Bava Kamma

[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.'