In Memory of Rabbi Reuven Hammer A Commentary on the Thirteen Rules of Textual Interpretation

In his commentary on the Shabbat and Festivals Siddur, Or Hadash, Rabbi Hammer provides examples of each of the thriteen traditional methods of textual interpretation cited in the 'Braita D'Rabbi Yishmael.'

I've collected them here in his memory, z'lb

משנה ביצה ה׳:ב׳

(ב) כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, מִשּׁוּם רְשׁוּת, מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה, בְּשַׁבָּת, חַיָּבִין עָלָיו בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, לֹא עוֹלִין בָּאִילָן, וְלֹא רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה, וְלֹא שָׁטִין עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, וְלֹא מְטַפְּחִין, וְלֹא מְסַפְּקִין, וְלֹא מְרַקְּדִין. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מִשּׁוּם רְשׁוּת, לֹא דָנִין, וְלֹא מְקַדְּשִׁין, וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין, וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה, לֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין, וְלֹא מַעֲרִיכִין, וְלֹא מַחֲרִימִין, וְלֹא מַגְבִּיהִין תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר. כָּל אֵלּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָמְרוּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר בְּשַׁבָּת. אֵין בֵּין יוֹם טוֹב לְשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבָד:

Mishnah Beitzah 5:2

(2) Every [act] for which one is liable on Shabbat because of mandated rest [shevut], [or] because it is only optional [reshut], [or] even though it is a religious act [mitzvah], he is also liable on Yom Tov.For the following acts he is liable because of shevut: One may not climb a tree, And one may not ride on an animal. And one may not swim in water. And one may not clap hands, nor slap [thighs], nor dance. For the following acts he is liable because they are only optional: One may not judge; And one may not betroth a wife, nor perform halizah, nor perform yibbum [consumate a levirate marriage]. And for the following acts one is liable even though it is a religious act [mitzvah]: One may not dedicate [anything to the Temple], nor vow a personal valuation, nor make a vow of herem, nor set aside terumah or tithes. All these things they [the rabbis said that they are forbidden] on Yom Tov, how much more so [are they forbidden] on Shabbat. There is no difference between Yom Tov and Shabbat except for the preparation of food alone.

במדבר ט׳:ב׳

(ב) וְיַעֲשׂ֧וּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֶת־הַפָּ֖סַח בְּמוֹעֲדֽוֹ׃

Numbers 9:2

(2) Let the Israelite people offer the passover sacrifice at its set time:

במדבר כ״ח:ב׳

(ב) צַ֚ו אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵהֶ֑ם אֶת־קָרְבָּנִ֨י לַחְמִ֜י לְאִשַּׁ֗י רֵ֚יחַ נִֽיחֹחִ֔י תִּשְׁמְר֕וּ לְהַקְרִ֥יב לִ֖י בְּמוֹעֲדֽוֹ׃

Numbers 28:2

(2) Command the Israelite people and say to them: Be punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times the offerings of food due Me, as offerings by fire of pleasing odor to Me.

פסחים ס״ו א:ג׳-ו׳

גמ׳ תנו רבנן הלכה זו נתעלמה מבני בתירא פעם אחת חל ארבעה עשר להיות בשבת שכחו ולא ידעו אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמרו כלום יש אדם שיודע אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמרו להם אדם אחד יש שעלה מבבל והלל הבבלי שמו ששימש שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון ויודע אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו שלחו וקראו לו אמרו לו כלום אתה יודע אם הפסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמר להם וכי פסח אחד יש לנו בשנה שדוחה את השבת והלא הרבה יותר ממאתים פסחים יש לנו בשנה שדוחין את השבת אמרו לו מנין לך אמר להם נאמר מועדו בפסח ונאמר מועדו בתמיד מה מועדו האמור בתמיד דוחה את השבת אף מועדו האמור בפסח דוחה את השבת ועוד קל וחומר הוא ומה תמיד שאין ענוש כרת דוחה את השבת פסח שענוש כרת אינו דין שדוחה את השבת מיד הושיבוהו בראש ומינוהו נשיא עליהם והיה דורש כל היום כולו בהלכות הפסח התחיל מקנטרן בדברים אמר להן מי גרם לכם שאעלה מבבל ואהיה נשיא עליכם עצלות שהיתה בכם שלא שמשתם שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון

