Bava Kamma 63A

דהא כל חד וחד כלל ופרט באפי נפשיה דרשינן ליה; אבל עופות ⁠– לא!

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.

אם כן, נכתוב רחמנא חד פרטא!

The Talmud rejects this: If so, let God 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.

הי נכתוב רחמנא? אי כתב רחמנא ״שור״, הוה אמינא: קרב לגבי מזבח ⁠– אין, שאין קרב לגבי מזבח ⁠– לא. ואי כתב רחמנא ״חמור״, הוה אמינא קדוש בבכורה ⁠– אין, שאין קדוש בבכורה ⁠– לא!

The Talmud questions this assertion: Which individual animal should God have written? If God 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 God 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).