Bava Kamma 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

For

although “a garment” was also stated, and it does not impart ritual impurity through contact and carrying, nevertheless, when there are several particulars, we do not expound all of them together, saying that resemblance to any one of the particulars is sufficient for an item to be included by the generalization. Rather:

Each and every one

particular

“generalization and particular

and generalization”

is expounded independently

as a complete exposition of “generalization, particular, and generalization”; that is, as though each of the particulars had two separate generalizations—

For if it had been written “a generalization, a garment, and a generalization,” and, in addition, “a generalization, an ox, and a generalization,” we could not have included living creatures from the particular of “a garment,” since they do not resemble it. Necessarily, then, living creatures are derived only from that “generalization, particular, and generalization” in which the particular is a living creature. If so, only other living creatures whose carcasses impart ritual impurity through contact and carrying are included—

And if so, perhaps you might say:

But not birds!?

We cannot say this, because

if so, the Merciful One should have written only one particular

from among living creatures, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Since the Torah did not suffice with only one of these particulars, we have learned that even birds are included.

And we challenge this:

Which one should the Merciful One have written

as the sole particular from among living creatures?

For

if the Merciful One had written

“ox”

alone, and had not also stated “donkey and sheep,”

I would have thought

that an item

that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar

like an ox

yes

one is indeed liable for double payment for it, but an item

that is not fit to be sacrificed on the altar, no

one is not liable for double payment for it. Therefore, the Torah needed the particular of “donkey,” which is not fit to be sacrificed on the altar.

And if the Merciful One had written “donkey”

alone, and had not also stated “ox and sheep,”

I would have thought

an item sanctified by its firstborn status

like a donkey—

yes

one is indeed liable for double payment for it, but an item

that is not sanctified by its firstborn status, no

one is not liable for double payment for it. Therefore, the Torah added another particular—“ox” or “sheep”—which, although it too is sanctified by its firstborn status, if it is not needed for an item sanctified by its firstborn status, apply it to an item that is not sanctified by its firstborn status.

The members of the academy said

:

If so

that one is not liable for double payment for birds—

the Merciful One should write

“ox and donkey”

alone, and we would know everything: Since “donkey” is written, an item that is not fit to be sacrificed on the altar is included; and one cannot say that nevertheless the item must be sanctified by its firstborn status, since for that reason “ox” was stated. If so,

“sheep”

why do I need it

Rather,

learn from it

if it is not needed for an item whose carcass imparts ritual impurity through contact and carrying, apply it to an item whose carcass does not impart ritual impurity through contact and carrying, and

to include birds.

And

we nevertheless challenge this:

say

that “sheep” was stated only

to include pure birds

that are

somewhat similar to sheep

in that

they impart impurity

at least

to garments in the throat

one who eats the carcass of a pure bird becomes impure and requires immersion and the laundering of garments—

But impure birds, which have no ritual impurity

at all,

as they do not impart impurity to garments in the throat —

no

one is liable for double payment for them!?

On the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara explains that this verse is not expounded according to the method of “generalization, particular, and generalization,” in which the generalization includes every item that is merely “similar to the particular.” Rather, we expound the verse according to the method of “inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion”: “For every matter of wrongdoing” is an inclusion; “for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment” are exclusions; and “for every lost item” again includes. This is because

“every”

“every matter,” “every lost item”

is an inclusion

and is not expounded as a generalization—

According to this method, the final inclusion includes even items that are not similar to the particular [the exclusion], while each exclusion is written to exclude one item. What each exclusion comes to exclude will be explained later, but birds have already been included by the final inclusion.

And we challenge this:

And

since

wherever it is written

“every”

it is an inclusion

and is expounded according to the method of “inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion,” and not according to the method of “generalization, particular, and generalization”!?

But with regard to the second tithe

when

it is written

“every,”

and

nevertheless

we expound it by

“generalization and particular

and generalization,” and not according to the method of “inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion”!?

And

as it is taught

it is written: “You shall tithe the entire produce of your seed that comes forth in the field year by year. And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that He will choose to rest His Name there, the tithe of your grain. But if the way is too long for you, because you are unable to carry it [the second tithe to Jerusalem to eat it there], then you shall turn it into money [redeem it for money], bind the money in your hand, and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall spend the money [purchase with that money in Jerusalem] on whatever your soul desires, on cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink, and on whatever your soul requests.”