Pesachim 66a:3-6

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat? They said to him: From where do you know this? He said to them: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is also stated with regard to the daily offering, for the verse says: “Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifice made with fire, for a sweet savor to Me, shall you observe to offer Me at its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2). From here we learn that the daily offering is brought even on Shabbat. Thus, the daily morning and afternoon offerings are brought on more than fifty Shabbatot over the course of the year, and two sheep are offered every Shabbat as additional offerings, for a total of more than two hundred sacrifices a year that override Shabbat. Just as the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides Shabbat. And furthermore, it is an a fortiori inference: If the daily offering, the neglect of which is not punishable by karet, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb, the neglect of which is punishable by karet, should override Shabbat? After Hillel brought these proofs, they immediately seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day. In the course of his teaching, he began rebuking them [mekanteran] them with words. He said to them: What caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become Nasi over you? It was the laziness in you that you did not serve the two most eminent scholars of the generation living in Eretz Yisrael, Shemaya and Avtalyon.

דברים י״ז:ב׳

(ב) כִּֽי־יִמָּצֵ֤א בְקִרְבְּךָ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁר־יקוק אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֣ן לָ֑ךְ אִ֣ישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשֶׂ֧ה אֶת־הָרַ֛ע בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְהוָֽה־אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ לַעֲבֹ֥ר בְּרִיתֽוֹ׃

Deuteronomy 17:2

(2) If there is found among you, in one of the settlements that the LORD your God is giving you, a man or woman who has affronted the LORD your God and transgressed His covenant—

דברים י״ז:ו׳

(ו) עַל־פִּ֣י ׀ שְׁנַ֣יִם עֵדִ֗ים א֛וֹ שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה עֵדִ֖ים יוּמַ֣ת הַמֵּ֑ת לֹ֣א יוּמַ֔ת עַל־פִּ֖י עֵ֥ד אֶחָֽד׃

Deuteronomy 17:6

(6) A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two or more witnesses; he must not be put to death on the testimony of a single witness.—

ספרי דברים קמ״ח:א׳

(א) כי ימצא. בעדים. (מכלל) שנאמר להלן על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר, זה בנין אב. שכל מקום שנאמר "ימצא" - בשנים עדים ובשלשה עדים הכתוב מדבר.

Sifrei Devarim 148:1

(1) (Devarim 17:2) "If there be found in your midst, in one of your cities (lit., "gates") which the L-rd your G-d gives you, a man or a woman who would do what is evil in the eyes of the L-rd your G-d, to break His covenant": "If there be found": by witnesses, it being written (Ibid. 19:15) "By word of two witnesses, or by word of three witnesses, shall a thing be established." This is a prototype for the rule that wherever "there be found" is mentioned, Scripture speaks of ("finding") by two or three witnesses.

ויקרא א׳:ב׳

(ב) דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם אָדָ֗ם כִּֽי־יַקְרִ֥יב מִכֶּ֛ם קָרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיקוק מִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֗ה מִן־הַבָּקָר֙ וּמִן־הַצֹּ֔אן תַּקְרִ֖יבוּ אֶת־קָרְבַּנְכֶֽם׃

Leviticus 1:2

(2) Speak to the Israelite people, and say to them: When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the LORD, he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock.

