## Bava Kamma Daf 64a

###### Bava Kamma 64a:1
[Bava Kamma 64a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:1)

כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״שֶׂה״ – הֲרֵי שֶׂה אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״גְּנֵיבָה״? לְרַבּוֹת כָּל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** the verse **states “sheep,” a sheep is thereby stated** explicitly. Therefore, the detail of “ox” cannot be written to include specifically items that can be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a sheep. **How** then **do I realize** the meaning of the word **“theft,”** i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves **to include all** types of **items** in the requirement of double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:2
[Bava Kamma 64a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:2)

יֵאָמֵר ״שׁוֹר״, ״שֶׂה״ וּ״גְנֵיבָה״, וְהַכֹּל בַּכְּלָל! אִילּוּ כָּךְ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues to analyze the verse: **Let** the verse **state** only **“ox,” “sheep,” and “theft,” and** in that manner **everything** would be **included.** Why is it necessary to write “donkey”? **Had** the verse been written in **this** manner, without “donkey,” **I would have said: Just as** the items mentioned in **the detail,** “ox” and “sheep,” are clearly **defined as items that are** subject to being **sacred with** the sanctity of the **firstborn, so too any item that is** subject to being **sacred with** the sanctity of the **firstborn** is subject to double payment, but not other items.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:3
[Bava Kamma 64a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:3)

מָה יֵשׁ לְךָ לְהָבִיא – חֲמוֹר, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״חֲמוֹר״ – הֲרֵי חֲמוֹר אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״גְּנֵיבָה״? לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is there for you to include** in this category? **A donkey. When** the verse **says “donkey,” a donkey is thereby stated** explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox” and “sheep” cannot be written to include specifically items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, e.g., a donkey. **How** then **do I realize** the meaning of the word **“theft,”** i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves **to include all** types of **items** in the requirement of double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:4
[Bava Kamma 64a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:4)

יֵאָמֵר ״שׁוֹר״ וַ״חֲמוֹר״ ״שֶׂה״ וּ״גְנֵיבָה״ – וְהַכֹּל בַּכְּלָל! אִילּוּ כָּךְ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, אַף כֹּל בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues to analyze the verse: **Let** the verse **state** only **“ox,” and “donkey,”** and **“sheep,” and “theft,” and** in that manner **all** items **would be included.** Why is it necessary to write the word “alive”? **Had** the verse been written in **this** manner, **I would say: Just as** the items mentioned in **the detail,** “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey,” are clearly **defined as** items that are **animals, so too all animals** are subject to double payment, but not inanimate objects.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:5
[Bava Kamma 64a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:5)

מָה יֵשׁ לְךָ לְהָבִיא – שְׁאָר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״חַיִּים״ – הֲרֵי חַיִּים אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״גְּנֵיבָה״? לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is there for you to include** in this category that is not already listed? **Animals other** than oxen, sheep, and donkeys. **When** the verse **states** the term **“alive,” animals are thereby stated** explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey” cannot be written to include animals. **How** then **do I realize** the meaning of **“theft,”** i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves **to include all** types of **items** in the requirement of double payment. This is the end of the *baraita*.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:6
[Bava Kamma 64a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:6)

אָמַר מָר: יֵאָמֵר ״שׁוֹר״ וּ״גְנֵיבָה״. מִי כְּתִיב ״שׁוֹר״ וּ״גְנֵיבָה״? ״גְּנֵיבָה״ וָ״שׁוֹר״ הוּא דִּכְתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There are several puzzling elements of the halakhic exposition of the verse in this *baraita*. The Gemara now seeks to explain it in detail. **The Master said** in the *baraita* above: **Let** the verse **state** only **“ox” and “theft.”** The Gemara objects: **Are “ox” and “theft” written** in the verse in this order, as a generalization and a detail? No, **it is “theft” and** then **“ox” that is written.** Consequently, the verse contains a generalization and a detail, in which case the generalization is understood to refer only to that which is specified in the detail.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:7
[Bava Kamma 64a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:7)

