner of trespass<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 8. ');">¹⁸</span> is comprehensive. TO RESTORING LOST PROPERTY; [this is derived from the words] with all lost things of thy brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 3. ');">¹⁹</span>

אי כלאים דהרבעה יליף בהמתך בהמתך משבת

TO UNLOADING [BURDENS TOO HEAVY FOR AN ANIMAL TO BEAR]; we derive this [by] comparing [the term] 'ass'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXIII, 5 and Deut. XXII, 4. ');">⁹</span> with [the term] 'ass'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XX, 10 and Deut. V, 14. ');">¹³</span>

וגבי שבת מנלן דתניא ר' יוסי אומר משום ר' ישמעאל בדברות הראשונות נאמר (שמות כ, ט) עבדך ואמתך ובהמתך ובדברות האחרונות נאמר (דברים ה, יג) ושורך וחמורך וכל בהמתך והלא שור וחמור בכלל כל בהמה היו ולמה יצאו לומר לך מה שור וחמור האמור כאן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף כל חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן

[occurring in connection] with the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained anon. ');">²⁰</span> TO [ABSTAINING FROM] MUZZLING; this we learn [similarly by] comparing [the term] 'ox'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXV, 4. ');">¹⁰</span>

אימא בהמה דדברות הראשונות כלל שורך וחמורך דדברות האחרונות פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שור וחמור אין מידי אחרינא לא

with [the term] 'ox'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XX, 10 and Deut. V, 14. ');">¹³</span> [used in connection] with Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained anon. ');">²⁰</span>

אמרי וכל בהמתך דדברות האחרונות חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש בעלי חיים אף כל בעלי חיים

TO HETEROGENEOUS ANIMALS; the rule as regards ploughing we learn [by comparing the term] 'ox'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXII, 10. ');">¹²</span> with the term 'ox'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XX, 10 and Deut. V, 14. ');">¹³</span>

ואימא מה הפרט מפורש דבר שנבלתו מטמא במגע ובמשא אף כל דבר שנבלתו מטמא במגע ובמשא אבל עופות לא

used [in connection] with Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained anon. ');">²⁰</span> and the rule as regards coupling we learn [by comparing the term] 'thy cattle'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIX, 19. ');">¹¹</span>

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

with the term 'thy cattle'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XX, 10 and Deut. V, 14. ');">¹³</span> [used in connection] with Sabbath. But whence are [all these rules known] to us in the case of Sabbath [itself]? — As it was taught: R. Jose says in the name of R. Ishmael: In the first Decalogue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 2-17 ');">²¹</span>

אלא וכל בהמתך ריבויא הוא

it is said thy manservant and thy maidservant and thy cattle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. ');">²²</span> whereas in the second Decalogue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. V, 6-18. ');">²³</span>

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

it is said thy ox and thy ass and any of thy cattle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 14. ');">²⁴</span> Now, are not 'ox' and 'ass' included in 'any of thy cattle'? Why then were they singled out? To tell us that just as in the case of the 'ox and ass' mentioned here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 14. ');">²⁴</span>

דתניא (דברים יד, כו) ונתת הכסף בכל אשר תאוה נפשך כלל בבקר ובצאן וביין ובשכר פרט ובכל אשר תשאלך נפשך חזר וכלל

beasts and birds are on the same footing with them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As will be shown anon. ');">²⁵</span> So also [in any other case where 'ox and ass' are mentioned] all beasts and birds are on the same footing with them. But may we not say that 'thy cattle' in the first Decalogue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 2-17 ');">²¹</span>

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע אף כל פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע

is a generalisation, and 'thy ox and thy ass' in the second Decalogue is a specification, and [we know that] where a generalisation is followed by a specification, the generalisation does not include anything save what is mentioned in the specification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 312, n. 1. ');">²⁶</span> [whence it would follow that only] 'ox and ass' are [prohibited]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To work on the Sabbath. ');">²⁷</span>

אמרי בכל כללא כל ריבויא איבעית אימא כל נמי כללא הוא מיהו האי כל דהכא ריבויא הוא מדהוה ליה למכתב ובהמתך כדכתיב בדברות הראשונות וכתב וכל בהמתך ש"מ ריבויא

but not any other thing? — I may reply that the words 'and any of thy cattle' in the second Decalogue constitute a further generalisation, so that we have a generalisation preceding a specification which in its turn is followed by another generalisation; and in such a case you include also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'only'. ');">²⁸</span> that which is similar to the specification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 312, n. 1. ');">²⁶</span>

השתא דאמרת כל ריבויא הוא בהמתך דדברות הראשונות ושור וחמור דדברות האחרונות ל"ל

so that as the specification [here] mentions objects possessing life, there should thus also be included all objects possessing life. But, I may say, the specification mentions [living] things whose carcass would cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39-40. ');">²⁹</span> [Why not say that] there should also be included all [living] things whose carcass would similarly cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26-28. ');">³⁰</span>