ספרא, ויקרא דבורא דנדבה, פרשה ב ו׳

(ו) [ו] "קרבן ליקוק...הבהמה" – יכול אף חיה שהיא קרויה "בהמה" שנאמר (דברים יד, ד) "זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו שור שה...איל וצבי ויחמור.."? תלמוד לומר (ויקרא א, ג) (ויקרא א, י) 'בקר וצאן'. יכול לא יביא ואם הביא כשר? משל למה הדבר דומה למי שאמר לו רבו "לך והבא לי חטים" והלך והביא לו חיטים ושעורים – הרי זה מוסיף על דבריו! תלמוד לומר (ויקרא א, ב) 'בקר וצאן..תקריבו' – אין לך בבהמה אלא בקר וצאן בלבד. הא למה זה דומה? למי שאמר לו רבו "אל תביא לי אלא חיטים" – הא אם הוסיף זה על החיטים הרי הוא עובר על דבריו.

Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura DeNedavah, Section 2 6

(6) 6) (Vayikra 1:2): "… an offering to the L–rd from the beasts (behemah)": I might think (that this permitted) even (non-domesticated) animals, which are also subsumed in "behemah," viz. (Devarim 14:4): "These are the beasts (behemah) that you may eat: the ox, the sheep … the hart and the roebuck" (animals); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): "from the cattle and from the sheep" (domesticated). I might think that he should not bring ("animals"), but if he did bring them they are permitted — as when one's master tells him: "Go and bring me wheat," and he goes and brings him wheat and barley, in which instance he (merely) adds to his master's words; it is, therefore, written: "from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer" — i.e., from the beasts shall you offer cattle and sheep alone. This is analogous to one's master telling him: "Bring me only wheat, in which instance, if he adds (barley) to wheat, he transgresses his master's words.

ספרא, ברייתא דרבי ישמעאל ז׳

(ז) (ה) מכלל ופרט – כיצד? "מן הבהמה" – כלל, "מן הבקר ומן הצאן" – פרט. 'כלל ופרט' – אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט ׳ ח.

Sifra, Baraita DeRabbi Yishmael 7

(7) 4) kllal ufrat (general-specific): (Vayikra 1:2): "A man, if he offer from you an offering to the L–rd, from the beasts, from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer your offering." "from the beasts" — general (i.e., all animals); "from the cattle and from the sheep" — specific (i.e., domesticated animals) — the general subsumes only the specific (i.e., domesticated, and not non-domesticated animals).

שמות כ״ב:ט׳

(ט) כִּֽי־יִתֵּן֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֜הוּ חֲמ֨וֹר אוֹ־שׁ֥וֹר אוֹ־שֶׂ֛ה וְכָל־בְּהֵמָ֖ה לִשְׁמֹ֑ר וּמֵ֛ת אוֹ־נִשְׁבַּ֥ר אוֹ־נִשְׁבָּ֖ה אֵ֥ין רֹאֶֽה׃

Exodus 22:9

(9) When a man gives to another an ass, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to guard, and it dies or is injured or is carried off, with no witness about,

מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי כ״ב:ט׳

חמור או שור או שה. אין לי אלא אלו המיוחדין מניין לרבות שאר בהמה ת"ל וכל בהמה. מניין לרבות שאר המטלטלין ת"ל וכל לשמור.

Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Ben Yochai 22:9

...

שמות כ״ב:ח׳

(ח) עַֽל־כָּל־דְּבַר־פֶּ֡שַׁע עַל־שׁ֡וֹר עַל־חֲ֠מוֹר עַל־שֶׂ֨ה עַל־שַׂלְמָ֜ה עַל־כָּל־אֲבֵדָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֹאמַר֙ כִּי־ה֣וּא זֶ֔ה עַ֚ד הָֽאֱלֹקִ֔ים יָבֹ֖א דְּבַר־שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר יַרְשִׁיעֻן֙ אֱלֹקִ֔ים יְשַׁלֵּ֥ם שְׁנַ֖יִם לְרֵעֵֽהוּ׃ (ס)

Exodus 22:8

(8) In all charges of misappropriation—pertaining to an ox, an ass, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, “This is it”—the case of both parties shall come before God: he whom God declares guilty shall pay double to the other.

