Study Bava Kamma folio 78A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הא גבי קדשים נמי נאמר: ״שור או כשב״ – שאין אתה יכול להוציא כלאים מביניהם, ונרבי! מדסיפא למעט, רישא נמי למעט. אדרבה; מדרישא לרבות, סיפא נמי לרבות!
The Talmud asks: But with regard to sacrificial animals it is also stated in the first part of the verse: “A bull or a sheep” (Leviticus 22:27), which are two animals from which you cannot produce diverse kinds. And accordingly, let us include an animal of diverse kinds as being fit for sacrifice on the altar on that account. The Talmud answers: From the fact that the latter clause of the verse: “Or a goat,” serves to exclude a type of animal from being fit for sacrifice on the altar, it may be inferred that the first clause: “A bull or a sheep,” also serves to exclude a type of animal from being fit for sacrifice on the altar. The Talmud asks: On the contrary, one could equally argue that from the fact that the first clause of the verse serves to include a type of animal as being fit for sacrifice on the altar, the latter clause also serves to include a type of animal as being fit for sacrifice on the altar.
האי מאי? אי אמרת בשלמא למעט – הוא דאיצטריך תרי מיעוטי; דאף על גב דאימעט כלאים, איצטריך למעוטי נדמה. אלא אי אמרת לרבות – תרי ריבויי למה? השתא כלאים אירבי ליה, נדמה מבעיא?!
The Talmud rejects this argument: What is this comparison? Granted, if you say that both expressions serve to exclude types of animals from being fit for sacrifice on the altar, this is why two exclusions were necessary: One exclusion is referring to diverse kinds and the other is referring to an animal that resembles another species, as even though an animal of diverse kinds is excluded, it was still necessary to exclude an animal that resembles another. But if you say that both phrases serve to include types of animals as being fit for sacrifice on the altar, why are two inclusions required? Now that an animal of diverse kinds has been included, in the first inclusion, is it necessary to say that an animal that resembles another is also included? There is more justification for including an animal that resembles another, whose parentage is entirely of one species, than for including an animal of diverse kinds.