Clarification: Since the Gemara thought that the term "Ba'al ha'Ishah" is confined to where he still her husband.

Question: How can the Gemara ask that they should divide the money for the babies? Is the money for the babies 'bundles', that the mother should merit a portion in them ...

Support: As this is what the Gemara asks later (on Daf 49a)?

Question (cont.): Since even the husband would not acquire them had the Torah not informed us that he does, and we do not find that the Torah gave her rights in them?

Yerushalmi: Rebbi Akiva there (in Perek , Halachah 5) asks what the Din will be if he has relations with his mother or his sister: 'We would have thought that, even there, he is considered the owner of the fetuses?

Yerushalmi (cont.): Therefore the Torah writes "Ba'al", indicating that only someone who is fit to be called her husband (i.e. by whom Kidushin takes effect), to preclude the above who are not fit to be called her husband'.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked on Rabah personally 'Why not establish it irrespective of whether they claimed money or land' ...

Answer: Seeing as, at the end o 'Get Pashut' (Bava Basra, Daf 175b) it is evident that he himself holds that even if he claimed Karka, he does not receive anything, since he holds 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa'?

Answer (cont.): Only the Gemara did not take the trouble to go into it ...

Answer (concl.): Since it would then have had to ask from 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa' on to 'Gavu Karka Yesh lo' and to answer.

Explanation #1: He means 'even if he claims Karka'; it does come to preclude there where he claimed money

Source: Because when Rav Nachman there considers money to be Muchzak, that is specifically with regard to a loan, as Rashi explains, since he gave money and he takes money ...

Source (cont.): Whereas that reasoning does not apply here.

Explanation #2: The Ri however explains that, since it is normal for people to pay money, Rebbi Akiva considers money to be Muchzak (even here as well [See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim]).

Rava: He holds like Rebbi Akiva, because according to Rebbi Eliezer, he is definitely Chayav, as we learned earlier.

Abaye: And Abaye, who queries Rabah, holds that even Rebbi Akiva admits that Mu'ad she'Lo be'Kavanah is Chayav Kofer from "Im Kofer" - which comes to include she'Lo be'Kavanah.

Implied Question: And Rebbi Akiva saw fit to establish "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" to teach us D"mei Eved, and not Chatzi Kofer she'Lo be'Kavanah?

Answer: Because from "Im Kofer" we only learn that she'Lo be'Kavanah is Chayav like be'Kavanah.

Answer (cont.): Whereas by Tam via witnesses there is no Kofer be'Kavanah, due to the S'vara 'Bring it to Beis-Din and he will pay you!' Consequently, also she'Lo be'Kavanah or by his own admission, one cannot include from "Im Kofer".

Answer (concl.): Hence Rebbi Akiva justly queries Rebbi Eliezer, even according to Abaye that - on account of 'Bring it to Beis-Din and he will pay you!', one can absolve him from payment even she'Lo be'Kavanah, without the Pasuk of "Naki".

Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan: And similarly, Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who says later on "Im Kofer" to include Kofer she'Lo be'Kavanah, says so even according to Rebbi Akiva, as Tosfos explained according to Abaye.

Rav & Shmuel: And Rav and Shmuel, who argue later (on Daf 44a) in connection with the Mishnah of 'An ox that was scratching against a wall, regarding Kofer she'Lo be'Kavanah, the Ri explains that they too, are arguing according to Rebbi Akiva.

Implied Question: And when Rav is disproved from the Beraisa that the Gemara cites 'Tanya Kavaseih di'Shemuel ve'Tiyuvta de'Rav, O Tiyuvta de'Rabah, according to the text of the Rashbam (there) ...

Answer: The Gemara considers a proper Tiyuvta, since Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon are mentioned there in the Seifa - and they were Talmidim of Rebbi Akiva.

Source #1: As the Gemara says in Sanhedrin (Daf 86a) 'All of them according to Rebbi Akiva.

Source #2: And in Yevamos (Daf 62b) too, the Gemara says ' ... until along came Rebbi Akiva to the Rebbes in the south and taught them'.

Rebbi Eliezer #1: Rebbi Eliezer on the other hand holds that, without the Riguy of "Im Kofer", there is Kofer she'Lo be'Kavanah, and that the Pasuk "Naki" is needed to exclude Tam she'Lo be'Kavanah from Chatzi Kofer.

Rebbi Eliezer #2: And if Rebbi Eliezer too, learns Kofer she'Lo be'Kavanah from "Naki", then we will have to say that he argues with Rebbi Akiva over the S'vara that Tosfos cited earlier - that we only learn she'Lo beKavanah from "Im Kofer" there where there is Kofer be'Kavanah.

Question: According to the opinion that holds (earlier, on Daf 40a) 'Kofer D'mei Nizak', what is the difference between Damim and Kofer?

Answer #1: The Ri explains where the Mazik died, since there is no Kaparah after death ...

Source: Like we find by a Chatas and an Asham, which cannot be brought after they have died.

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas Damim remains obligated to pay.

Inference #1: According to this, it transpires that she'Lo be'Kavanah is more stringent that b'Kavanah.

Inference #2: And another stringency by she'Lo be'Kavanah over be'Kavanah is according to the opinion that holds (earlier, on Daf 40a) 'Kofer D'mei Mazik', since sometimes the Nizak is worth more than the Mazik.

Answer #2: Another answer to explain the difference between Damim and Kofer is that whereas Damim one can forego, Kofer one cannot.

Answer #3: And if we would know for sure that 'One pays full Kofer but not half-Kofer', that too, would be a difference between them.

Question: What sort of answer is this (Seeing as the Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa are ostensibly speaking about the same category of case)?

Answer: The Ri explains that one can explain the Beraisa as follows: 'Heimis Shori es P'loni, Harei Zeh Meshalem Tashlumin she'Chayvo ha'Kasuv - k'gon Kofer - al-Pi Atzmo, u'Meshalem be'Toras Damim ...

Answer (cont.): Aval Avdo shel P'loni, Tashlumin she'Chayvo ha'Kasuv - de'Haynu Sheloshim shel Eved - Le'olam Lo Yeshalem al-Pi Atzmo'.

Source: Since his ox she'Lo be'Kavanah pays Damim, even though it cannot lead to Kofer or K'nas.

Source (cont.): Eish too, will pay Damim, even though it cannot lead to Kofer or K'nas.

Clarification: And this is not specifically Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah, but Kal va'Chomer Isho be'Kavanah ...

Source: Because if it he would take for granted that be'Kavanah it does not pay Damim, how can the Gemara extrapolate from the case of a bound Eved that he is Patur ...

Source (cont.): Since, perhaps that is speaking be'Kavanah?

Clarification (cont.): And when it asks that it should be compared to Shor, it is specifically according to the opinion that holds 'Isho Mishum Mamono' (above, 22a) ...

Clarification (concl.): Because according to the opinion that holds 'Isho Mishum Cbitzav', it falls under the heading of 'Adam ha'Mazik'.