The Gemara asks: But can it be inferred that if an ox that is of standard intelligence fell into a pit, the owner of the pit would be exempt?

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, and should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to state that if an ox that is of standard intelligence fell into a pit, that the pit’s owner is liable. But with regard to an ox that is deaf, an imbecile, or very young, say that it was not due to the pit alone that it fell in, but its deafness caused it to fall in or its young age caused it to fall in, and the owner of the pit should be exempt. Therefore, it teaches us that he is liable in these cases as well.

Rav Aḥa said to Ravina: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a living being that is mentally competent fell into a pit, the owner is exempt. What, is it not referring to an ox that is mentally competent? Ravina said to him: No, it is referring to a person. Rav Aḥa challenges this response: If that is so, you should then infer that it is only for the injuries of a person who is mentally competent that he is exempt, but if one is not mentally competent, is the halakha that he would be liable? But the term “an ox” is written in the Torah as causing liability, and not a person.

Rava responded to Rav Aḥa: Rather, what does the term mentally competent mean? It is referring to a species that is mentally competent, and thereby includes all humans in the exemption from liability. Rav Aḥa said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If an ox that was mentally competent fell inside it, he is exempt.

Rather, Rava said that Rabbi Yirmeya’s explanation should be rejected, and the mishna is referring specifically to an ox that is deaf, an ox that is an imbecile, and an ox that is very young, for which he is liable; but for an ox that is of standard intelligence, he is exempt. What is the reason? The reason is that the ox should have looked carefully while walking. If it did not, it is responsible for its own injury. The Gemara notes: That idea is also taught in a baraita: With regard to an ox that is deaf, an imbecile, or very young, blind, or that is walking at night and unable to see, if it fell into a pit, the pit’s owner is liable. But if the ox is of standard intelligence and is walking during the day, the pit’s owner is exempt, since normal behavior for oxen is that, ordinarily, they watch where they are going and avoid pits.

MISHNA: The halakha is the same whether concerning an ox or whether concerning any other animal with regard to liability for falling into a pit, and with regard to keeping its distance from Mount Sinai at the time of the receiving of the Torah, when it was forbidden for any animal to ascend the mountain, and with regard to the payment of double the principal by a thief, and with regard to the mitzva of returning a lost item, and with regard to unloading its burden, and with regard to the prohibition of muzzling it while threshing, and with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, and with regard to the prohibition against its working on Shabbat.

And similarly, undomesticated animals and birds are subject to the same halakhot as domesticated animals. If so, why are all of the above halakhot stated in the Torah only in reference to an ox or a donkey? Rather, the reason is that the verse speaks of a common scenario, from which the other cases may be derived.

GEMARA: The Gemara explains the sources for all of the halakhot enumerated in the mishna that apply to all animals. With regard to falling into a pit, it is written: “He shall recompense money to its owners” (Exodus 21:34), which means that any animal that has owners is included, as we mentioned (see 54a). With regard to the requirement that animals keep their distance from Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah, this is derived from the verse: “Whether it be animal or person, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13), and an undomesticated animal [ḥayya] is also included in the term animal [behema]. In addition, the word “whether” serves to include birds.

With regard to the double payment of a thief, it is as we say in a halakhic exegesis of the verse: “For any matter of trespass” (Exodus 22:8), that it is a general statement which includes any matter of negligence. With regard to the mitzva of returning a lost item, the verse states comprehensively: “For every lost thing of your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:3). With regard to the halakha of unloading a burden, derive it from a verbal analogy from the context of Shabbat, as the word donkey is employed in the context of unloading a burden (see Exodus 23:5), and the word donkey is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Deuteronomy 5:14), and that verse is clearly referring to any animal.

With regard to the prohibition against muzzling an animal, mentioned in the verse: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:4), derive it from a verbal analogy from the context of Shabbat, as the word “ox” is employed in the context of muzzling, and the word “ox” is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Deuteronomy 5:14), and that verse is clearly referring to any animal.

With regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, if it is referring to the prohibition against using diverse kinds for plowing, due to which it is forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey together (see Deuteronomy 22:10), derive it from a verbal analogy from the context of Shabbat, as the word “ox” is employed in the context of plowing with diverse kinds, and the word “ox” is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Deuteronomy 5:14), and that verse is clearly referring to any animal.

If it is referring to the prohibition of diverse kinds for crossbreeding, derive it from a verbal analogy from the context of Shabbat, as the term “your cattle” is employed in the context of crossbreeding animals (see Leviticus 19:19), and the term “your cattle” is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Exodus 20:10), and that verse is clearly referring to any animal.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive concerning Shabbat itself that the words “ox” and “donkey” are referring to all types of animals? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In the first version of the Ten Commandments it is stated: “Your manservant, your maidservant, nor your cattle” (Exodus 20:10), whereas in the second version of the Ten Commandments it is stated: “Nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle” (Deuteronomy 5:14). Now, aren’t an ox and a donkey already included in the category of: All animals, which are included in the term “cattle”? Why, then, were they specified? To teach you that just as with regard to the terms ox and donkey that are stated here, undomesticated animals and birds have the same halakha as them, so too, everywhere that an ox and donkey are mentioned, all types of undomesticated animals and birds have the same halakha as them.

