Bava Kamma 54b — the Talmud in English

And we still ask:

“a bull that is discerning”

—is it so that

he is exempt

and the owner of the pit is not liable for it!? And indeed, from where do we know this, and where did the Torah exempt him?

He said

he answered,

Rabbi Jeremiah:

In fact, even for a discerning bull the owner of the pit is liable; rather, our Mishna speaks in the manner of

“it is not necessary”

he says [that is, not only this, but even this]:

that not only this case, but even the following case is included:

“It is not necessary” [it need not be said]

There is no need to state

that a bull which is discerning, for which he is liable; but concerning a deaf, mentally incompetent, or minor bull, one might say: Its deafness caused it

to fall into the pit, or its foolishness caused it, or

its young age caused it

to fall into the pit, and if so,

the owner of the pit should be exempt

—

it teaches us

our Mishna that even if a deaf, mentally incompetent, or minor bull fell into the pit, the owner of the pit is liable to pay for its damage.

Rav Aḥa said to Ravina:

And it was taught in a baraita: “If a being possessing understanding fell into it”

of the pit,

he is exempt,

and

what, is it not a bull possessing understanding

—is it not referring to a discerning bull, so that if it fell into the pit, he is exempt for it? Behold, it is explicitly stated that he is exempt for a discerning bull, and the difficulty arises: From where did we learn to exempt him!?

He said

he answered

to him,

Ravina to Rav Aḥa:

No,

not as you interpreted the baraita. Rather, “a being possessing understanding” means

a person

who is discerning; but for a discerning bull he is liable.

Rav Aḥa returned and challenged Ravina:

But if that is so,

that the baraita’s intention is a person possessing understanding—is it so that

a person possessing understanding is the one who is exempt

for it,

but if he does not possess understanding, he is liable!?

Yet

“a bull”

and not a person, is written,

and the Torah excluded the owner of the pit from liability for a person, even if he is mentally incompetent!?

Rather,

by virtue of this difficulty Ravina explains the baraita that we learned: “If a being possessing understanding fell into it, he is exempt”:

What is meant by

“possessing understanding”?

A species possessing understanding—that is, a person, who belongs to a species in which understanding exists; even a mentally incompetent person belongs to a species possessing understanding. And the baraita comes to teach that the pit is exempt for a person.

That is, a person, to whom intelligence applies; even a mentally incompetent person belongs to the species of intelligent beings. The beraita therefore comes to teach that the owner of a pit is exempt for a person.

He again

said to him

Rav Aḥa to Ravina:

And it was taught in a baraita: “If a discerning bull fell into it, he is exempt”,

so it is explicitly stated that a pit is exempt for a discerning bull!?

Rather, Rava said

to explain our Mishna: The Mishna does not speak in the manner of “it is not necessary,” but rather:

a bull that is deaf, a bull that is mentally incompetent, a bull that is a minor—specifically these

are those for which the owner of the pit is liable,

but

if

a discerning bull fell into it, he is exempt,

the owner of the pit, as we learned in the baraita—

And

what is the reason

that he is exempt for a discerning bull?

Because

it should have looked carefully and proceeded [the bull should have looked and proceeded] and not fallen into the pit.

—the ox should have looked where it was going and should not have fallen into the pit.

It was also taught so

as Rava said:

If a deaf, mentally incompetent, or minor bull fell into it, and a

bull

blind,

even if discerning,

and a

bull

walking at night,

even if discerning—this one is

liable

for it.

But if a bull

that is discerning and walks during the day fell into it, he is exempt

for it, the owner of the pit.

Mishna:

One bull and every animal alike

are equal

with regard to falling into a pit,

that is, to be liable for their payments when they fell into a pit, even though the Torah said: “And a bull or a donkey shall fall there.”

With regard to the demarcation of Mount Sinai,

at the time of the giving of the Torah, when the Torah said [Exodus 19:12]: “And you shall set boundaries for the people around, saying: Take heed for yourselves not to ascend the mountain and not to touch its edge … no hand shall touch it … whether animal or man, he shall not live.”

