Refuted Explanation: This cannot mean that, since he said that he pays from the body of the animal, he retracted ...

Refutation: Since, in Perek ha'Meni'ach (later, Daf 33.) the Beraisa, citing Rebbi Akiva, specifically states '"Like this judgement", 'like the later one and not like the former one. We might therefore have thought that he pays from his pocket ... '.

Explanation: According to Rashi too, who explains that even though there are times when the owner does not pay full damages (such as where the ox is worth less than the damage that it caused?

Question: The Tana ought nevertheless to learn two kinds of Shor, seeing as sometimes he does pay full damages.

Answer: Seeing as he does pay from the body of the ox, it is impossible to include it in the list of Avos ...

Answer (cont.): Since we will say shortly that 'They are all Avos to pay from the best'.

Implied Question: Motzi Shem Ra does not contain any Mamon at all, seeing as there it comprises a hundred Manah exclusively.

Answer: And the Tana only mentions it on account of the other cases.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have said that it does not mention it because it is not Chayav be'Shogeg.

Implied Question: Even though Chizkiyah who holds 'Sh'meih Hezek', is disproved in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 53:) ...

Answer: The Gemara is nevertheless happy to establish the Beraisa that is learned by Rebbi Chiya his father according to him.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana mentions three cases is ...

Answer: Because they are mentioned in Perek ha'Nizakin (Ibid. 52:), just like it mentions a number of cases, when it says 'Shomer Chinam, ve'ha'Sho'el, Nosei Sachar ve'ha'Socher'.

Clarification: 'li'Me'utei' is not because they do not conform to Rebbi Chiya, but because he is not talking about them.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could just as well have said 'to preclude Kofer and the thirty Sela'im of an Eved' ...

Reason: Which it precludes because it is not talking about a case of killing.

Clarification: Whereas it does insert 'Masur and Mefagel' , even according to the opinion (later, on Daf 98:) that does not declare 'Garmi' Chayav.

Reason: Because it is a K'nas, as we learned in 'ha'Gozel Basra (later, Daf 117;).

Source #1: Since in Kesuvos (Daf 46.) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov requires Ba'al (that they were intimate).

Source #2: Whilst Rebbi Yehudah there requires them to hire witnesses.

Implied Question: Even though the Toldos of the Avos in our Mishnah also pay from the best ...

Answer: Nevertheless, we would not know that the current cases would pay from the best if we did not call them Avos.

Sifri: The Sifri learns 'Boshes' from the Pasuk in Devarim "ve'Katzosah es Kapah ve'Lo Sahos Einecha" and the Pasuk there (in connection with Eidim Zom'min) "Lo Sachos Einecha".

Explanation: This appears to be a proper Gezeirah-Shavah, since it does learn it from "Tachas, Nesinah and Einecha".

Rashi: Rashi learns Eidim Zom'min from the Pasuk "Nefesh be'Nafesh".

Clarification: We will have to say that even if they testify on a Shor Tam that damaged or on Reuven who is Chayavto pay Shimon, whose Chiyuv to pay is from Ziburis, they have to pay Meitav ...

Reason: Because, if they wanted to obligate others to pay with Meitav, we would not require a Pasuk, since we already know from "Ka'asher Zamam" that they are Chayav to pay from Meitav.

Clarification: The Gemara's Kashya is based on the fact that one cannot explain this 'Lo Harei' like every other "Lo Harei' throughout Shas.)

Explanation #1: What Rashi explains - that we learn 'Shein' from 'Bor' and 'Eish', because if one asks that 'whereas Eish is Mu'ad to consume what is fit and what is not fit for it alike, Shein is only Mu'ad to consume what is fit for it ...

Question: Is difficult, since there is no such thing as 'not fit' in connection with 'Shein' ...

Question (cont.): Because, if it ate something that is not fit, it is a Toldah (not of Shein, but) of Keren, seeing as it does not derive any benefit from the damage?

Question (concl.): And in the event that there is such a case, then we will indeed learn from Eish that it is Chayav, even though it is not fit?

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that we learn 'Shein' from 'half the Din' (as Rashi explains with regard to learning 'Adam' and 'Regel' from 'Bor' and 'Eish') or from 'Eish' alone.

Reinstating Explanation #1: One can however, explain Rashi - in that it is in order to ask a Pircha even though it is not applicable, to 'Shein' ...

