Bava Kamma 63a — the Talmud in English

For

even though “a garment” was 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, to say that resemblance to one of the particulars is sufficient for something to be included from the generalization. Rather:

Each and every one [each particular]

“

generalization, particular, and generalization

and generalization”

we expound independently [it is expounded as a complete derivation of “generalization, particular, and generalization”],

that is, as though each particular among the particulars had two separate generalizations—

And if it had been written “a generalization, a garment, and a generalization,” and, further, “a generalization, an ox, and a generalization,” then we would not have been able to include living creatures from the particular of “a garment,” since they do not resemble it. Necessarily, you learn with regard to living creatures only from that “generalization, particular, and generalization” whose particular is a living creature; and if so, only the other living creatures whose carcasses impart ritual impurity through contact and carrying were included—

And if so, perhaps you will say:

But not birds!?

We cannot say so, because

if so, let the Merciful One write one particular

from living creatures alone, as it explains below.

And since the Torah did not suffice with only one of these particulars, we have learned to include even birds.

And we object:

Which one should the Merciful One write [which particular from the living creatures alone should the Torah have written]:

And behold,

if the Merciful One had written

“an ox”

alone,

and had not also said “a donkey and a sheep,”

I would have said:

An object that

is fit to be offered upon the altar,

like an ox,

yes,

he is indeed liable for double payment for it; but an object

that is not fit to be offered upon the altar, no,

he is not liable for double payment for it. Therefore the Torah needed the particular of “a donkey,” which is not fit to be offered upon the altar.

And if the Merciful One had written “a donkey”

alone, and had not also said “an ox and a sheep,”

I would have said:

An object that is sanctified by the firstborn status,

like a donkey—

yes,

he is indeed liable for double payment for it; but an object

that is not sanctified by the firstborn status, no,

he is not liable for double payment for it. Therefore the Torah added another particular [an ox or a sheep], which, although it too is sanctified by the firstborn status, if it is not needed for an object sanctified by the firstborn status, apply it to an object that is not sanctified by the firstborn status.

The students of the academy said:

the students of the academy:

If so—

that there is no liability for double payment for birds—

let the Merciful One write:

“an ox and a donkey”

alone, and we would know everything: since “a donkey” is written, an object not fit for the altar has been included, and one cannot say that nevertheless it must be an object sanctified by the firstborn status, for that is why “an ox” was stated. If so,

“a sheep”

why do I need it—

Rather,

learn from it:

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

to include birds.

And

we still object:

Say

that “a sheep” was stated only

to include pure birds,

which are

somewhat similar to a sheep,

in that

they render

at any rate

clothing impure in the throat [one who eats the carcass of a pure bird is impure and requires immersion and the washing of his clothing]—

But

impure birds, in which there is no impurity

at all,

for they do not render clothing impure in the throat —

no,

he is not liable for double payment for them!?

On the basis of this objection, the Gemara explains that this verse is not expounded by the measure of “generalization, particular, and generalization,” in which the generalization includes only anything “resembling the particular.” Rather, we expound the verse by the measure of “multiplication, limitation, and multiplication”: [“for every matter of transgression” is a multiplication; “concerning an ox, concerning a donkey, concerning a sheep, concerning a garment” are limitations; “concerning every lost object” again multiplies], and because

“every”

[“every matter,” “every lost object”]

is a multiplication,

it is not expounded as a generalization—

And according to this measure, the last multiplication includes even things that do not resemble the [limited] particular, and each limitation was written to exclude one thing. Later it will be explained what each limitation comes to exclude, but birds were already included by the last multiplication.

And we object:

And

when

wherever it is written

“every”,

is it a multiplication,

and is it expounded by the measure of “multiplication, limitation, and multiplication,” and not by the measure of “generalization, particular, and generalization”!?

But with regard to the second tithe,

second,

where it is written

“every,”

and

nevertheless

we expound it by “

generalization and particular

and generalization,” and not by the measure of “multiplication, limitation, and multiplication”!?

And as

it is taught:

It is written: “You shall surely tithe all the 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. And when the way is too long for you, because you cannot carry it [the second tithe to Jerusalem to eat it there], then you shall turn it into money [redeem it for money], and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall give the money [purchase with that money in Jerusalem] for whatever your soul desires, for cattle, for sheep, for wine, and for strong drink, and for whatever your soul asks of you.”

