## Bava Kamma Daf 63a

###### Bava Kamma 63a:1
[Bava Kamma 63a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:1)

דְּהָא כֹּל חַד וְחַד כְּלָל וּפְרָט בְּאַפֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ דָּרְשִׁינַן לֵיהּ; אֲבָל עוֹפוֹת – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This line of reasoning is correct, **because we expound each one** of the listed items in the **generalization, and detail,** and generalization **by itself.** Each item is treated individually as representing a category, but the different items are not grouped together into one broad category. Since several animals are listed, it is concluded that if the stolen item is an animal it must resemble the listed animals. **But** since **birds** do not transmit impurity through contact or carrying, they are **not** subject to double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 63a:2
[Bava Kamma 63a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:2)

אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא חַד פְּרָטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **If so, let the Merciful One write** just **one detail,** i.e., animal, and that would have been enough to teach that animals are subject to double payment only if they transmit impurity through contact and carrying, so birds are excluded. Since the Torah listed several animals, birds are included.


###### Bava Kamma 63a:3
[Bava Kamma 63a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:3)

הֵי נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא? אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שׁוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – אִין, שֶׁאֵין קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲמוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה – אִין, שֶׁאֵין קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this assertion: **Which** individual animal **should the Merciful One have written? If the Merciful One had written** only **“ox,” I would say** that only an animal that is similar to an ox, in that it **is sacrificed on the altar, yes,** it is subject to double payment. But an animal **that is not sacrificed on the altar, no,** it is not subject to double payment. **And if the Merciful One had written** only **“donkey,” I would say** that only an animal that is similar to a donkey, in that its firstborn male offspring is **sacred with** the sanctity of **a firstborn, yes,** it is subject to double payment. But an animal that is **not sacred with** the sanctity of **a firstborn, no,** it is not subject to double payment. The principle of double payment would then include cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys, but not other animals (see Exodus 13:13 and Deuteronomy 15:19).


###### Bava Kamma 63a:4
[Bava Kamma 63a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:4)

אָמְרִי: אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר״, ״שֶׂה״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאֵתוֹיֵי עוֹפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Say** in answer to this question: **If so,** if the Torah had wished to limit double payment to cases where cattle, sheep, goats, or donkeys were stolen, **let the Merciful One write** just **“ox” and “donkey”; why do I** need the verse to mention **“sheep”? Conclude from it** that the Torah intends **to include** even animals that do not meet these criteria, e.g., **birds.**


###### Bava Kamma 63a:5
[Bava Kamma 63a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:5)

וְאֵימָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי עוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִים – דּוּמְיָא דְשֶׂה, דִּמְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה; אֲבָל עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִים – דְּלֵית בְּהוּ טוּמְאָה, דְּלָא מְטַמְּאִי בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, לָא! ״כֹּל״ – רִיבּוּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **But say** that the verse mentions sheep in order **to include** only **kosher birds,** which are **similar to** the **sheep** listed in the verse, in **that** a carcass of these birds **renders** both the one who eats it and his **garments** ritually **impure** when it passes through his **esophagus,** as the carcass of a sheep also transmits ritual impurity. **But non-kosher birds, whose** carcasses **do not have ritual impurity** at all, **as they do not render** either the one who eats them or his **garments impure** when they pass through his **esophagus, no,** they are not subject to double payment. The Gemara answers: The word **“any [*kol*],”** in the phrase “for any [*kol*] matter of trespass” is **an amplification,** and serves to include even non-kosher birds in the principle of double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 63a:6
[Bava Kamma 63a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** is it so that **anywhere that** the Torah **wrote** the word ***kol* it is an amplification? But isn’t it** so that **with regard to** second **tithe,** the word ***kol* is written** in the verse: “And you shall bestow the money for whatever [*bekhol*] your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever your soul asks of you” (Deuteronomy 14:26)? **And** yet **we expound** that verse **as a generalization, and a detail,** and a generalization.