אמרי שור לאגמורי שור שור לחסימה

so that birds would thus not be included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these do not cause defilement either by touching or by carrying. ');">³¹</span> — I may reply: If that were the case, the Divine Law would have inserted only one [object in the] specification. But which [of the two]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ox and ass. ');">³²</span>

חמור לאגמורי חמור חמור לפריקה

should the Divine Law have inserted? For were the Divine Law to have inserted [only] 'ox', I might have thought than an animal which was eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case with ox. ');">³³</span> 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. ');">³⁴</span>

בהמתך לאגמורי בהמתך בהמתך לכלאים

should not be included, so that the Divine Law was thus compelled to insert also 'ass'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would include also animals not eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar. ');">³⁵</span> If [on the other hand] the Divine Law had inserted [only] 'ass', I might have thought that [an animal which was subject to the] sanctity of first birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case with ass; cf. Ex. XIII, 13. ');">³⁶</span>

אי הכי אפילו אדם ליתסר אלמה תנן אדם מותר עם כולן לחרוש ולמשוך

should be included, but that which was not subject to the sanctity of first birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as horses and camels and the like. ');">³⁷</span> should not be included; the Divine Law therefore inserted also 'ox'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To include those animals which otherwise would have been excluded; for since the species of ox is subject to the sanctity of first-born 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 first-born. On the other hand, birds should still be excluded since, unlike ox and ass, their carcasses do not defile, either by touching or by carrying. ');">³⁸</span>

אמר רב פפא פפונאי ידעי טעמא דהא מילתא ומנו רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (דברים ה, יג) למען ינוח עבדך ואמתך כמוך להנחה הקשתיו ולא לדבר אחר:

It must therefore [be said that] and all thy cattle is [not merely a generalisation but] an amplification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the term 'all' does more than generalize, for it includes everything. [On the difference between amplification ribbuy and generalisation kelal, v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 9.] ');">³⁹</span> [Does this mean to say that] wherever the Divine Law inserts [the word] 'all', it is an amplification? What about tithes where [the word] 'all' occurs and we nevertheless expound it as an instance of generalisation and specification? For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 63a. ');">⁴⁰</span>

שאל רבי חנינא בן עגיל את רבי חייא בר אבא מפני מה בדברות הראשונות לא נאמר בהם טוב ובדברות האחרונות

And thou shalt bestow that money for all that thy soul lusteth after<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26. ');">⁴¹</span> is a generalisation; for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26. ');">⁴¹</span> is a specification; or for all that thy soul desireth is again a generalisation. Now, where a generalisation precedes a specification which is in its turn followed by another generalisation you cannot include anything save what is similar to the specification. As therefore the specification [here]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 26. ');">⁴¹</span> mentions products obtained from products<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as wine from grapes. ');">⁴²</span> and which spring from the soil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which characterises also cattle. ');">⁴³</span> there may also be included all kinds of products obtained from products<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excluding water, salt and mushrooms. ');">⁴⁴</span> and which spring from the soil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus excluding fishes. ');">⁴⁵</span> [Does this not prove that the expression 'all' 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. ');">⁴⁶</span> — I might say that [the expression] 'for all'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H], the particle [H] ('for') is taken as partitive.] ');">⁴⁷</span> is but a generalisation, whereas 'all' would be an amplification. Or if you wish I may say that [the term] 'all' is also a generalisation, but in this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. V, 14. ');">⁴⁸</span> 'all' is an amplification. For why was it not written And thy cattle just as in the first Decalogue? Why did Scripture insert here 'and all thy cattle' unless it was meant to be an amplification? — Now that you decide that 'all' is an amplification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At least in the case of the Sabbath, including thus all kinds of living creatures. ');">⁴⁹</span> why was it necessary to have 'thy cattle' in the first Decalogue and 'ox and ass' in the second Decalogue? — I may reply that 'ox' was inserted [to provide a basis] for comparison of 'ox' with [the term] 'ox' [used in connection] with muzzling; so also 'ass' [to provide a basis] for comparison of 'ass' with the term 'ass' [used in connection] with unloading; so again 'thy cattle' [to provide a basis] for comparison of 'thy cattle' with [the expression] 'thy cattle' [occurring in connection] with heterogeneity. If that is the case [that heterogeneity is compared with Sabbath breaking] why should even human beings not be forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of Sabbath, servants are included. ');">⁵⁰</span> [to plough together with an animal]? Why have we learnt; A human being is allowed to plough [the field] and to pull [a waggon] with any of the beasts?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kil. VIII, 6. ');">⁵¹</span> — R. Papa thereupon said: The reason of this matter was known to the Papunean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Papunia was a place between Bagdad and Pumbeditha, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 79, n. 8.] ');">⁵²</span> that is R. Aha b. Jacob [who said that as] Scripture says that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. V, 14. ');">⁴⁸</span> [it is only] in respect of the law of rest that I should compare them [to cattle] but not of any other matter. R. Hanina b. 'Agil asked R. Hiyya b. Abba: Why in the first Decalogue is there no mention of wellbeing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For honouring father and mother; v. Ex. XX, 12. ');">⁵³</span> whereas in the second Decalogue