בבא קמא ס״ב ב:י״ג-ט״ו

שמדת תשלומי כפל נוהגת כו': מנה"מ דת"ר (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע כלל על שור על חמור על שה ועל שלמה פרט על כל אבידה חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון יצאו קרקעות שאינן מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאף על פי שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון יצא הקדש רעהו כתיב

Bava Kamma 62b:13-15

§ The mishna teaches that the principle of double payment applies both to the theft of something that is alive and to the theft of something that is not alive. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For any matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it, the claims of both of them shall come before the judges, the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8). “For any matter of trespass” is a generalization; “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment” is a detail. And when the verse states: “Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalizes again. Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value. Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to “his neighbor,” i.e., to another person, rather than to the Temple treasury.

ויקרא י״ז:י״ג

(יג) וְאִ֨ישׁ אִ֜ישׁ מִבְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וּמִן־הַגֵּר֙ הַגָּ֣ר בְּתוֹכָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָצ֜וּד צֵ֥יד חַיָּ֛ה אוֹ־ע֖וֹף אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵאָכֵ֑ל וְשָׁפַךְ֙ אֶת־דָּמ֔וֹ וְכִסָּ֖הוּ בֶּעָפָֽר׃

Leviticus 17:13

(13) And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down an animal or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.

חולין פ״ח א:ז׳-י׳

מתני׳ במה מכסין ובמה אין מכסין מכסין בזבל הדק ובחול הדק בסיד ובחרסית ובלבנה ובמגופה שכתשן אבל אין מכסין לא בזבל הגס ולא בחול הגס ולא בלבנה ובמגופה שלא כתשן ולא יכפה עליו את הכלי כלל אמר רשב"ג דבר שמגדל בו צמחים מכסין בו ושאינו מגדל צמחים אין מכסין בו: גמ׳ היכי דמי חול הדק אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל שאין היוצר צריך לכתשו ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא אבל אין מכסין לא בזבל הגס ולא בחול הגס היכי דמי חול הגס אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן כל שהיוצר צריך לכתשו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דצריך ולא צריך דמיפריך איפרוכי: תנו רבנן וכסהו יכול יכסנו באבנים או יכפה עליו את הכלי תלמוד לומר בעפר ואין לי אלא עפר מנין לרבות זבל הדק וחול הדק ושחיקת אבנים ושחיקת חרסית ונעורת פשתן דקה

Chullin 88a:7-10

MISHNA: With what substances may one cover the blood and with what substances may one not cover the blood? One may cover the blood with fine granulated manure, with fine sand, with lime, with crushed potsherd, and with a brick or the lid of an earthenware barrel that one crushed. But one may not cover the blood with thick manure, nor with thick, clumped sand, nor with a brick or the lid of an earthenware barrel that one did not crush. Neither may one merely turn a vessel over the blood. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated a principle: With regard to a substance in which plants grow, one may cover blood with it; and with regard to a substance in which plants do not grow, one may not cover blood with it. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may cover the blood with fine sand. The Gemara asks: What is considered fine sand? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is any sand that the pottery producer does not need to crush in order to use it. The Gemara notes: And some teach this statement in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, which states: But one may not cover the blood with thick manure, nor with thick sand. The Gemara asks: What is considered thick sand? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is any sand that the pottery producer must crush in order to use it. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two versions? The Gemara responds: There is a difference between them with regard to sand that requires some crushing and sand that does not require full crushing, i.e., that crumbles in one’s hand and does not require a tool. According to the first version, as long as the sand does not require crushing it may be used to cover the blood. Therefore, sand that requires crumbling may be used since it is not considered sand that requires crushing. According to the second version, any sand that requires some crushing may not be used. Therefore, sand that requires crumbling may not be used to cover the blood. § The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: “And cover it” (Leviticus 17:13). One might have thought that he may cover the blood with stones or merely turn a vessel over it. Therefore, the verse states: “With earth.” Based on this expression I have derived only that earth may be used. From where does one derive to include fine manure, fine sand, crushed stones, crushed potsherd, fine chaff of flax,