And with regard to double payment,

as the Torah said [Exodus 22:3]: “If the theft is surely found in his hand, from an ox to a donkey to a sheep, alive, he shall pay double.”

And with regard to returning a lost item,

as the Torah said [Deuteronomy 22:1]: “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep straying, and conceal yourself from them; you shall surely return them to your brother … and so shall you do to his donkey, and so shall you do to his garment, and so shall you do to every lost item of your brother that is lost from him and you find it; you may not conceal yourself.”

With regard to unloading,

as the Torah said [Exodus 23:5]: “When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden, and you refrain from helping him, you shall surely help along with him.”

With regard to muzzling,

as the Torah said: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.”

With regard to forbidden mixtures [the mating of two species, and plowing or leading two species],

as the Torah said [Leviticus 19:19]: “You shall not mate your animal with forbidden mixtures,” and it said [Deuteronomy 22:10]: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.”

And with regard to Shabbat,

as the Torah said [Deuteronomy 5:14]: “And the seventh day is a Shabbat for the Lord your God; you shall not perform any work … nor your ox nor your donkey nor any of your animals.”

And similarly, beast and bird

are like them.

If so, why was it stated: “an ox or a donkey”? Rather, the verse spoke of the usual case

[of something ordinarily occurring].

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains the source of the law that in all these matters mentioned, every animal, beast, and bird is included:

With regard to falling into a pit:

Because

“money shall be returned to its owner”

is written,

and we derive:

everything that has owners

[every living creature that has owners],

as we said

on the previous side.

With regard to the demarcation of Mount Sinai:

For it is written:

“Whether animal or man, he shall not live,”

and a beast is included within the category of animal;

and from the fact that it is written

“whether”

we learn

to include birds.

With regard to double payments: as we said

concerning that which is written: “When a man gives his fellow money or vessels to guard … if the thief is not found [as he said], the master of the house shall approach the judges …

concerning every matter of transgression

concerning an ox, concerning a donkey, concerning a sheep, concerning a garment, concerning every lost item about which he says [the witness says] that this is it [which you swore is in your possession], the matter of both of them shall come before the judges; whoever the judges condemn shall pay double to his fellow”—

it includes every matter of transgression,

that is, from “generalization, specification, and generalization” we derive the inclusion of all of them.

With regard to returning a lost item:

For it is written: “And so shall you do

to every lost item of your brother.”

With regard to unloading: it derives

“donkey, donkey”

from Shabbat,

for concerning unloading it is said: “You shall not see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden,” and concerning Shabbat it is said: “You shall not perform any work … nor your ox nor your donkey nor any of your animals.” Just as on Shabbat all your animals are included, and beast and bird are also included, as we will expound below, so too with regard to unloading.

With regard to muzzling: it derives

“ox, ox”

from Shabbat,

for concerning muzzling it is said: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,” and concerning Shabbat it is said: “You shall not perform any work … nor your ox nor your donkey nor any of your animals.” Just as on Shabbat all your animals, and beast and bird, are included, as we will expound below, so too with regard to muzzling.

With regard to forbidden mixtures: if it is forbidden mixtures of plowing,

because

it derives:

“ox, ox”

from Shabbat,

for concerning forbidden mixtures of plowing it is said: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together,” and concerning Shabbat it is said: “You shall not perform any work … nor your ox nor your donkey nor any of your animals.” Just as on Shabbat all your animals, and beast and bird, are included, as we will expound below, so too with regard to forbidden mixtures of plowing.

If it is forbidden mixtures of mating,

because

it derives:

“your animal, your animal”

from Shabbat,

for concerning forbidden mixtures of mating it is said: “You shall not mate your animal with forbidden mixtures,” and concerning Shabbat it is said in the first set of Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:10]: “You shall not perform any work—you, your son, your daughter, your servant, your maidservant, and your animal.” And just as on Shabbat all your animals, and beast and bird, are included, as we will expound below, so too with regard to forbidden mixtures of mating.