וְכִי תֵּימָא ״אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר״ קָאָמַר – אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״שׁוֹר״ וּ״גְנֵיבָה״; וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ ״מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ״?! הָוֵה ״שׁוֹר״ פְּרָט וּ״גְנֵיבָה״ כְּלָל; פְּרָט וּכְלָל – נַעֲשָׂה כְּלָל מוֹסִיף עַל הַפְּרָט, וְאִיתְרַבּוּ לְהוּ כֹּל מִילֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that the *baraita* **is saying** that this would be the case **had** the verse **stated** the words in this manner, i.e.: **Had** the verse **stated “ox” and** then **“theft,”** all items would have been included; **how can you** then proceed to **say: Just as** the item mentioned in **the detail,** “ox,” is clearly **defined as** an item that can be sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that can be sacrificed on the altar is subject to double payment? **“Ox” is a detail and “theft” is a generalization,** and according to the rules of hermeneutics, in such a case **the generalization adds to the detail, and all items are included,** not just items that resemble the detailed item.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:8
[Bava Kamma 64a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:8)

אֶלָּא כְּדִכְתִיב קָאָמְרִי – ״גְּנֵיבָה״ וְ״שׁוֹר״. מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ ״הַכֹּל בַּכְּלָל״, אוֹ ״מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ״? הָוֵה לֵיהּ ״גְּנֵיבָה״ כְּלָל וְ״שׁוֹר״ פְּרָט; כְּלָל וּפְרָט – אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט; שׁוֹר אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* must be **saying** that the verse should be analyzed **as it is** actually **written:** First **“theft” and** then **“ox.”** Accordingly, **how can you** then proceed to **say** that **all** items **would be included, or: Just as** the item mentioned in **the detail** is clearly **defined as** an item that can be sacrificed on the altar, as the *baraita* states? This analysis is applicable only when there is a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. In this verse **“theft” is a generalization and “ox”** is **a detail.** The rules of hermeneutics state that when there is only **a generalization and a detail, there is nothing** included **in the generalization other than what is** listed **in the detail.** In this case, one would necessarily conclude that if one steals **an ox, yes,** he is liable to pay the double payment for stealing it, but if one steals **anything else, no,** there is no double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:9
[Bava Kamma 64a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: תַּנָּא אַ״חַיִּים״ קָא סָמֵיךְ לֵיהּ, וּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava stated** an explanation of the *baraita*: When **the *tanna*** suggested: Let the verse say “ox” and “theft,” and similar suggestions, **he was relying on** the word **“alive”** at the end of the phrase. He considered this word an additional generalization after the detailed items, and therefore **he was saying** that the phrase is to be treated as **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.** Consequently, it should have been sufficient for the verse to state merely “theft,” followed by “ox,” followed by “alive.” Why does the Torah specify further items?


###### Bava Kamma 64a:10
[Bava Kamma 64a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:10)

וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא לִכְלָלָא קַמָּא! הָא תַּנָּא – דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הוּא, דִּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But the latter generalization is not similar to the first generalization.** The first generalization, “theft,” is so general that it includes all items, whereas the latter generalization, “alive,” includes only animals. Consequently, the rule of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization should not apply. The Gemara responds: **This *tanna*,** the author of this *baraita*, **is of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who expounds generalizations and details in a case like this.** Even if the first generalization and the latter generalization are dissimilar, he interprets the verse as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:11
[Bava Kamma 64a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:11)

וְהָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ לְמָה לִי? יֵאָמֵר ״שׁוֹר״ וּ״גְנֵיבָה״ וְ״חַיִּים״ – וְהַכֹּל בַּכְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues his explanation of the *baraita*: **And this is what** the *tanna* found **difficult** at the end of the *baraita*: **Why do I** need the beginning of the verse to state: **“If** the theft **shall be found [*himmatze timmatze*],”** with the verb repeated? Rava now explains the entire *baraita*, from the beginning: **Let** the verse **say “ox” and “theft” and “alive,” and all** items would be **included,** in accordance with the rules of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Why did the verse include other details?