חולין פ״ח ב:א׳-ד׳

ונסורת של חרשין דקה וסיד וחרסית לבנה ומגופה שכתשן ת"ל וכסהו יכול שאני מרבה אף זבל הגס וחול הגס ושחיקת כלי מתכות ולבנה ומגופה שלא כתשן וקמח וסובין ומורסן ת"ל בעפר ומה ראית לרבות את אלו ולהוציא את אלו אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט מרבה אני את אלו שהן מין עפר ומוציא אני את אלו שאין מין עפר אימא וכסהו כלל עפר פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עפר אין מידי אחרינא לא אמר רב מרי משום דהוה כלל הצריך לפרט וכל כלל הצריך לפרט אין דנין אותו בכלל ופרט

Chullin 88b:1-4

fine sawdust of carpenters, lime, crushed potsherd, and a brick or the lid of an earthenware barrel that one crushed? The verse states: “And cover it,” i.e., with any substance. One might have thought that I will include even thick manure, and thick sand, filings of metal vessels, a brick or a lid that one did not crush, flour, bran, and coarse bran. Therefore, the verse states: “And cover it with earth,” indicating that not all substances may be used to cover the blood. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include these substances and to exclude those? The Gemara responds: After noting that the verse included certain substances with the term: “And cover it,” and excluded others with the term: “With earth,” I include these substances, e.g., fine sand, which are a type of earth in which plants grow, and I exclude those substances, e.g., thick sand, which are not a type of earth, as plants do not grow in them. The Gemara asks: Why must the verse be interpreted in this manner? Say that the term: “And cover it,” is a generalization, and the term: “With earth,” is a detail. Consequently, the verse constitutes a generalization and a detail, and according to the corresponding hermeneutical principle, the generalization includes only what is mentioned explicitly in the detail. Therefore, only earth may be used to cover the blood, while any other substance, even substances in which plants grow, may not be used. Rav Mari said in response: One should not suggest such an interpretation because the term “and cover it” is a generalization that requires a detail to clarify its nature, and any generalization that requires a detail to clarify its nature is not interpreted by the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail. It is necessary for the verse to state that the blood must be covered with earth in order to clarify that the mitzva of covering the blood is such that the blood must be covered with a substance that will absorb the blood, and that it does not suffice to place a vessel over it.

דברים כ״ב:ג׳

(ג) וְכֵ֧ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה לַחֲמֹר֗וֹ וְכֵ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂה֮ לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ֒ וְכֵ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֜ה לְכָל־אֲבֵדַ֥ת אָחִ֛יךָ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאבַ֥ד מִמֶּ֖נּוּ וּמְצָאתָ֑הּ לֹ֥א תוּכַ֖ל לְהִתְעַלֵּֽם׃ (ס)

Deuteronomy 22:3

(3) You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find: you must not remain indifferent.

משנה בבא מציעא ב׳:ה׳

(ה) אַף הַשִּׂמְלָה הָיְתָה בִכְלָל כָּל אֵלֶּה. לָמָּה יָצָאת. לְהָקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהָ, לוֹמַר לְךָ, מַה שִּׂמְלָה מְיֻחֶדֶת שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ סִימָנִים וְיֶשׁ לָהּ תּוֹבְעִים, אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנִים וְיֶשׁ לוֹ תוֹבְעִים, חַיָּב לְהַכְרִיז:

Mishnah Bava Metzia 2:5

(5) A garment was also included amongst all these things (which one must proclaim, listed in Deut. 22:3). Why was it mentioned separately? To compare [other things] to it: to teach you just as a garment is distinct in that it has special marks and it has those who claim it, so too everything that has special marks and those who claim it must be proclaimed.

