Bava Kamma 127

כשהוא אומר שה הרי שה אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר

But when the text continues <i>'sheep'</i>, we have sheep explicitly stated. How then am I to explain 'theft'? To include any object. [If that is so] should Scripture not have mentioned only 'ox', 'sheep' and 'theft' since everything would have thus been included? — If so, I might still say that just as the specification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ox and sheep. ');">¹</span>

יאמר שור שה וגניבה והכל בכלל אילו כך הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקדוש בבכורה אף כל דבר הקדוש בבכורה

mentions an object which is subject to the sanctity of first birth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Ex. XIII, 12. ');">²</span>

מה יש לך להביא חמור כשהוא אומר חמור הרי חמור אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר

so also any object which is subject to the sanctity of first birth [should be included].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ass would thus also be included; cf. Ex. XXII, 13. ');">³</span>

יאמר שור וחמור שה וגניבה והכל בכלל אילו כך הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש בעלי חיים אף כל ב"ח

Now what can you include through this? An ass [as subject to double payment]. But when the text goes on to mention 'ass', we have 'ass' explicitly stated. What then do I make of 'theft'? To include any object. [If that is so], should Scripture not have mentioned only 'ox' 'ass', 'sheep' and 'theft' since everything would have accordingly been included? — If so, I might still say that just as the specification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ox, sheep and ass. ');">⁴</span>

מה יש לך להביא שאר בעלי חיים כשהוא אומר חיים הרי חיים אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר

mentions objects possessing life, so also any other objects possessing life [should be included]. What can you include through this? All other objects possessing life. But when the text continues 'alive', we have objects possessing life explicitly stated. How then am I to explain 'theft'? [It must be] to include any other object whatsoever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Hence the derivation of double payment in the case of the thief himself.] ');">⁵</span>

אמר מר יאמר שור וגניבה מי כתיב שור וגניבה גניבה ושור הוא דכתיב

The Master stated: 'Should not Scripture have mentioned [only] "<i>ox</i>" and "<i>theft</i>"?' — But does it say <i>'ox'</i> and [then] <i>'theft'</i>? Is it not [first] <i>'theft'</i> and [then] <i>'ox'</i> which is written in the text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Being thus a generalisation followed by a specification, in which case the former includes only what is contained in the latter, v. P.B. p. 13.] ');">⁶</span>

וכי תימא אילו נאמר קאמר אילו נאמר שור וגניבה ומי מצית אמרת מה הפרט מפורש הוה שור פרט וגניבה כלל פרט וכלל נעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט ואיתרבו להו כל מילי

And if you rejoin that the author of this argument took a hypothetical case, viz.: 'If it were written [first] "<i>ox</i>" and [then] "<i>theft</i>", how in that case would you be able to say, 'Just as the specification mentions etc.,' since <i>'ox'</i> would be the specification and <i>'theft'</i> the generalisation, and in the case of a specification followed by a generalisation the generalisation is considered to add to the specification, so that all objects would be included? If, on the other hand, he based his argument on the actual order of the text, viz.: <i>'theft'</i> and [then] <i>'ox'</i>, how again would you be able to say that 'everything would have been included', or 'just as the specification mentions etc.', since 'theft' would be the generalisation and 'ox' the specification, and in the case of a generalisation followed by a specification there is nothing included in the generalisation except what is explicit in the specification, [so that here] only ox [would be included] but no other object whatsoever? Raba thereupon said: This Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the School of Hezekiah. ');">⁷</span>

אלא כדכתיב קאמרי גניבה ושור מי מצית אמרת הכל בכלל או מה הפרט מפורש הוה ליה גניבה כלל ושור פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שור אין מידי אחרינא לא

based his argument upon the term 'alive' [that follows the specification], so that he argued on the strength of a generalisation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'theft'. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא תנא אחיים קא סמיך ליה וכלל ופרט וכלל קא"ל

[followed by] a specification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'ox, ass, sheep'. ');">⁹</span>

והא לא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הוא דכה"ג דריש כללי ופרטי

[which was in its turn followed by] another generalisation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'alive'. — The argument will be explained anon. ');">¹⁰</span>

והכי קא קשיא ליה אם המצא תמצא למה לי יאמר שור וגניבה וחיים והכל בכלל

But is the last generalisation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'alive'. — The argument will be explained anon. ');">¹⁰</span>

אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקרב לגבי מזבח אף כל הקרב לגבי מזבח מה יש להביא שה כשהוא אומר שה הרי שה אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר

analagous in implication to the first generalisation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'theft', being more comprehensive than 'alive'. ');">¹¹</span>

יאמר גניבה ושור ושה וחיים והכל בכלל אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר הקדוש בבכורה אף כל דבר הקדוש בבכורה

There is, however, the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael who did expound texts of this kind on the lines of generalisations and specifications.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Zeb. 4b; 8b; and Hul. 66a. ');">¹²</span>

מה יש לך להביא חמור [כשהוא אומר חמור] הרי חמור אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר

The problem was therefore this: Why do I require the words in the text, 'If to be found it be found?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Literal rendering of Ex. XXII, 3. (E.V.: If the theft be certainly found in his hand.) ');">¹³</span>

יאמר גניבה ושור ושה וחמור וחיים והכל בכלל אילו כן הייתי אומר מה הפרט מפורש בעלי חיים אף כל ב"ח

Should not Scripture have mentioned only 'theft' and 'ox' and 'alive', and everything would have then been included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why indeed this emphasis on the verb 'found'? ');">¹⁴</span>

מה יש לך להביא שאר ב"ח כשהוא אומר חיים הרי חיים אמור הא מה אני מקיים גניבה לרבות כל דבר אם המצא תמצא ל"ל

— If so, I might say that just as the specification mentions an object which is eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar, so also any object eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar is [included]. What does this enable you to include? Sheep.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 370, n. 7. ');">¹⁵</span> But when the text continues 'sheep', we have sheep explicitly stated. What then am I to make of 'theft'? It must be to include any object. [If that is so] should Scripture not have mentioned only 'theft', 'ox', 'sheep' and 'alive' since everything would have then been included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why indeed this emphasis on the verb 'found'? ');">¹⁴</span> — If so, I might still say that just as the specification mentions an object which is subject to the sanctity of first birth, so also any object which is subject to the sanctity of first birth [should be included]. What does this enable you to include? Ass. But when the text continues 'ass', we have ass explicitly stated. What then am I to make of 'theft'? It must be to include any object. [But in that case] should Scripture not have mentioned only 'theft', 'ox', 'sheep', 'ass' and 'alive', since everything would have then been included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why indeed this emphasis on the verb 'found'? ');">¹⁴</span> — If so I might still say that just as the specification mentions objects possessing life, so also any other object possessing life [should be included]. What does this enable you to include? All other objects possessing life. But when the text continues 'alive', objects possessing life are explicitly stated. What then am I to make of 'theft'? [It must be] to include any other object whatsoever. And if so, why do I require the words 'if to be found it be found'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2. This concludes the argument of the School of Hezekiah. ');">¹⁶</span>