And with regard to Shabbat

itself

from where do we know it?

For it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Ishmael:

In the first set of commandments it was stated

[Exodus 20:10]: “You shall not perform any work—you, your son, and your daughter,

your servant, your maidservant, and your animal,”

and ox and donkey were not mentioned—

And

if

in the second set of commandments it had been stated: “You shall not perform any work—you, your son, your daughter, your servant, and your maidservant,

“You shall not perform any labor, you, your son, your daughter, your male slave, and your female slave,

and your ox and your donkey and all your animals,”

are ox and donkey not included within all animals

[“and all your animals”]

were, and why were they singled out

to be written explicitly?—

In order

to tell you: Just as ox and donkey mentioned here

on Shabbat,

beast and bird are like them

as will be explained below,

so too every

place where an ox or donkey is mentioned—even

beast and bird are like them.

And we challenge this:

Say:

“animal”

[“and your animal”]

in the first set of commandments

is

a generalization,

“your ox and your donkey”

in the second set of commandments

is

a specification,

and we have an established principle:

“A generalization and a specification—only what is in the specification is included in the generalization,”

and if so, let us say:

Ox and donkey, yes; anything else, no!?

They said

the members of the academy to resolve this:

“And all your animals”

in the second set of commandments returns and generalizes,

and we have an established principle:

“A generalization, specification, and generalization—you derive only something similar to the specification,”

just as the specification is explicitly living creatures, so too everything is living creatures.

And we challenge this:

But say: Just as the specification is explicitly something whose carcass imparts ritual impurity through contact and carrying, so too everything whose carcass imparts ritual impurity through contact and carrying—but birds,

whose carcasses do not impart ritual impurity through contact and carrying,

no!?

They say

the members of the academy to reconcile:

If so—

that the verse included only those resembling the particular in two respects, namely, that they are living creatures and that their carcasses impart impurity through contact and carrying—

let the Merciful One write

only

one particular, namely, either an ox or a donkey, and we would say: What is explicit in the particular is something that is a living creature and whose carcass imparts impurity through contact and carrying; so too, everything that is a living creature and whose carcass imparts impurity through contact and carrying is what the Torah prohibited—

that is, either “ox” or “donkey,” and we would say: Just as the specific example clearly refers to a living creature whose carcass imparts ritual impurity through contact and through carrying, so too, the Torah prohibited every living creature whose carcass imparts ritual impurity through contact and through carrying—

and since the Torah wrote two particulars, necessarily, if it is not relevant to one who resembles the particular in two respects, apply it to one who resembles the particular in only one respect, namely, living creatures, even though their carcasses do not impart impurity through contact and carrying.

And we raise an objection against this:

Why—

of the two particulars, which are an ox and a donkey—

should the Merciful One write [only one]?

For

if the Merciful One had written “

”ox”

alone,

I would have said:

a living creature that

is offered upon the altar, yes,

but a living creature

that is not offered upon the altar, no;

therefore

the Merciful One wrote also “

“donkey.”

”donkey.”

And if the Merciful One had written “

”donkey”

alone,

I would have said:

a living creature that

is sanctified by the firstborn status, yes,

but a living creature

that is not sanctified by the firstborn status,

such as horses and camels,

no;

therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

”ox.”

And since both particulars were necessary, the difficulty arises: From where do we include even birds, whose carcasses do not impart impurity through contact and carrying, which do not resemble the particular of ox and donkey

? Rather,

the Gemara resolves it in another manner: From where do we include other things besides the particular, and why do we not say, “A generalization and a specification: there is only what is in the specification”? Because “

”and all your animals”

is not a “generalization,” but rather “

”an inclusion

it is, and the verses are not expounded by the principle of “generalization and specification,” but by the principle of “inclusion and limitation,” and according to this principle the final inclusion includes everything.

