Study Bava Kamma folio 54A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
״או״, מיבעי ליה לחלק. ורבי יהודה – לחלק מ״ונפל״ נפקא. ורבנן – ״ונפל״, טובא משמע.
The word “or” is necessary to separate the cases of the ox and donkey. This indicates that if either falls in individually, the owner of the pit is liable. And how does R' Yehuda derive the halakha to separate the cases in the verse? He derives it from the use of the singular form of the verb: “And an ox or donkey fall [venafal],” indicating that he is liable if even one animal falls. And the Rabbis maintain that the term and fall can also indicate many animals, as the use of the singular form of a verb does not prove that the subject is necessarily singular.
אימא ״ונפל״ – כלל, ״שור וחמור״ – פרט; כלל ופרט – אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט; שור וחמור – אין, מידי אחרינא – לא!
The Talmud now challenges both opinions: Say that the term “and fall” is a generalization, whereas the phrase “an ox or a donkey” is a detail. According to the principles of halakhic exegesis, when the Torah presents a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only what is contained in the detail. Therefore, an ox and a donkey are indeed included, but anything else is not included.
אמרי: ״בעל הבור ישלם״ – חזר וכלל. כלל ופרט וכלל – אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט; מה הפרט מפורש – בעלי חיים, אף כל בעלי חיים.
The rabbis said in response: The following verse: “The owner of the pit should pay” (Exodus 21:34), means that it then generalized again. The verses are structured according to the principle of halakhic exegesis of: A generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. According to this principle, you may deduce that the verses are referring only to items that are similar to the detail. In this case, just as the explicit detail is referring to animals, so too, all items included in the generalization must be animals.