Bava Kamma

But if this is so, is not this a real difficulty?  — There is, however, a refutation of it.  For whence would you include any 'other object'?  From [the implication of] the last generalisation.  Now, since this very generalisation consists in the term 'alive', of what service then is the argument based upon the generalisation followed by a specification which is in its turn followed by another generalisation? It can hardly be to add any [inanimate] object, since the word 'alive' is used there, implying only objects possessing life, but not any other object whatsoever. It was therefore because of this that it was necessary to state 'if to be found it be found.'  It may however still be argued, does not this text contain two generalisations which are placed near each other?  — Rabina thereupon said: [We dispose of this difficulty] as stated in the West,  that wherever you find two generalisations near each other, place a specification between them and explain them as a case of a generalisation followed by a specification.  [Here then] place 'ox' between [the infinitive and the finite verb],  'if to be found it be found.' Now, what additional objects would this introduce? If objects possessing life, are these not to be derived from the term 'alive'? It must therefore be an object which does not possess life, and we expound thus: Just as the specification mentions an object which is movable and which has an intrinsic value, so also any object which is movable and which has an intrinsic value [should be included to be subject to the double payment]. Now, when you again place 'ass' between [the infinitive and the finite verb], 'if to be found it be found', what additional objects could this introduce? If an object not possessing life, was not this derived from [placing] 'ox' [between the two generalisations]?  It must therefore serve to introduce an object having specification.  But if so why do I require the word 'sheep'? — It must therefore be taken as a case of an amplification preceding a diminution followed in its turn by another amplification,  as indeed taught at the School of R. Ishmael. For it was taught at the School of R. Ishmael:  [The words 'in the waters',  'In the waters', occurring twice in the text should not be treated as a generalisation followed by a specification, but as an amplification followed by a diminution followed in its turn by another amplification, to add everything. What, then, does it add in this case?  It adds all objects, But if so, why do I require all these specifications?  — One to exclude real estate; the second to exclude slaves, and the third to exclude bills; while 'theft' and 'alive' furnish a basis for the view of Rab who said  that the value of the principal is to be resuscitated as it was at the time of theft. But according to the view that one verse  deals with a thief himself and the other  with a bailee [falsely] alleging theft, so that the liability of a thief himself to pay double payment is thus derived from the text 'if the thief be found', how is the text 'If to be found it be found' etc. to be expounded? — He may employ it for teaching the view expressed by Raba b. Ahilai; for Raba b. Ahilai said:  What was the reason of Rab who maintained that a defendant admitting an offence for which the penalty is a fine would [even] where witnesses subsequently appeared still be exempt? As it is written: 'If to be found it be found' implying that if at the very outset it is found by witnesses then it will 'be' [considered] 'found' in the consideration of the Judges, excepting thus a case where it was the defendant who incriminated himself. Now again, according to the view that both verses deal with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft, in which case the text 'If to be found it be found' is employed to teach that there is double payment in the case of a thief himself, whence [in Scripture] do we derive the rule regarding a defendant incriminating himself? — From the text, 'Whom the judges shall condemn'  [which implies], 'but not him who condemns himself.' But according to the view that one verse deals with a thief and the other with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft and that the text of 'if to be found it be found' is to introduce the law where the defendant incriminates himself, how could the text, 'whom the judges shall condemn', be expounded? — He might say to you: That text was in the first instance employed to imply that a defendant admitting [an offence entailing] a fine [without witnesses subsequently appearing] would be exempt;  whereas the other view, that both of the verses deal with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft holds that a defendant admitting [an offence entailing] a fine for which witnesses subsequently appear is liable.  According to the view that one verse  deals with a thief and the other with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft, so that the case of a thief is derived from the verse there,  we have no difficulty with the text 'if to be found it be found', which is employed as a basis for the statement of Raba b. Ahilai, but why do I require all these specifications?  — For the reason taught at the school of R. Ishmael,  that any section written in Scripture and then repeated is repeated only for the sake of a new point that is added to it.  But why not say that even the thief himself should be subject to double payment only after having taken an oath falsely?  — Let not this enter your mind, for it was taught: 'R. Jacob says, He shall pay double  [even] where he took no oath. Why not rather say only where he took a false oath?  You can safely say that this could not be so.' Why could this not be so? — Said Abaye: For the Divine Law should then not have written 'he shall pay double' in the case of a thief, as this would have been derived by an a fortiori from the law applicable to a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft: If a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft, into whose hands the article had come lawfully, is ordered by Scripture to pay twice, should this not apply all the more strongly in the case of the thief himself, into whose hands the article came unlawfully? Why then did Scripture say 'He shall pay double' in the case of a thief himself, unless to imply liability even in the absence of an oath! But how could this [text] 'If to be found it be found' be employed to teach this?  Is it not required for what was taught: 'his hand':