The verses are therefore not interpreted by the method of “a general statement followed by a specific statement,” but by the method of “an inclusion followed by an exclusion”; and according to this method, the final inclusion includes everything.

And we raise an objection against this:

But

is it so that

whenever the Merciful One writes “

”all,”

it is an inclusion,

and not a generalization

? But concerning the tithe

second,

for it is written “

”all,”

and we expound it by the

principle of “

”generalization and specification

For it was taught:

It is written [Deuteronomy 14:24]: “But if the way is too long for you [to Jerusalem], because you are unable to carry it [the second tithe, to eat it in Jerusalem] ... then you shall give [the second tithe] for money, bind the money in your hand, and go to the place ... And you shall give the money [in Jerusalem] for whatever your soul desires, for cattle, for sheep, for wine, and for strong drink, and for whatever your soul asks,” and we expound:

“And you shall give the money for whatever your soul desires”

this is

a generalization; “

”for cattle, for sheep, for wine, and for strong drink”

this is

a specification; “and for whatever your soul asks”

returns and generalizes; “

”a generalization, a specification, and a generalization—you may derive only what is similar to the specification”:

Just as what is explicit in the specification is produce from produce [

wine comes from grapes, and strong drink from dates]

and produce of the ground [

for even an animal is nourished from the ground],

so too, everything that is produce from produce [

to exclude truffles and mushrooms, water and salt]

and produce of the ground [

to exclude fish].

Thus, although “all” was stated, nevertheless it is expounded by the principle of “generalization and specification,” and not by the principle of “inclusion and limitation”

. They say

the members of the academy to reconcile: “

”‘for whatever’—

as it is written concerning the second tithe—

is a generalization

it is. “

”‘all’—

as it is written concerning Shabbat—

is an inclusion

it is.

If you wish, say:

actually, “

”all”

is also a generalization,

and not an inclusion—

However, this “

”all”

here, concerning Shabbat,

necessarily

is an inclusion, since it should have written: “

”and your animal”

as it is written in the first Commandments, but it wrote “

”and all your animals”;

infer from it: it is an inclusion.

And we explain:

Now that you have said that “

”all”

stated concerning Shabbat

is an inclusion— “

”‘your animal’”

of the first Commandments [

where “living creature” was not stated],

and “

”ox and donkey”

of the last Commandments—for what do I need them?

That is to say: But according to this principle, every limitation comes to exclude one thing; and what do these come to exclude?

They say

the members of the academy to explain: “

”‘ox’”

was written to make it available, in order

to derive [

to teach] “

”‘ox, ox’”

for muzzling,

as we said above.

And “

”donkey”

was written to make it available, in order

to derive “

”‘donkey, donkey’”

for unloading,

as we said above.

And “

”your animal”

was written to make it available, in order

to derive “

”‘your animal, your animal’”

for mixed species

of mating, as we said above.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

since we derive the prohibition of mixed species in plowing from Shabbat,

even a human

and another species

should be prohibited because of the prohibition of mixed species in plowing, for concerning Shabbat, a male slave and a female slave were prohibited from labor like an animal, as it is stated: “You shall not perform any labor ... your male slave and your female slave, your ox and your donkey, and all your animals

!?

And

why [

why]

did we learn: ‘A human is permitted with all of them’ [

all the species]

to plow and to pull

in a wagon

Rav Pappa said: The people of Papunia know the reason for this matter [

the people of Papunia, which is the name of a place, know how to give a reason for this],

and who are they [

and who are they]?

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov:

For

the verse says [

Deuteronomy 5:14: “You shall not perform any labor ... your male slave and your female slave ...”

‘so that your male slave and your female slave may rest like you’,”

the verse taught, when it repeated the prohibition of labor concerning a male slave and a female slave:

for rest [

rest]

I compared him

the slave to an animal,

but not for another matter,

such as mixed species in plowing.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: