## Bava Kamma Daf 54b

###### Bava Kamma 54b:1
[Bava Kamma 54b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:1)

הָא שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא פִּקֵּחַ – פָּטוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** can it be inferred that if **an ox that is of** standard **intelligence** fell into a pit, the owner of the pit would be **exempt?**


###### Bava Kamma 54b:2
[Bava Kamma 54b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר; לָא מִבַּעְיָא שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא פִּקֵּחַ – דְּחַיָּיב; אֲבָל שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אֵימָא חֵרְשׁוּתוֹ גָּרְמָה לוֹ, קַטְנוּתוֹ גָּרְמָה לוֹ, וְלִיפְּטַר; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said:** The mishna **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary,** and should be understood as follows: **It is not necessary** to state that if **an ox that is of** standard **intelligence** fell into a pit, **that** the pit’s owner is **liable. But** with regard to **an ox** that is **deaf, an imbecile, or** very **young, say** that it was not due to the pit alone that it fell in, but **its deafness caused it** to fall in or **its young age caused it** to fall in, **and** the owner of the pit **should be exempt.** Therefore, it **teaches us** that he is liable in these cases as well.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:3
[Bava Kamma 54b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא לְרָבִינָא, וְהָתַנְיָא: נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ בַּר דַּעַת – פָּטוּר. מַאי, לָאו שׁוֹר בַּר דַּעַת? אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, אָדָם. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אָדָם בֶּן דַּעַת הוּא דְּפָטוּר, הָא לָאו בֶּן דַּעַת הוּא – דְּחַיָּיב? ״שׁוֹר״ – וְלֹא אָדָם כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa said to Ravina: But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If a living being that is **mentally competent fell into** a pit, the owner is **exempt. What, is it not** referring to **an ox** that is **mentally competent?** Ravina **said to him: No,** it is referring to **a person.** Rav Aḥa challenges this response: **If that is so,** you should then infer that it **is** only for the injuries of a **person** who is **mentally competent that** he is **exempt, but** if one is **not mentally competent,** is the *halakha* **that** he would be **liable?** But the term **“an ox” is written** in the Torah as causing liability, **and not a person.**


###### Bava Kamma 54b:4
[Bava Kamma 54b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:4)

אֶלָּא מַאי ״בֶּן דַּעַת״ – מִין בֶּן דַּעַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר בֶּן דַּעַת – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava responded to Rav Aḥa: **Rather, what** does the term **mentally competent** mean? It is referring to **a species** that is **mentally competent,** and thereby includes all humans in the exemption from liability. Rav Aḥa **said to him: But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If **an ox** that was **mentally competent fell inside it,** he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 54b:5
[Bava Kamma 54b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹר וְהוּא חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹר וְהוּא שׁוֹטֶה, שׁוֹר וְהוּא קָטָן – דַּוְקָא; אֲבָל שׁוֹר וְהוּא פִּקֵּחַ – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּבָעֵי לֵיהּ עַיּוֹנֵי וּמֵיזַל. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, וְסוֹמֵא, וּמְהַלֵּךְ בַּלַּיְלָה – חַיָּיב. פִּקֵּחַ וּמְהַלֵּךְ בַּיוֹם – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that Rabbi Yirmeya’s explanation should be rejected, and the mishna is referring **specifically** to **an ox that is deaf, an ox that is an imbecile, and an ox that is** very **young,** for which he is liable; **but** for **an ox that is** of standard **intelligence,** he is **exempt. What is the reason?** The reason is **that** the ox **should have looked carefully** while **walking.** If it did not, it is responsible for its own injury. The Gemara notes: **That** idea **is also taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to an **ox** that is **deaf, an imbecile, or** very **young, blind, or** that is **walking at night** and unable to see, if it **fell into** a pit, the pit’s owner is **liable.** But if the ox is of standard **intelligence** and is **walking during the day,** the pit’s owner is **exempt,** since normal behavior for oxen is that, ordinarily, they watch where they are going and avoid pits.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:6
[Bava Kamma 54b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֶחָד שׁוֹר וְאֶחָד כׇּל בְּהֵמָה – לִנְפִילַת הַבּוֹר, וּלְהַפְרָשַׁת הַר סִינַי, וּלְתַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְלַהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה, לִפְרִיקָה, לַחֲסִימָה, לַכִּלְאַיִם, וְלַשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The *halakha* is the same **whether** concerning **an ox or whether** concerning **any** other **animal with regard to** liability for **falling** into **a pit, and with regard to** keeping its **distance** from **Mount Sinai** at the time of the receiving of the Torah, when it was forbidden for any animal to ascend the mountain, **and with regard to the payment of double** the principal by a thief, **and with regard to** the mitzva of **returning a lost item, and with regard to unloading** its burden, and **with regard to** the prohibition of **muzzling** it while threshing, and **with regard to** the prohibition of **diverse kinds, and with regard to** the prohibition against its working on **Shabbat.**


###### Bava Kamma 54b:7
[Bava Kamma 54b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:7)

וְכֵן חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר״? אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, undomesticated animals and birds** are subject to the same *halakhot* **as** domesticated animals. **If so,** why **are** all of the above *halakhot* **stated** in the Torah only in reference to **an ox or a donkey? Rather,** the reason is **that the verse speaks of a common** scenario, from which the other cases may be derived.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:8
[Bava Kamma 54b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:8)

**גְּמָ׳** לִנְפִילַת הַבּוֹר – ״כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו״ כְּתִיב – כֹּל דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּעָלִים, כְּדַאֲמַרַן. לְהַפְרָשַׁת הַר סִינַי – ״אִם בְּהֵמָה אִם אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה״, וְחַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה הָוְיָא; ״אִם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעוֹפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara explains the sources for all of the *halakhot* enumerated in the mishna that apply to all animals. **With regard to falling** into **a pit,** it is **written: “He shall recompense money to its owners”** (Exodus 21:34), which means that **any** animal **that has owners** is included, **as we mentioned** (see 54a). **With regard to** the requirement that animals keep their **distance** from **Mount Sinai** before the giving of the Torah, this is derived from the verse: **“Whether it be animal or person, it shall not live”** (Exodus 19:13), **and an undomesticated animal [*ḥayya*] is** also **included in** the term **animal [*behema*].** In addition, the word **“whether”** serves **to include birds.**


###### Bava Kamma 54b:9
[Bava Kamma 54b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:9)

לְתַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל – כִּדְאָמְרִינַן: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ – כָּלַל כֹּל דְּבַר פְּשִׁיעָה. לַהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה – ״לְכׇל אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ״. לִפְרִיקָה – יָלֵיף ״חֲמוֹר״–״חֲמוֹר״ מִשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to the double payment** of a thief, it is **as we say** in a halakhic exegesis of the verse: **“For any matter of trespass”** (Exodus 22:8), that it is a general statement which **includes any matter** of **negligence. With regard to** the mitzva of **returning a lost item,** the verse states comprehensively: **“For every lost thing of your brother”** (Deuteronomy 22:3). **With regard to** the *halakha* of **unloading** a burden, **derive** it **from** a verbal analogy **from** the context of **Shabbat,** as the word **donkey** is employed in the context of unloading a burden (see Exodus 23:5), and the word **donkey** is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Deuteronomy 5:14), and that verse is clearly referring to any animal.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:10
[Bava Kamma 54b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:10)

לַחֲסִימָה – יָלֵיף ״שׁוֹר״–״שׁוֹר״ מִשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to** the prohibition against **muzzling** an animal, mentioned in the verse: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:4), **derive** it **from** a verbal analogy **from** the context of **Shabbat,** as the word **“ox”** is employed in the context of muzzling, and the word **“ox”** is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Deuteronomy 5:14), and that verse is clearly referring to any animal.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:11
[Bava Kamma 54b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:11)

לְכִלְאַיִם – אִי כִּלְאַיִם דַּחֲרִישָׁה, יָלֵיף ״שׁוֹר״–״שׁוֹר״ מִשַּׁבָּת;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to** the prohibition of **diverse kinds, if** it is referring to the prohibition against using **diverse kinds for plowing,** due to which it is forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey together (see Deuteronomy 22:10), **derive** it **from** a verbal analogy **from** the context of **Shabbat,** as the word **“ox”** is employed in the context of plowing with diverse kinds, and the word **“ox”** is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Deuteronomy 5:14), and that verse is clearly referring to any animal.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:12
[Bava Kamma 54b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:12)

אִי כִּלְאַיִם דְּהַרְבָּעָה, יָלֵיף ״בְּהֶמְתְּךָ״–״בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ״ מִשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** it is referring to the prohibition of **diverse kinds for crossbreeding, derive** it **from** a verbal analogy **from** the context of **Shabbat,** as the term **“your cattle”** is employed in the context of crossbreeding animals (see Leviticus 19:19), and the term **“your cattle”** is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Exodus 20:10), and that verse is clearly referring to any animal.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:13
[Bava Kamma 54b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:13)

וְגַבֵּי שַׁבָּת מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, בְּדִבְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת נֶאֱמַר: ״עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ״, וּבְדִבְּרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנוֹת נֶאֱמַר: ״וְשׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרְךָ וְכׇל בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ״. וַהֲלֹא שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר בִּכְלַל כׇּל בְּהֵמָה הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצְאוּ? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר הָאָמוּר כָּאן – חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, אַף כֹּל חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive **concerning Shabbat** itself that the words “ox” and “donkey” are referring to all types of animals? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In the first** version of the Ten **Commandments** it **is stated: “Your manservant, your maidservant, nor your cattle”** (Exodus 20:10), whereas **in the second** version of the Ten **Commandments** it **is stated: “Nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle”** (Deuteronomy 5:14). Now, **aren’t an ox and a donkey** already **included in** the category of: **All animals,** which are included in the term “cattle”? **Why,** then, were they **specified? To teach you** that **just as** with regard to the terms **ox and donkey that are stated here, undomesticated animals and birds** have the same *halakha* **as them, so too,** everywhere that an ox and donkey are mentioned, **all** types of **undomesticated animals and birds** have the same *halakha* **as them.**


###### Bava Kamma 54b:14
[Bava Kamma 54b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:14)

אֵימָא: ״בְּהֵמָה״ דְּדִבְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת – כָּלַל, ״שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרְךָ״ דְּדִבְּרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנוֹת – פָּרַט; כְּלָל וּפְרָט – אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט; שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But why not **say** that the verses be expounded as follows: The term **“cattle”** used **in the first** version of the Ten **Commandments** is **a generalization,** and the phrase **“your ox and your donkey”** used **in the latter** version of the Ten **Commandments** is **a detail.** In the case of **a generalization and a detail,** the principles of halakhic exegesis dictate that **the generalization includes only what** is specified **in the detail.** Therefore, with regard to this subject, **an ox and a donkey** should **indeed** be included, but **anything else** should **not** be included.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:15
[Bava Kamma 54b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:15)

אָמְרִי: ״וְכׇל בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ״ דְּדִבְּרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנוֹת – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, אַף כֹּל בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in reply: In the phrase **“nor any of your cattle”** stated **in the latter** version of the Ten **Commandments** following the phrase “your ox and your donkey,” **it then generalized** again. Therefore, the verse is structured as **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.** According to the principles of halakhic exegesis, **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** Consequently, **just as** the items mentioned in **the detail** are clearly **defined as animals, so too, all** items included in the general term must be **animals.**


###### Bava Kamma 54b:16
[Bava Kamma 54b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:16)

וְאֵימָא: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁנִּבְלָתוֹ מְטַמְּאָ[ה] בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנְּבָלָתוֹ מְטַמְּאָ[ה] בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא; אֲבָל עוֹפוֹת – לֹא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the answer: **But say** instead that **just as** the items mentioned in **the detail** are clearly **defined as an item,** i.e., an animal, **whose carcass renders** a person ritually **impure through contact or through carrying, so too, all items whose carcass renders** a person ritually **impure through contact or through carrying** should be included. **But birds,** whose carcasses do not render one impure through contact or through carrying, should **not** be included.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:17
[Bava Kamma 54b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:17)

אָמְרִי: אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא חַד פְּרָטָא! הֵי נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא? אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שׁוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – אִין, שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – לָא; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲמוֹר״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲמוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה – אִין, שֶׁאֵין קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה – לָא; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שׁוֹר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in reply: **If so, let the Merciful One write** only **one detail** from which this could be derived. The Gemara asks: **Which** detail **should** the **Merciful One write? If the Merciful One writes** only **an ox, I would say:** An animal that **is sacrificed on the altar,** such as an ox, **indeed** renders the owner of the pit liable, whereas an animal **that is not sacrificed on the altar** does **not** render him liable. **And if the Merciful One writes** only **a donkey, I would say:** An animal whose **firstborn** is **sanctified,** such as a donkey, as described in the Torah (Exodus 13:13), does **indeed** render him liable, but an animal whose **firstborn** is **not sanctified** does **not** render him liable. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes** both **an ox** and a donkey.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:18
[Bava Kamma 54b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:18)

אֶלָּא ״וְכׇל בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ״ – רִיבּוּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, there is no redundancy, and each detail is required for correctly deriving other *halakhot*. If so, the previous question resurfaces: Why are the verses not expounded such that the prohibition does not include birds? **Rather,** the term: **“Nor any [*vekhol*] of your cattle,”** should be understood as **an amplification,** encompassing any item that is even partially similar to the detail.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:19
[Bava Kamma 54b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:19)

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כֹּל״ – רִיבּוּיָא הוּא?! וְהָא גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר דִּכְתִיב ״כֹּל״, וְקָא דָרְשִׁינַן לֵיהּ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** is it the case that **anywhere that the Merciful One states** the word **“any [*kol*]”** it **is** intended as an **amplification? But concerning tithes, where it is written “any [*kol*],” and** yet **we expound** the verses **with** the method of **a generalization and a detail,** rather than using the method of amplification and restriction.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:20
[Bava Kamma 54b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:20)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ״ – כָּלַל, ״בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר״ – פָּרַט, ״וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁאׇלְךָ נַפְשֶׁךָ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* concerning second-tithe money brought to Jerusalem: The verse states: **“And you shall give the money for anything [*bekhol*] your soul desires”** (Deuteronomy 14:26), which is **a generalization,** followed by: **“For oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,”** which is **a detail,** and concludes with: **“Or for anything [*uvkhol*] your soul asks of you,”** where **it then generalized** again.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:21
[Bava Kamma 54b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:21)

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט, מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – פְּרִי מִפְּרִי וְגִידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, אַף כֹּל פְּרִי מִפְּרִי וְגִידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the verse is structured as **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.** According to the principles of halakhic exegesis, **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** Consequently, **just as** the items mentioned in **the detail** are clearly **defined as produce of produce,** i.e., they grow from a parent organism, such as agricultural produce or animals, **and** they are **grown from the ground,** i.e., their sustenance comes from the ground, **so too,** it includes **all** things that are **the produce of produce and are grown from the ground.** It is evident from here that the method of a generalization and a detail is used in connection with the term “kol,” as opposed to interpreting it as an amplification.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:22
[Bava Kamma 54b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:22)

