Bava Kamma

as each item in a generalisation and specification  is expounded by itself,  so that birds would not be included? — If so, the Divine Law should have inserted only one item in the specification.  But which item should the Divine Law have inserted? For were the Divine Law to have inserted only 'ox' I might have suggested that an animal which was eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar  should be included, but one which was not eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar  should not be included. If on the other hand the Divine Law had inserted only 'ass'  I might have thought that an animal which is subject to the sanctity of first birth  should be included but that one which is not subject to the sanctity of first birth  should not be included. [Why then still not exclude birds whose carcasses would, unlike those of the ox and the ass, defile neither by touching nor by carrying?] — It may still be said that if so, the Divine Law would have inserted 'ox' and 'ass'. Why then was 'sheep' inserted, unless to indicate the inclusion of birds [which would otherwise have been excluded]? But still why not say that you can [only] include birds which are [ritually] clean  for food, as these in some way resemble sheep in that they defile the garments worn by him who swallows them  [after they have become nebelah],  whereas birds [ritually] unclean for food  which carry no defilement and do not cause the defilement of garments worn by him who swallows them  should not be included? — [The term] 'all' is an amplification.  [Does this mean to say that] whenever the Divine Law uses [the word] 'all' it is an amplification? What about tithes, where 'all' occurs and we nevertheless expounded it as a case of generalisation and specification? For it was taught: And thou shalt bestow that money for all that thy soul lusteth after  is a generalisation; for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink 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 include only that which is similar to the specification. As then the specification [here] mentions produce obtained from produce  which springs from the soil  there may also be included all kinds of produce obtained from produce  which springs from the soil.  [Does this not prove that the expression 'all' was taken as a generalisation, and not as an amplification?]  — It may, however, be said that [the expression] 'for all'  is only 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 'all' is an amplification. For at the very outset we find here a generalisation preceding a specification followed in its turn by another generalisation, as it is written: If a man deliver unto his neighbour,  which is a generalisation, money or stuff which is a specification, to keep which generalises again. Should you assume that this verse for any matter of trespass etc. was similarly inserted in order to give us a generalisation preceding a specification followed in its turn by another generalisation, why did the Divine Law not insert these items of the specification [of the latter verse] along with the items of the former generalisation, specification and generalisation?  Why was the verse for any matter of trespass inserted at all, unless to prove that [this 'all'] was meant as an amplification?  But now that you have decided that the term 'all' is an amplification,  why do I need all these terms of the specification?  — One to exclude real estate, a second to exclude slaves and the third to exclude bills; 'raiment' to exclude articles which have no specification;  'or for any manner of lost thing' was meant as a basis for the view of R. Hiyya b. Abbah, as R. Hiyya b. Abba reported  that R. Johanan said: