Question: "And will fall" is a Klal (general term). "Ox and donkey" are Peratim (specific terms). From a Klal u'Frat, we should include only the Peratim!

Rejection: "The owner of the pit will pay" is another Klal. From a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we learn everything that is like the Prat;

The Peratim are living. We learn everything living.

Question: For both Peratim, their carcasses have Tum'as Maga u'Masa (make Tamei something that touches or moves them). We should learn only such things (but not birds)!

Answer #1: If so, the Torah should only have written one Prat. (Since it wrote two, we include also birds.)

Objection: Which one should it have written?

Had it written only "ox", one might have thought that we include only animals that are offered on the Mizbe'ach!

Had it written only "donkey", one might have thought that we only include animals whose firstborn have Kedushah!

Answer #2: Rather, we learn from "and the dead animal will be to him" - anything that dies.

Question: If so, why do Chachamim need "donkey" to exclude Kelim, and why does R. Yehudah obligate for Kelim (Rashi; Tosfos - also R. Yehudah would have used "donkey" to exclude Kelim, if not for "or")?

Answer: Breakage of Kelim is their death.

Question: Rav holds that one is liable only for the Hevel of a pit, which cannot break Kelim. Why do the Tana'im need verses to exclude or include Kelim? (NOTE: we said that Rav agrees that one is liable for the blow in a pit in Reshus ha'Yachid! Perhaps we ask according to opinion that R. Yishmael only in Reshus ha'Rabim?

Answer: Hevel can break new Kelim.

Objection: We need "and the carcass will be to him" for Rava's law!

Answer #3: "He will return money to its owner" includes anything with an owner.

Question: If so, even people and Kelim should be included!

Answer: We expound "and an ox or a donkey fell" - "an ox", but not people; "a donkey", but not Kelim.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, who obligates for Kelim, what does "a donkey" come to exclude?

Rava: This is difficult;

Also, we do not know what any Tana learns from "Seh" in the Parshah of an Aveidah.

(Mishnah): If an ox fell in, if deaf, insane, or a child, the owner is paid.

Question: What does this mean?

Suggestion: The owner of the ox is deaf, insane, or a child.

Rejection: Surely, one is liable also for the ox of a healthy adult!

Answer (R. Yochanan): It means, the ox is deaf, insane or (very) young.

Question: If the ox was healthy, would the pit's owner be exempt?!

Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah): The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush.

One is liable not only for a healthy ox. Rather, he is liable even for a deaf, insane or young ox;

One might have thought that its deficiency caused it to fall, and one is exempt for it. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question (R. Acha - Beraisa): If one with Da'as (understanding) fell in, he is exempt.

Suggestion: This refers to a sane ox.

Answer #1 (Ravina): No, it refers to a sane person.

Question (R. Acha): This connotes that one is liable if an insane person falls in. The verse says "an ox", not a person!

Answer #2 (Ravina): Rather, the Beraisa means that if one of the species of those with Da'as (i.e. a person) fell in, he is exempt.

Objection (R. Acha - Beraisa): If an ox with Da'as fell in, he is exempt.

Answer #2 (to Question (d) - Rava): Indeed, one is liable only for an ox that is deaf, insane or young. If the ox was healthy, the pit's owner is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The ox should have watched where it is walking.

Support (Beraisa): If an ox is deaf, insane, young, blind or walking at night, the pit owner is liable;

If the ox was healthy and fell in during the day, he is exempt.

(Mishnah): The following apply to all Behemos (domestic animals):

Falling into a pit;

The Mitzvah to keep animals from ascending Mount Sinai (when the Torah was given);

The double payment of a thief;

Returning a lost animal;

Unloading an animal;

Muzzling an animal;

Working with or crossbreeding diverse species;

Making it work on Shabbos.

The same is true for Chayos (wild animals) and fowl.

The Torah said 'ox' or 'donkey', for this is the usual case.

(Gemara): Regarding a pit we learn from "he will return money to its owner" - anything with an owner.

Regarding ascending Mount Sinai it says "whether Behemah or man, it will not live";

"Behemah" includes wild animals. "Whether" includes fowl.

Regarding the payment of a thief it says "for any matter of transgression";

Regarding returning a lost animal it says "for any Aveidah of your brother";

We learn about unloading from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chamor-Chamor" from Shabbos;

We learn about muzzling from a Gezeirah Shavah "Shor- Shor" from Shabbos;

We learn about working with diverse species from a Gezeirah Shavah "Shor-Shor" from Shabbos;

We learn about crossbreeding diverse species from a Gezeirah Shavah "Behemah-Behemah" from Shabbos.

Question: How do we learn regarding Shabbos?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yosi): In the first version of the 10 Utterances (in Shemos), it says "your male slave, female slave and Behemah." In the second version (in Devarim), it says "your ox, donkey and all your Behemos".

Question: 'Behemah' includes oxen and donkeys. Why were they explicitly mentioned?

Answer: This teaches that just like regarding Shabbos, it says "ox and donkey" but the law applies to Chayos and fowl, also whenever they are mentioned in the Torah.

Question: We should say that "Behemah" of the first version (of the Utterances) is a Klal, "ox and donkey" of the second version is a Prat. From a Klal u'Frat, we only learn the Prat, an ox or donkey!

Answer #1: "And all your Behemos" of the second version is another Klal. From a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we learn everything that is like the Prat, in our case, living things.

Question: For both Peratim, their carcasses impart Tum'ah through touching or moving - we should only learn such things (but not birds)!

Answer #1: If so, the Torah should only have written one Prat. (Since it wrote two, we also include birds.)

Question: Which one should it have written?

Had it written only "ox" - one might have thought that we only include animals that are offered on the Mizbe'ach!

Had it written only "donkey" - one might have thought that we only include animals whose firstborn have Kedushah!

Answer #2: "And all your Behemos" is an inclusion.

Question: Does 'all' always denote an inclusion?!

Regarding Ma'aser Sheni it says 'all', yet we expound regarding the method of Klal u'Frat!

(Beraisa): "You will spend the money on whatever your soul desires" - Klal; "on cattle, flock, wine and strong drink" - Prat; "and on all that your soul requests" - Klal;

From a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we learn everything that is like the Prat - whatever reproduces and grows from the ground.

Answer #1: "On all" is a Klal; 'all' is an inclusion.

Answer #2: Normally, 'all' is a Klal; by Shabbos, it is an inclusion;

This is because the Torah should have written "Your animals", just like it wrote regarding the first version; regarding adding "all", it comes as an inclusion.

Question: What do we learn from "Behemah" of the first version and "ox and donkey" of the second version?

Answer: Each is used for a Gezeirah Shavah (like above, 3:g,h,and i).

Question: Since we learn the Isur of working with diverse species from Shabbos, man should be (like a different species and) forbidden to work with animals (since regarding Shabbos, slaves are equated to animals), but this is not so!

(Mishnah): Man may plow or pull with any animal.

Answer (Rav Papa): "(You and your animals will not do Melachah...) in order that your slaves will rest like you" equates slaves to animals only regarding resting.