שמות ל״ה:ב׳-ג׳

(ב) שֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִים֮ תֵּעָשֶׂ֣ה מְלָאכָה֒ וּבַיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י יִהְיֶ֨ה לָכֶ֥ם קֹ֛דֶשׁ שַׁבַּ֥ת שַׁבָּת֖וֹן לַיקוק כָּל־הָעֹשֶׂ֥ה ב֛וֹ מְלָאכָ֖ה יוּמָֽת׃ (ג) לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃ (פ)

Exodus 35:2-3

(2) On six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. (3) You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the sabbath day.

שבת ע׳ א:ה׳

שמואל סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר הבערה ללאו יצאת דתניא הבערה ללאו יצאת דברי רבי יוסי רבי נתן אומר לחלק יצאת

Shabbat 70a:5

Rabbi Natan cited a source proving that there is liability for performance of each prohibited labor of Shabbat on its own. Why doesn’t Shmuel derive that halakha from the same source? The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who disagreed with Rabbi Natan’s interpretation of the verse, as Rabbi Yosei said: The prohibition against kindling on Shabbat was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat merely violates a prohibition. Performing other primary categories of prohibited labor is punishable by stoning or karet. In contrast, one who lights a fire on Shabbat has merely violated a prohibition, as it was taught in a baraita: The prohibition of kindling was singled out as a prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan says: Kindling is like any other labor prohibited on Shabbat. It was singled out to divide the various labors and to establish liability for performance of each of them.

שמות כ״א:כ״ט

(כט) וְאִ֡ם שׁוֹר֩ נַגָּ֨ח ה֜וּא מִתְּמֹ֣ל שִׁלְשֹׁ֗ם וְהוּעַ֤ד בִּבְעָלָיו֙ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְרֶ֔נּוּ וְהֵמִ֥ית אִ֖ישׁ א֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֑ה הַשּׁוֹר֙ יִסָּקֵ֔ל וְגַם־בְּעָלָ֖יו יוּמָֽת׃

Exodus 21:29

(29) If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner, though warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a man or a woman—the ox shall be stoned and its owner, too, shall be put to death.

שמות כ״א:ל״ב

(לב) אִם־עֶ֛בֶד יִגַּ֥ח הַשּׁ֖וֹר א֣וֹ אָמָ֑ה כֶּ֣סֶף ׀ שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שְׁקָלִ֗ים יִתֵּן֙ לַֽאדֹנָ֔יו וְהַשּׁ֖וֹר יִסָּקֵֽל׃ (ס)

Exodus 21:32

(32) But if the ox gores a slave, male or female, he shall pay thirty shekels of silver to the master, and the ox shall be stoned.

מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי כ״א:ל״ב

(לב) אם עבד יגח השור או אמה יכול בעבד ואמה העברים הכתוב מדבר ת"ל עבד ואמה עבד ואמה שתורתן שווה זה לזה יצאו עבד ואמה העברים שאין תורתן שווה זו לזו הא בכנענים הכתוב מדבר: כסף. יכול דינר ת"ל שלשים. יכול שלשים דינר ת"ל שקלים: כסף. יכול בכליות ועלמיות וקפטקיות נאמר כן שקלים ונאמר להלן (ויק' כ"ז כ"ה) שקלים מה שקלים האמור להלן בשקל הקודש אף שקלים האמור כאן בשקל הקודש: יתן לאדוניה בין איש בין אשה יתן לאדוניו בין קטן בין גדול: יתן לאדוניו. יכול בבית דין ושלא בבית דין ת"ל יתן לאדוניו והשור יסקל מה סקילתו בבית דין אף (מיתתו) [נתינה] בבית דין: והשור יסקל. מה אני צריך והלא כבר נאמר (פס' כ"ח) סקל יסקל השור מה ת״ל השור יסקל מכלל שנא' (להלן ואם שור נגח הוא) [ואם עבד יגח השור] יכול כיון שנגח אעפ״י שלא המית יהא חייב ת״ל השור יסקל השור יסקל לגזרה שווה מה השור יסקל האמור להלן המית אף השור יסקל האמור כאן המית ומה להלן במועד ולא בתם אף כאן במועד ולא בתם [דבר אחר] מפני שהיה בכלל ויצא לידון בחדש החזירו הכתוב לכללו: (נאמר כאן שור שבע פעמים חד לגופיה והשאר לרבות שור האשה שור היתומים שור אפטרופין שור המדבר ושור הקודש ושור גר שמת שאין לו יורשין שכולן חייבין מיתה):

Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Ben Yochai 21:32

...

ויקרא י״ד:י״ג-י״ד

(יג) וְשָׁחַ֣ט אֶת־הַכֶּ֗בֶשׂ בִּ֠מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁחַ֧ט אֶת־הַֽחַטָּ֛את וְאֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה בִּמְק֣וֹם הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ כִּ֡י כַּ֠חַטָּאת הָאָשָׁ֥ם הוּא֙ לַכֹּהֵ֔ן קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים הֽוּא׃ (יד) וְלָקַ֣ח הַכֹּהֵן֮ מִדַּ֣ם הָאָשָׁם֒ וְנָתַן֙ הַכֹּהֵ֔ן עַל־תְּנ֛וּךְ אֹ֥זֶן הַמִּטַּהֵ֖ר הַיְמָנִ֑ית וְעַל־בֹּ֤הֶן יָדוֹ֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֥הֶן רַגְל֖וֹ הַיְמָנִֽית׃

Leviticus 14:13-14

(13) The lamb shall be slaughtered at the spot in the sacred area where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. For the guilt offering, like the sin offering, goes to the priest; it is most holy. (14) The priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering, and the priest shall put it on the ridge of the right ear of him who is being cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.

זבחים מ״ט א:י״א-ט״ו

אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנא לן קרא אחרינא כתיב (ויקרא יד, יג) ושחט את הכבש והאי להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לידון בדבר החדש אי אתה רשאי להחזירו לכללו עד שיחזירנו הכתוב לכללו בפירוש כיצד (ויקרא יד, יג) ושחט את הכבש במקום אשר ישחט את החטאת ואת העולה במקום הקדש כי כחטאת האשם הוא וגו' שאין ת"ל כחטאת האשם מה ת"ל כחטאת האשם לפי שיצא אשם מצורע לידון בדבר החדש בבוהן יד ובוהן רגל ואזן ימנית יכול לא יהא טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח תלמוד לומר כחטאת האשם הוא מה חטאת טעונה מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח אף אשם מצורע טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח

Zevachim 49a:11-15

The Gemara asks: We have found a verse teaching that in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner, the slaughtering of the guilt offering is in the north. From where do we derive to disqualify after the fact an offering slaughtered elsewhere, not in the north? The Gemara answers: Another verse is written, referring to a guilt offering, which states: “And he shall slaughter the sheep in the place where they slaughter the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the place of the Sanctuary; for as the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; to the priest, it is most holy” (Leviticus 14:13). This teaches that all guilt offerings are disqualified if they are not slaughtered in the north. The Gemara asks: But does this verse come to teach this halakha? This verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a matter that was included in a general category but left to discuss a new matter, i.e., if a novel aspect or special ruling is taught with regard to a specific case within a broader general category, you may not return it to its general category even for other matters, and this case is understood to have been entirely removed from the general category, until the verse explicitly returns it to its general category. The Gemara explains: How so? The verse states: “And he shall slaughter the sheep in the place where they slaughter the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the place of the Sanctuary; for as the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; to the priest, it is most holy” (Leviticus 14:13). As there is no need for the verse to state: “As the sin offering, so is the guilt offering,” since the verse had already equated the guilt offering with the sin offering, why does the verse state: “As the sin offering, so is the guilt offering”? What does it serve to teach? Since the guilt offering of a leper left the general category of guilt offerings to teach a new matter, as there is a halakha unique to the guilt offering of a leper in that blood of the offering is placed on the right thumb of the hand and the right big toe of the foot and the right ear of the leper, one might have thought that this guilt offering does not require placement of blood or the burning of sacrificial portions on the altar, as the halakhot of this guilt offering are unique. To counter this reasoning, the verse states: “As the sin offering, so is the guilt offering.” Just as the sin offering requires the placement of the blood and the burning of sacrificial portions on the altar, so too, the guilt offering of a leper requires placement of the blood and the burning of sacrificial portions on the altar. Similarly, just as the verse had to teach these two halakhot, so too, the verse had to state: “And he shall slaughter the sheep in the place where they slaughter the sin offering and the burnt offering,” to teach that it requires slaughter in the north. It cannot serve as a source for the general halakha that a guilt offering slaughtered in a place other than in the north is disqualified.

