Implied question: It says in Gitin (86a) that Rav Yehudah enacted to write in documents [of sale] of slaves "this slave is proper to serve, and free from any claims of partnership, freedom, accusations and allegations of the king or kingdom", i.e. the kingdom did sentenced him to death";

Even if he did not write this, [if he was sentenced to death] it is a Mekach Ta'os, like it says here!

Answer (R. Tam): Rav Yehudah enacted this for embellishment of the document (to make matters clear).

Explanation: We join the minority that miscarry (without an external cause) to the minority that miscarry due to fear, and this weakens the majority that get pregnant and give birth, and (within this majority, we assume that) it miscarried due to the goring;

Therefore, it is considered an even Safek [whether it miscarried due to the goring].

Implied question: Why does he mention a camel, and not an ox, which the first Tana discusses?

Answer: He teaches a Chidush. Even a camel, which is modest in mating, we attribute [the death] to it, since it kicks while mating.

Citation (Bava Kama 24b) Question: [If witnesses do not know which ox gored, only they know whose ox gored,] how can they make it Mu'ad?

Citation (cont.) Answer: They say "you have a goring ox in your herd. You must guard your whole herd." When it gores the fourth time, it is Mu'ad, for we attribute all the gorings to it.

Explanation #1 (Ri): This is like R. Acha.

Explanation #2 (Ri): It is even like Rabanan. The case is, after the fourth goring, the matter became known through witnesses that the same ox [that gored now] gored the three [previous] times.

Implied question: Citation (Bava Kama 35b - Mishnah) If [the victim] says that the Mu'ad damaged, and [the damager] says that the Tam damaged (ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah. Is this unlike Rav Acha? He would attribute the goring to the Mu'ad!)

Explanation: Rav Acha admits that we attribute to the Tam, just like to the Mu'ad, since [the case is that] also the Tam was chasing [the victim], so we say ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.

Implied question: We hold that "Yesh Omrim" is R. Nasan, like it says in Horiyos (13b) that they attributed R. Nasan's teachings to "Yesh Omrim"!

Answer: They had a tradition that this "Yesh Omrim" is R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Support #1: Also above (36b), regarding plowing a field (without seeding it, whether this helps to make a Chazakah) "Yesh Omrim" is R. Acha.

Support #2: Above (15b), "Yesh Omrim" and R. Nasan argue about Iyov.

Reference: In Bava Kama (99b), we change the text to say "because he is a paid Shomer";

From this [Beraisa, before changing the text], we challenged R. Yochanan, who said there that if a professional Shochet ruined [Shechitah] he is exempt, since he did so for free.

Question: Initially, we thought that the Beraisa discusses one who did so for free. Why should he be like a Shomer Sachar?

Answer: We include from "Patza Tachas Patza" to obligate Adam ha'Mazik for Ones like Ratzon.

Implied question: One is not liable for every Ones, like it says in Bava Kama (27b), that [if one tripped on another's jug and it broke,] if it was dark, or it was around a corner [out of his sight], he is exempt, for this is Ones!

It says also that if [orphans did not realize that an animal was borrowed, and] they slaughtered and ate it, they pay a discounted price for meat.

When the owner of a barrel was walking in front, and the owner of a beam was walking in back, if [the former] stopped [and they collided and the barrel broke, the latter] is exempt.

Also the Yerushalmi establishes "man is always liable, whether he is awake or asleep" when the Kelim were there first (before he went to sleep. He knew that it is possible that he will move while sleeping, and break them);

However, if first he went to sleep, and afterwards they put Kelim by him, and he broke them, he is exempt.

Also, if a professional Shochet ruined Shechitah, R. Yochanan exempts.

Answer: In any case, an Ones close to negligence, like Aveidah (one who lost a deposit), which is considered in Bava Metzi'a (94b) to be close to negligence, Adam ha'Mazik is liable for it;

One might have thought that a professional Shochet who ruined Shechitah is like Aveidah, and he is liable, like a Shomer Sachar;

We answer that the text should say "because he is a Shomer Sachar", but for free, he is exempt, for this is like Geneivah (a deposit that was stolen), which is close to Ones, and Adam ha'Mazik is exempt for it, even though a Shomer Sachar is liable for it.

Support: We say so in Bava Metzi'a (82b). A Mishnah says that one who transports a barrel from place to place, if he tripped and it broke, if he is a Shomer Chinam, he swears [and is exempt]. If he is a Shomer Sachar, he pays;

Inference: Even though if he was paid, he is liable, for free he is exempt, even though he is Adam ha'Mazik. This is because he is exempt for an Ones like Geneivah.