###### Bava Kamma 63a:7
[Bava Kamma 63a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:7)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְנָתַתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ״ – כָּלַל, ״בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר״ – פָּרַט, ״וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁאׇלְךָ נַפְשֶׁךָ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל; 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:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“And you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires,”** is **a generalization,** as no particular type of food is specified. **“For oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,”** is a **detail,** as specific types of food are mentioned. When the verse concludes with **“or for whatever your soul asks of you,” it has generalized again.** Since the verse is formulated as **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** This indicates that **just as** each of the items mentioned in **the detail** is clearly **defined as the produce of produce,** i.e., they grow from a parent organism, e.g., agricultural produce or animals, **and** they are **grown from the ground,** i.e., their sustenance comes from the ground, **so too** the category of items one may purchase with second-tithe money includes **all** items that are **the produce of produce and are grown from the ground.**


###### Bava Kamma 63a:8
[Bava Kamma 63a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:8)

אָמְרִי: ״בַּכֹּל״ – כְּלָלָא, ״כֹּל״ – רִיבּוּיָא הוּא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״כֹּל״ – כְּלָלָא הוּא, מִיהוּ ״כֹּל״ דְּהָכָא – רִיבּוּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Say** in answer to this question that the term ***bekhol*** is **a generalization,** whereas the term ***kol* is an amplification. And if you wish, say** an alternate answer: The word ***kol*** is usually **a generalization. But** the word ***kol* that is** written **here,** in the verse concerning double payment (Exodus 22:8), is an exception. It is regarded as **an amplification,** as the Gemara will explain.


###### Bava Kamma 63a:9
[Bava Kamma 63a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:9)

מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב מֵעִיקָּרָא כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כָּלַל, ״כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים״ – פָּרַט, ״לִשְׁמוֹר״ – (הֲדַר) [חָזַר] וְכָלַל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**After all,** there is another **generalization, and a detail, and a generalization written at the beginning** of this passage, **as it is written:** “If a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard and it was stolen from the house of the man, if the thief shall be found he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:6). **“If a man gives his neighbor”** is **a generalization. “Money or vessels” is a detail.** When the verse concludes **“to safeguard,” it has generalized again.**


###### Bava Kamma 63a:10
[Bava Kamma 63a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:10)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הַאי ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ נָמֵי לִכְלָל וּפְרָט הוּא דַּאֲתָא, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לְהָנֵי פְּרָטֵי גַּבֵּי הַאיְךְ כְּלָל וּפְרָט; ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: רִיבּוּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** to say that **this** later verse: **“For any matter of trespass”** (Exodus 22:8), **is also coming** to state **a generalization, and a detail,** and a generalization, **let the Merciful One write these details,** i.e., ox, donkey, sheep, and garment, which are cited in the later verse, **together with that** previous **generalization, and detail,** and generalization. **Why do I** need the latter verse beginning with **“for any matter of trespass”? Conclude from it** that the word *kol* **is an amplification** in this instance, and it includes all animals.


###### Bava Kamma 63a:11
[Bava Kamma 63a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/63a:11)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״כֹּל״ – רִיבּוּיָא, כֹּל הָנֵי פְּרָטֵי לְמָה לִי? חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי קַרְקַע, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי עֲבָדִים, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁטָרוֹת. ״שַׂלְמָה״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּיָּים, ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵדָה״ – לְכִדְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now that you said** that the word ***kol*** is **an amplification, why do I** need **all these details** listed in the verse, i.e., ox, donkey, sheep, and garment? The Gemara answers: As for the three animals listed, **one** is mentioned **to exclude land, one to exclude** Canaanite **slaves, and one to exclude** financial **documents.** The example of **a garment** is mentioned **to exclude an item that is not** clearly **delineated** in size or quantity. **“Or for any manner of lost thing”** is written **to** teach that **which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba** says, **as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **one who** falsely **states the claim** that **a thief** stole