אי הכי, שפיר קשיא ליה!
The Talmud asks: If so, if this is how the baraita is to be understood, the difficulty it posed is valid, as the baraita ends with an unanswered question: Why do I need the phrase: “If the theft should be found”?
Study Bava Kamma folio 64B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
אי הכי, שפיר קשיא ליה!
The Talmud asks: If so, if this is how the baraita is to be understood, the difficulty it posed is valid, as the baraita ends with an unanswered question: Why do I need the phrase: “If the theft should be found”?
משום דאית ליה פירכא: לרבות כל דבר מהיכא קמייתי ליה – מכלל בתרא; כללא גופיה ״חיים״ כתיב ביה!
The Talmud answers: This phrase is necessary because there is a refutation for the derivation cited in the baraita, as follows: From where in the verse does the tanna derive that it means to include all types of items? From the latter generalization of “alive.” But in the latter generalization itself the word “alive” is written.
כלל ופרט וכלל מאי קא מהני ליה? אי לאתויי כל דבר, הא ״חיים״ כתיב – בעלי חיים אין, מידי אחרינא לא! משום הכא איצטריך ״אם המצא״.
What does the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization accomplish, i.e., what does it include in the halakha of double payment? If it is written to include all types of items, this cannot be, as the word “alive” is written in the verse, indicating that if one steals animals, yes, he is liable to pay double payment, but if he steals something else, i.e., inanimate objects, no, he is not liable to pay double payment. Due to this reason, it was necessary for the Torah to include the phrase: “If the theft should be found [himmatze timmatze],” which includes all items, through the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.
אמרי: והא שני כללות דסמיכי אהדדי נינהו! אמר רבינא, כדאמרי במערבא: כל מקום שאתה מוצא שני כללות הסמוכים זה לזה – הטל פרט ביניהם, ודונם בכלל ופרט.
The rabbis state an objection: But these repeated verbs are two generalizations that are adjacent to each other in the verse, and the details follow both of the generalizations. Consequently, it is not a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, but rather of a generalization, a generalization, and a detail. Ravina said: It is as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any place in the Torah where you find two generalizations adjacent to each other, place the detail between them and then treat them as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization.
Text data via Sefaria: William Davidson Edition - English and William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic, CC-BY-NC; edition provenance: Koren. Display terminology has been modernized for readability.