אָמְרִי: ״בְּכֹל״ – כְּלָלָא, ״כֹּל״ – רִיבּוּיָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״כֹּל״ נָמֵי כְּלָלָא הוּא, מִיהוּ הַאי ״כֹּל״ דְּהָכָא – רִיבּוּיָא הוּא; מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב: ״וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ״ כְּדִכְתִיב בְּדִבְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, וּכְתַב: ״וְכׇל בְּהֶמְתְּךָ״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רִיבּוּיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: A distinction may be drawn between the term: **“For anything [*bekhol*],”** which is **a generalization,** and the term **“any [*kol*],”** as in: “Any of your cattle,” which is **an amplification.** And **if you wish, say** instead that the word **“any [*kol*]” is a generalization as well,** in addition to “for anything [*bekhol*].” **But this** word **“any,”** written **here, is an amplification.** This is the case **since it could have written: And your cattle, as it is written in** the **first** version of the Ten **Commandments, and** instead **it writes: “Nor any of your cattle.” Learn from** this that it is **an amplification** and encompasses other animals as well.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:23
[Bava Kamma 54b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:23)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״כֹּל״ – רִיבּוּיָא הוּא; ״בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ״ דְּדִבְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, וְ״שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר״ דְּדִבְּרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנוֹת – לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to analyze this matter: **Now that you** have **said** that the term **“any [*kol*]” is an amplification, why do I** need the words **“your cattle,”** stated **in the first** version of the Ten **Commandments, and** the terms **“an ox or a donkey,”** stated **in the latter** version of the Ten **Commandments?** The phrase “and any of your cattle” already includes any animal.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:24
[Bava Kamma 54b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:24)

אָמְרִי: ״שׁוֹר״ – לְאַגְמוֹרֵי ״שׁוֹר״–״שׁוֹר״ לַחֲסִימָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: Each of these terms is required. The term **“ox”** can be used **to derive** the *halakha* **with regard to** the prohibition against **muzzling,** as the word **“ox”** is employed in the context of muzzling, and the word **“ox”** is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat.


###### Bava Kamma 54b:25
[Bava Kamma 54b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:25)

״חֲמוֹר״ – לְאַגְמוֹרֵי ״חֲמוֹר״–״חֲמוֹר״ לִפְרִיקָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The term **“donkey”** can be used **to derive** the *halakha* **with regard to** the *halakha* of **unloading** a burden, as the word **“donkey”** is employed in the context of unloading a burden (see Exodus 23:5), and the word **“donkey”** is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Deuteronomy 5:14).


###### Bava Kamma 54b:26
[Bava Kamma 54b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:26)

״בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ״ – לְאַגְמוֹרֵי ״בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ״–״בְּהֶמְתְּךָ״ לְכִלְאַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The term **“your cattle”** can be used **to derive** the *halakha* **with regard to** the prohibition of **diverse kinds,** as the term **“your cattle”** is employed in the context of crossbreeding animals (see Leviticus 19:19), and the term **“your cattle”** is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Exodus 20:10).


###### Bava Kamma 54b:27
[Bava Kamma 54b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:27)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ אָדָם לִיתְּסַר! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: אָדָם מוּתָּר עִם כּוּלָּן לַחְרוֹשׁ וְלִמְשׁוֹךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that this redundancy is the source for extending the prohibition of diverse kinds, then it **should be prohibited even** for **a person** to plow together with an ox or another animal. **Why,** then, **did we learn** in a mishna (*Kilayim* 8:6): It is **permitted** for **a person to plow and pull with any of them,** indicating that the prohibition relates only to animals?


###### Bava Kamma 54b:28
[Bava Kamma 54b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:28)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פַּפּוּנָאֵי יָדְעִי טַעְמָא דְּהָא מִילְּתָא – וּמַנּוּ? רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב; אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ – לְהַנָּחָה הִקַּשְׁתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** The Sages of **Paphunya know the reason for this matter, and who** are these Sages? **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov,** who resided in Paphunya. The reason is that the **verse states:** “You shall not perform any labor, neither you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maidservant, your ox, your donkey, any of your animals, or the stranger residing within your city gates, **that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you”** (Deuteronomy 5:14), as if to say: **I have equated** people with animals only **concerning resting** on Shabbat, **but not with regard to another matter.**


###### Bava Kamma 54b:29
[Bava Kamma 54b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/54b:29)

שָׁאַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן עָגֵיל אֶת רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: מִפְּנֵי מָה בְּדִבְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״טוֹב״, וּבְדִבְּרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנוֹת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having discussed some differences between the two versions of the Ten Commandments, the Gemara now discusses a related matter: **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For what reason is** the word **good not stated in the first** version of the Ten **Commandments,** whereas **in the latter** version of the Ten **Commandments,**