Bava Kamma

But when the text continues 'sheep', 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  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].  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  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. The Master stated: 'Should not Scripture have mentioned [only] "ox" and "theft"?' — But does it say 'ox' and [then] 'theft'? Is it not [first] 'theft' and [then] 'ox' which is written in the text?  And if you rejoin that the author of this argument took a hypothetical case, viz.: 'If it were written [first] "ox" and [then] "theft", how in that case would you be able to say, 'Just as the specification mentions etc.,' since 'ox' would be the specification and 'theft' 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.: 'theft' and [then] 'ox', 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  based his argument upon the term 'alive' [that follows the specification], so that he argued on the strength of a generalisation  [followed by] a specification  [which was in its turn followed by] another generalisation.  But is the last generalisation  analagous in implication to the first generalisation?  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.  The problem was therefore this: Why do I require the words in the text, 'If to be found it be found?'  Should not Scripture have mentioned only 'theft' and 'ox' and 'alive', and everything would have then been included?  — 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.  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?  — 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?  — 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'?