Precedent: Like we find later in 'ha'Chovel' (on Daf 88.) where, in connection with Eved and Ishah, it asks that a woman, is not Chayav Milah.

Question #1: Rashi's statement that 'Bor', which is not Mu'ad for whatever is not fir for it (i.e. Adam), is difficult - firstly, because the Torah exempts Bor from Adam as regards Misah, but not as regards damages?

Question #2: Furthermore, is it because it exempts Adam that it is considered not fit? Bear in mind that by Eish too, it exempts Tamun (what is covered).

Question #3: Moreover, further on (on Daf 9:) in connection with ]Chomer be'Shor mi'be'Adam', the Gemara cannot find a case of 'not fit' according to Rebbi Yehudah, who declares Bor Patur from Nizkei Keilim. Why does it not mention Adam?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that Adam too, is considered fit by Bor, seeing as he can die by means of suffocation, unlike Keilim, which are considered not fit, seeing as Hevel (foul air) does not damage them.

Implied Question: Even though new vessels, which can break on account of the Hevel.

Answer: nevertheless, there are vessels that do not become spoilt by it.

Question: How can learn Eish from Bor and one of the other cases, seeing as the other cases are not dependent on another power (i.e. the wind) to move them, Eish is?,

Question (cont.): And that is a leniency, since the Gemara will ask shortly, in connection with 'Avno, Sakino u'Ma'sa'o' 'Whereas Bor is not dependent on another power'?

Answer #1: A pit, which is made without another power, is more stringent than Avno, Sakino u'Masa'o which did not damage as they were moving, only after they became still, and which only became a 'Bor' with the help of another power ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas Eish, which damages as it moves with the help of another power, is more stringent than a pit, which does not move, but damages in its place.

Implied Question: And when it says shortly 'Eish will support it, which damages with the help of another power and is Chayav.

Answer: What it means is that even though it damages with the help of another power, it is nevertheless considered as if it did the entire damage on its own, and is Chayav because of 'Chitzav', these too Avno, Sakino and Masa'o, even though they damage with the help of another power, they are nevertheless considered as if they did the entire damage on their own.

Answer #2 (to previous question [in k]): Alternatively, that is what the Gemara means when it asks 'Whereas Eish which damages with the help of another power itself, is more stringent, since on account of it, it spreads and damages at a distance, which Avno, Sakino and Masa'o do not.

Question: How can one learn all the others from Eish and Bor, seeing as Eish and Bor are caused by one's actions, as the Gemara asks later (on Daf 6.) in connection with a rolling Bor, and Eish too, is caused by the one who kindled it?

Answer: Eish is not considered one's actions, seeing as the wind helps to spread it.

Question: And how can one learn all the cases from Bor and Adam, seeing as Bor and Adam are caused by one's actions?

Answer: We learn them from Bor and Adam who is sleeping or who fell from the roof with a strong gust of wind, where he is nevertheless Chayav, as the Gemara rules further on at the end of the second Perek (on Daf 27.).

Question: And how can can one learn them from Bor and Regel, which are both common.

Source: Seeing as the Gemara later (on Daf 6:) considers Bor common?

Answer: Bor is no more common than other damages, and it only says later that it is common, because it is a Chumra that it has in common with a wall and a tree.

Refuted Explanation: This cannot mean that one is Chayav to pay full damages ...

Refutation: Because, in that case, we can also learn Keren from there, seeing as it is not written.

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains 'Mu'adin mi'Techilasan' to mean that it is their way to damage, which is not the case by Keren, seeing as S'tam oxen are considered guarded - according to the opinion that Palga Nizka is a K'nas.

Explanation (cont.): Whereas the opinion that says 'To the contrary, Keren is more stringent, holds that Palga Nizka is Mamon.

Conclusion: And not like Rashi, who explains that we do not the origin of that opinion.

Alternatively: The Gemara could have said that they all need to be written ...

Reason: Because had they not been written and we would have learned them from any of the others plus Bor, we would have declared them Patur from Keilim; whereas had we learned them from any of the others plus Eish, we would have declared them Patur from Tamun.

Conclusion: And the reason that our Mishnah mentioned all the cases is in order to aggrandize The Torah and to glorify it.

Clarification: It mentions Bor by the way, since we cannot learn it from any of them.

Alternatively: The Gemara could have said 'to render it Chayav Keilim' ...

Reason: Seeing as we only know Eish from one of the Dinim of Ba'alei Chayim plus Bor, which is Patur from Keilim