And this verse is expounded by the measure of “generalization, particular, and generalization,” and teaches what one may purchase with second-tithe money in Jerusalem:

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

behold,

a generalization.

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

behold,

a particular.

“And for whatever your soul asks of you”

behold,

the verse returned

and

generalized.

“With a generalization, particular, and generalization, you infer only what resembles the particular,”

and we learned:

Just as the particular is explicit: fruit from fruit [that is, something produced from another thing],

including animals, and also fruits whose seed is planted and fruits grow,

and products of the ground —

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

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

Thus, although the Torah said “for whatever your soul desires,” and said in the second generalization “for whatever your soul asks of you,” nevertheless the verse is not expounded by the measure of “multiplication, limitation, and multiplication,” but by the measure of “generalization, particular, and generalization.”

And if so, what is different about the verses concerning one who claims the claim of a thief, which are expounded by the measure of “multiplication, limitation, and multiplication”!?

The students of the academy said

to distinguish between what is written concerning the second tithe, which is expounded by the measure of “generalization, particular, and generalization,” and what is written concerning one who claims the claim of a thief, which is expounded by the measure of “multiplication, limitation, and multiplication”—in two ways:

The first:

“Every”—

the one stated with regard to the second tithe—

is

a generalization

and not a multiplication, and it is expounded by the measure of “generalization, particular, and generalization”; whereas

“every”—

the one stated concerning one who claims the claim of a thief—

is a multiplication,

and is expounded by the measure of multiplication, limitation, and multiplication.

And if you wish, say:

In fact, even

“every”

is a generalization; however,

“every”

here,

with regard to one who claims the claim of a thief, necessarily

is a multiplication;

because:

Since

behold,

it is written initially

—at the beginning of the passage—

“generalization, particular, and generalization,”

for

behold,

it is written: “When a man gives his fellow money or vessels to guard, and it is stolen from the man’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]”—

And from this verse we learned not to impose a guardian’s oath for every object, but for an object that resembles the particular, since:

“

When a man gives his fellow

behold,

a generalization,”

which implies guardians of every object. “

Money or vessels,”

behold,

a particular,

which implies the guardians of these alone. “

To guard.

And the owner of the house shall approach the judges,” behold,

the verse returned

and generalized the guardians of all objects, to impose upon them a guardian’s oath. “

Generalization, particular, and generalization—you infer only what resembles the particular,” and slaves, documents, and land were excluded, since they do not resemble the particular of “money or vessels.”

And

if so:

If it enters your mind that this

“for every matter of transgression”

also came for a generalization and particular,

if so,

let the Merciful One write these particulars

in the second “generalization, particular, and generalization” in that same matter,

alongside that generalization, particular, and generalization, within the particulars of the first measure of “generalization, particular, and generalization.” For double payment was also mentioned in the first verse, as it is stated: “If the thief is found, he shall pay double,” and everything excluded in that verse is also excluded with regard to double payment.

within the specific examples of the first “general category, specific example, and general category.” For double payment is also mentioned in the first verse, as it says: “If the thief is found, he shall pay double,” and everything excluded in that verse is also excluded with regard to double payment.

And

“for every matter of transgression” and “for every lost object,” which are additional generalizations,

why do I need them!?

Rather, certainly

learn from it:

the first verse is indeed expounded by the measure of “generalization, particular, and generalization” with regard to the guardian’s oath, whereas the second verse

is a multiplication

and is expounded by the measure of “multiplication, limitation, and multiplication” with regard to double payment. Therefore, the “limitations” of the second verse cannot be included among the “particulars” of the first verse.

And we explain:

Now that you have said that

“every”

is a multiplication,

if so,

what do I need all these particulars

[that is, the four limitations: ox, donkey, sheep, garment]

stated in the passage concerning one who claims the claim of a thief,

why do I need them, what does each one come to exclude!?

One

of the limitations

to exclude land.

And one

of the limitations

to exclude slaves.

And one

of the limitations

to exclude documents.

And the fourth limitation:

“

a garment”

to exclude

it comes

an object that is not defined, an object in which the owners have no identifying mark, for which there is no liability for double payment. “

For every lost object,”

that is: and the reason the Torah mentioned in the second multiplication “a lost object,” although it should have said, as in the first multiplication, “for every matter,” is in order to teach:

As Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba!

For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

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