Gemara Bava Metzia 27a discusses various possible meanings to a "superfluous" word in Devarim 22:3 -- the passuk lists clothing, ox and lamb, but "lamb" seems unnecessary if "ox" is named.

The rabbis of the Gemara seem to leave the matter unresolved after trying to find meaning in the extra word lamb... they had considered but rejected some possible explanations, including returning lost animal waste.

My chavrusa and I were considering the "Possible Approach" shown below, and I am asking for other opinions as to why this explanation is not considered at all in the Gemara.

Also, my chavrusa suggested that perhaps some other reason for the inclusion of "lamb" in the passuk quoted in this Gemara has been discussed in a commentary by a Rishon, Acharon, or more recent Gadol; do you know of any such commentary?.

A Possible Approach

Shortly prior to this section, the Gemara was discussing that one who covers over a lost object until the owner despairs of finding it has stolen the item from the owner.

Elsewhere in Chumash is a discussion with significant commentary about the different penalties for stealing an ox vs stealing a sheep (that an ox can be led away, but a sheep must be carried away). The work of carrying away the sheep decreases the penalty associated with its theft.

So perhaps the Torah needed to say both ox and sheep here because we are in the context akin to theft, and, since they are treated separately with respect to theft there, they are both mentioned here, in Devarim 22:3.

B"H

Rob,

I liked the explanation that you and your chavrusa came up with. Although I do not have an explanation of my own, I remember hearing at one time that in the aforementioned verses where the Torah speaks about one finding either a bull, sheep or donkey that had gone astray, and about one finding a lost tunic, the Torah has spoken there only about what are common occurences with men (דברה תורה בהווה), and that the general rule about making restitution applies to all animals that are domesticated and known to have gone astray from their owners.

Again, this does not explain what you are looking for, nor what the Gemara seems to be looking for, seeing that no word in the Torah is superfluous.

David

B"H

Rob,

Have either you or your Chavrusa looked at the parallel sugiya found in the Jerusalem Talmud (Baba Metzia)?

David

Over there it's not enough of a Svarah to obligate or exempt, only to how much are we obligated, and also only by things that are fines which are to a point are arbitrary. But whether there is an obligation at all, then there is no Svarah to make a difference.

You cannot even say that it tells us that you must carry the lamb even if you're embarrassed, since this is included in the Drasha of V'hisalamta, to exclude an elder that it's not according to his honor to retrieve such a lost object. So this we see that it depends on if it's according to his honor to return it (if he would do it for his own object or not.)

Dear Rav Chaim:

I have re-read your response a few times but I am not sure what part of my posting it is answering. So perhaps I was not clear in the question.

Is there a connection between the two Chumash passukim -- the one stating the different 4 or 5 fold fines, and the verse referenced that the Gemara says has an extra word?

You may be saying a reason we need both verses?

Does that explain why Devarim 22:3 needs the "extra" word?

But I am asking if the reason for the extra word could be that the context of the one accentuating the difference could be taken to exclude one from the other here if they were not both included.

Is that a plausible reason?

Why didn't it make the "cut" for what arguments would have been considered by the gemara? How do I know that its so wrong to have not been considered?

Quote "But I am asking if the reason for the extra word could be that the context of the one accentuating the difference could be taken to exclude one from the other here if they were not both included."

How I understand your question is that by stealing and selling there is a difference but in lost objects there isn't. I think the answer is that what difference is it made by stealing? Its not whether to obligate him to pay, but rather how much to pay. So we see a difference, that once there is an obligation, there is a reason to fine one more than the other. But to say that there is a difference to say that there is an obligation by one and not the other, that Chiluk doesn't exist