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the verses be expounded as follows: The term “cattle” used in the first version of the Ten Commandments is a generalization, and the phrase “your ox and your donkey” used in the latter version of the Ten Commandments is a detail. In the case of a generalization and a detail, the principles of halakhic exegesis dictate that the generalization includes only what is specified in the detail. Therefore, with regard to this subject, an ox and a donkey should indeed be included, but anything else should not be included.

The Sages said in reply: In the phrase “nor any of your cattle” stated in the latter version of the Ten Commandments following the phrase “your ox and your donkey,” it then generalized again. Therefore, the verse is structured as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. According to the principles of halakhic exegesis, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Consequently, just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as animals, so too, all items included in the general term must be animals.

The Gemara challenges the answer: But say instead that just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as an item, i.e., an animal, whose carcass renders a person ritually impure through contact or through carrying, so too, all items whose carcass renders a person ritually impure through contact or through carrying should be included. But birds, whose carcasses do not render one impure through contact or through carrying, should not be included.

The Sages said in reply: If so, let the Merciful One write only one detail from which this could be derived. The Gemara asks: Which detail should the Merciful One write? If the Merciful One writes only an ox, I would say: An animal that is sacrificed on the altar, such as an ox, indeed renders the owner of the pit liable, whereas an animal that is not sacrificed on the altar does not render him liable. And if the Merciful One writes only a donkey, I would say: An animal whose firstborn is sanctified, such as a donkey, as described in the Torah (Exodus 13:13), does indeed render him liable, but an animal whose firstborn is not sanctified does not render him liable. Therefore, the Merciful One writes both an ox and a donkey.

Consequently, there is no redundancy, and each detail is required for correctly deriving other halakhot. If so, the previous question resurfaces: Why are the verses not expounded such that the prohibition does not include birds? Rather, the term: “Nor any [vekhol] of your cattle,” should be understood as an amplification, encompassing any item that is even partially similar to the detail.

The Gemara asks: But is it the case that anywhere that the Merciful One states the word “any [kol]” it is intended as an amplification? But concerning tithes, where it is written “any [kol],” and yet we expound the verses with the method of a generalization and a detail, rather than using the method of amplification and restriction.

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning second-tithe money brought to Jerusalem: The verse states: “And you shall give the money for anything [bekhol] your soul desires” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which is a generalization, followed by: “For oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,” which is a detail, and concludes with: “Or for anything [uvkhol] your soul asks of you,” where it then generalized again.

Therefore, the verse is structured as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. According to the principles of halakhic exegesis, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Consequently, just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as produce of produce, i.e., they grow from a parent organism, such as agricultural produce or animals, and they are grown from the ground, i.e., their sustenance comes from the ground, so too, it includes all things that are the produce of produce and are grown from the ground. It is evident from here that the method of a generalization and a detail is used in connection with the term “kol,” as opposed to interpreting it as an amplification.

The Sages said in response: A distinction may be drawn between the term: “For anything [bekhol],” which is a generalization, and the term “any [kol],” as in: “Any of your cattle,” which is an amplification. And if you wish, say instead that the word “any [kol]” is a generalization as well, in addition to “for anything [bekhol].” But this word “any,” written here, is an amplification. This is the case since it could have written: And your cattle, as it is written in the first version of the Ten Commandments, and instead it writes: “Nor any of your cattle.” Learn from this that it is an amplification and encompasses other animals as well.

The Gemara continues to analyze this matter: Now that you have said that the term “any [kol]” is an amplification, why do I need the words “your cattle,” stated in the first version of the Ten Commandments, and the terms “an ox or a donkey,” stated in the latter version of the Ten Commandments? The phrase “and any of your cattle” already includes any animal.

The Sages said in response: Each of these terms is required. The term “ox” can be used to derive the halakha with regard to the prohibition against muzzling, as the word “ox” is employed in the context of muzzling, and the word “ox” is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat.

The term “donkey” can be used to derive the halakha with regard to the halakha of unloading a burden, as the word “donkey” is employed in the context of unloading a burden (see Exodus 23:5), and the word “donkey” is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Deuteronomy 5:14).

The term “your cattle” can be used to derive the halakha with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, as the term “your cattle” is employed in the context of crossbreeding animals (see Leviticus 19:19), and the term “your cattle” is employed in the context of the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat (see Exodus 20:10).

The Gemara asks: If so, that this redundancy is the source for extending the prohibition of diverse kinds, then it should be prohibited even for a person to plow together with an ox or another animal. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (Kilayim 8:6): It is permitted for a person to plow and pull with any of them, indicating that the prohibition relates only to animals?

Rav Pappa said: The Sages of Paphunya know the reason for this matter, and who are these Sages? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, who resided in Paphunya. The reason is that the verse states: “You shall not perform any labor, neither you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maidservant, your ox, your donkey, any of your animals, or the stranger residing within your city gates, that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you” (Deuteronomy 5:14), as if to say: I have equated people with animals only concerning resting on Shabbat, but not with regard to another matter.

Having discussed some differences between the two versions of the Ten Commandments, the Gemara now discusses a related matter: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For what reason is the word good not stated in the first version of the Ten Commandments, whereas in the latter version of the Ten Commandments,