###### Bava Kamma 64a:12
[Bava Kamma 64a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:12)

אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַקָּרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אַף כֹּל הַקָּרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. מָה יֵשׁ לְהָבִיא – ״שֶׂה״, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״שֶׂה״ – הֲרֵי שֶׂה אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״גְּנֵיבָה״? לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers this by saying: **Had** the verse been written in **this** manner, **I would have said: Just as** the item mentioned in **the detail,** “ox,” is clearly **defined as an item that is sacrificed on the altar, so too everything that is sacrificed on the altar** is subject to double payment, but not other items. **What** else **is there** for you **to include** in this category? **A sheep. When** the verse **states “sheep,” a sheep is thereby stated** explicitly. Therefore, the detail of “ox” cannot be written to include specifically items that can be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a sheep. **How** then **do I realize** the meaning of the word **“theft,”** i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves **to include all** types of **items** in the requirement of double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:13
[Bava Kamma 64a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:13)

יֵאָמֵר ״גְּנֵיבָה״ וְ״שׁוֹר״ וָ״שֶׂה״ וְחַיִּים״ – וְהַכֹּל בַּכְּלָל! אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Let** the verse **say** only **“theft,” and “ox” and “sheep” and “alive,” and all** items **would be included.** Why is it necessary to write “donkey”? The *baraita* answers: **Had** the verse been written in **this** manner, without “donkey,” **I would have said: Just as** the items mentioned in **the detail,** “ox” and “sheep,” are clearly **defined as items that are** subject to being **sacred with** the sanctity of the **firstborn, so too any item that is** subject to being **sacred with** the sanctity of the **firstborn** is subject to double payment, but not other items.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:14
[Bava Kamma 64a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:14)

מָה יֵשׁ לְךָ לְהָבִיא – חֲמוֹר, [כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״חֲמוֹר״] הֲרֵי חֲמוֹר אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״גְּנֵיבָה״? לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is there for you to include** in this category? **A donkey. When** the verse **says “donkey,” a donkey is thereby stated** explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox” and “sheep” cannot be written to include specifically items that are subject to being sacred with the sanctity of the firstborn, e.g., a donkey. **How** then **do I realize** the meaning of the word **“theft,”** i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves **to include all** types of **items** in the requirement of double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:15
[Bava Kamma 64a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:15)

יֵאָמֵר ״גְּנֵיבָה״, וְ״שׁוֹר״, וָ״שֶׂה״, וַ״חֲמוֹר״, וְ״חַיִּים״ – וְהַכֹּל בַּכְּלָל! אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, אַף כֹּל בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* then asks: **Let** the verse **say** only **“theft,” and “ox,” and “sheep,” and “donkey” and “alive,” and** in that manner **all** items would be **included.** The *baraita* answers: **Had** the verse been written in **this** manner, **I would say: Just as** the items mentioned in **the detail,** “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey,” are clearly **defined as** items that are **animals, so too all animals** are subject to double payment, but not inanimate objects.


###### Bava Kamma 64a:16
[Bava Kamma 64a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/64a:16)

מָה יֵשׁ לְךָ לְהָבִיא – שְׁאָר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״חַיִּים״ – הֲרֵי חַיִּים אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״גְּנֵיבָה״? לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר; ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is there for you to include** in this category that is not already listed? **Animals other** than oxen, sheep, and donkeys. **When** the verse **states “alive,” animals are thereby stated** explicitly. Therefore, the details of “ox,” “sheep,” and “donkey” cannot be written to include animals. **How** then **do I realize** the meaning of **“theft,”** i.e., what is the category of items derived from the detail and generalization? It must be that it serves **to include all** types of **items** in the requirement of double payment. If so, **why do I** need the phrase **“if** the theft **shall be found [*himmatze timmatze*]”?** This is the conclusion of the *baraita* as explained by Rava.