שמות כ׳:י״ג

(יג) לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃ (ס) לֹ֣֖א תִּֿנְאָֽ֑ף׃ (ס) לֹ֣֖א תִּֿגְנֹֽ֔ב׃ (ס) לֹֽא־תַעֲנֶ֥ה בְרֵעֲךָ֖ עֵ֥ד שָֽׁקֶר׃ (ס)

Exodus 20:13

(13) You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

סנהדרין פ״ו א:ט״ז-י״ז

ת"ר (שמות כ, יב) לא תגנוב בגונב נפשות הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בגונב נפשות או אינו אלא בגונב ממון אמרת צא ולמד משלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן דבר הלמד מעניינו במה הכתוב מדבר בנפשות אף כאן בנפשות תניא אידך (ויקרא יט, יא) לא תגנובו בגונב ממון הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בגונב ממון או אינו אלא בגונב נפשות אמרת צא ולמד משלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן דבר הלמד מעניינו במה הכתוב מדבר בממון אף כאן בממון

Sanhedrin 86a:16-17

The Sages taught in a baraita: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), and it is with regard to one who abducts people that the verse is speaking. Do you say that the verse is speaking with regard to one who abducts people, or perhaps the verse is speaking only with regard to one who steals property? You say: Go out and learn from one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what context are the adjacent prohibitions “You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery” in the verse speaking? They are speaking with regard to capital cases. So too here, the prohibition is speaking with regard to a capital case of abduction. It is taught in another baraita: “You shall not steal” (Leviticus 19:11), and it is with regard to one who steals property that the verse is speaking. Do you say that the verse is speaking with regard to one who steals property, or perhaps the verse is speaking only with regard to one who abducts people? You say: Go out and learn from one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what context is the subsequent verse: “You shall neither exploit your neighbor nor rob him” (Leviticus 19:13), speaking? It is speaking with regard to property. So too here, the verse is speaking with regard to property.

דברים ט״ז:ב׳

(ב) וְזָבַ֥חְתָּ פֶּ֛סַח לַיקוק אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ צֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֑ר בַּמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַ֣ר יקוק לְשַׁכֵּ֥ן שְׁמ֖וֹ שָֽׁם׃

Deuteronomy 16:2

(2) You shall slaughter the passover sacrifice for the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD will choose to establish His name.

שמות י״ב:ה׳

(ה) שֶׂ֥ה תָמִ֛ים זָכָ֥ר בֶּן־שָׁנָ֖ה יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם מִן־הַכְּבָשִׂ֥ים וּמִן־הָעִזִּ֖ים תִּקָּֽחוּ׃

Exodus 12:5

(5) Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

שמות י״ב:כ״א

(כא) וַיִּקְרָ֥א מֹשֶׁ֛ה לְכָל־זִקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ וּקְח֨וּ לָכֶ֥ם צֹ֛אן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶ֖ם וְשַׁחֲט֥וּ הַפָּֽסַח׃

Exodus 12:21

(21) Moses then summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go, pick out lambs for your families, and slaughter the passover offering.