This verse is expounded according to the method of “generalization, particular, and generalization,” and teaches what may be purchased with second-tithe money in Jerusalem:

“And you shall spend the money on whatever your soul desires”

this is

a generalization.

“On cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink”

this is

a particular.

“And on whatever your soul requests”

this is

a return

of

the verse to a generalization.

“With a generalization, particular, and generalization, you may derive only what is similar to the particular,”

and we learn:

“Just as the particular explicitly refers to: fruit from fruit

that is, something produced by another thing; this includes animals, as well as fruits whose seeds are planted and produce fruit,

and produce of the ground —

so too, everything that is fruit from fruit and produce of the ground,

and water and salt were excluded, as were truffles and mushrooms [which grow on their own], since these are not “fruit from fruit”; fish were also excluded, since they are not “produce of the ground.”

Thus, although the Torah says “on whatever your soul desires,” and in the second generalization says “on whatever your soul requests,” nevertheless the verse is not expounded according to the method of “inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion,” but according to the method of “generalization, particular, and generalization.”

If so, what is different about the verses concerning one who claims that a deposited item was stolen, which are expounded according to the method of “inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion”!?

The members of the academy said

that the verse concerning second tithe, which is expounded according to the method of “generalization, particular, and generalization,” differs from the verse concerning one who claims that a deposited item was stolen, which is expounded according to the method of “inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion,” in two ways:

The first:

“Every”

stated with regard to second tithe

is

a generalization

and not an inclusion, and it is expounded according to the method of “generalization, particular, and generalization”; whereas

“every”

stated with regard to one who claims that a deposited item was stolen

is an inclusion

and is expounded according to the method of inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion.

Alternatively

indeed, even

“every”

is a generalization; however,

“every”

here

with regard to one who claims that a deposited item was stolen, necessarily

is an inclusion;

because:

Since

it is

already written at the outset

at the beginning of the passage—

“generalization, particular, and generalization,”

for

it is

written:

“If a person gives his fellow money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen from the person’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall approach the judges [for an oath]”—

From this verse we learn that the oath of bailees is not imposed with regard to every item, but only with regard to an item that is similar to the particular, for:

“If a person gives his fellow”

this is

a generalization,

which implies the guardians of every kind of item.

“Money or vessels,”

this is

a particular,

which implies the guardians of these alone.

“To safeguard. And the owner of the house shall approach the judges,”

the verse

returns

to a generalization, including the guardians of all items, to impose upon them the oath of bailees.

“With a generalization, particular, and generalization, you may derive only what is similar to the particular,” and slaves, documents, and land were excluded, since they are not similar to the particular of “money or vessels.”

And

if so:

If it enters your mind that this

“for every matter of wrongdoing”

also comes only for a generalization, particular, and generalization,

then

the Merciful One should have written these particulars

in the second “generalization, particular, and generalization” in that passage,

alongside this generalization, particular, and generalization

within the particulars of the first “generalization, particular, and generalization,” since the first verse also mentions double payment, as it is stated: “If the thief is found, he shall pay double”; and everything excluded in that verse is likewise excluded with regard to double payment.

And

“for every matter of wrongdoing”

and “for every lost item,” which are additional generalizations,

why do I need them!?

Rather, certainly

learn from it

that the first verse is indeed expounded according to the method of “generalization, particular, and generalization” with regard to the oath of bailees, whereas the second verse

is an inclusion

and is expounded according to the method of “inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion” with regard to double payment. Therefore, the “exclusions” of the second verse cannot be included among the “particulars” of the first verse.

And we explain:

Now that you have said

“every”

is an inclusion,

if so,

what need is there for all these particulars

that is, the four exclusions—ox, donkey, sheep, and garment—stated in the passage concerning one who claims that a deposited item was stolen?

What

does each one of them come to exclude!?

One

of the exclusions

comes to exclude land.

And one

of the exclusions

comes to exclude slaves.

And one

of the exclusions

comes to exclude documents.

And the fourth exclusion:

“A garment”

comes to exclude

the

item that is not identifiable,

an item in which the owner has no distinguishing mark, for which one is not liable for double payment.

“For every lost item,”

that is, as for the fact that the Torah mentioned “a lost item” in the second inclusion, although it could have said, as in the first inclusion, “for every matter,” this is to teach:

According to the teaching of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba!

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: