Bava Kamma — Daf 54a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[argued that the word] 'or' was necessary as a disjunctive.  And R. Judah? — [He maintained that] the disjunction could be derived from [the use of the singular] And it fall.  And the Rabbis? — [They could reply that even the singular] And it fall could also imply many [things]. May I say [that the expression] And it fall is intended as a generalisation,  while an ox or an ass [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,  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] The owner of the pit shall make it good  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.  [Thus here] as the specification refers to objects possessing life, so too all objects to be included [must be such] as possess life.  But [why not argue] since the specification refers to [animate] objects whose carcass would cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying,  should we not include [only animate] objects whose carcass would similarly cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying,  so that poultry would thus not be included?  — If so, the Divine Law would have mentioned only one object in the specification. But which [of the two]  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  should be included, but that which was not eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar  should not be included.  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  should be included, but that one which was not subject to the sanctity of firstborn  should not be included.  [But still why indeed not exclude poultry?] Scripture says: 'And the dead shall be his' [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  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] And the dead shall be his  required for the ruling of Raba?  For did Raba not say,  'Where a sacred ox which had become disqualified [for the altar] fell into a pit, there would be exemption', as it is said: And the dead shall be his [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  [implying] that everything is included which has an owner. If so, why not also include even inanimate objects and human beings?  — 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:  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  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?  — R. Johanan said: [It means] 'an ox which was deaf, an ox which was abnormal, an ox which was small.'