Question: R. Oshiya should have listed Edim Zomemim, for they pay principal!

Answer: He holds like R. Akiva, who says they do not pay if they admit (i.e. it is a fine).

Question: If he holds like R. Akiva, he should list separately an ox that damages a man from an ox that damages an animal!

(Mishnah - R. Akiva): Even a Tam (an animal not established to gore) that damages a man pays the full damage, less what the man damaged it.

Answer: R. Akiva weakened his fist (might. He says that a Tam that gores a person pays only from the animal. R. Oshiya listed only damages that are paid from Meitav.)

(Beraisa - R. Akiva) Suggestion: Perhaps a Tam that gores a person pays (full) damage, even if it is more than the animal is worth!

Rejection: "Will be done to it" - payment comes only from the animal.

Question: R. Oshiya should have listed a rapist, enticer and Motzi Shem Ra, for these pay principal (in addition to a fine! Motzi Shem Ra pays only a fine. It was taught unnecessarily with the others.)

Answer: They also pay Nezek, pain, and embarrassment. He taught these!

Payment for the blemish is Nezek;

The other only payment is a fine. R. Oshaya does not list fines!

Question: R. Oshiya should have listed one who makes Tamei, one who mixes Terumah with Chulin, and one who pours libations to idolatry, for these pay principal!

Answer #1: If unrecognizable damage is considered damage, this is Nezek!

Answer #2: If unrecognizable damage is not considered damage, a fine mid'Rabanan obligates one to pay for these. R. Oshiya does not list fines!

Suggestion: R. Chiya cannot hold that unrecognizable damage is considered damage, for if so these cases would be included in Nezek!

Rejection: He can hold that it is considered damage. He lists separately recognizable and unrecognizable damage.

The Tana of our Mishnah gave the number of Avos (four), to exclude those of R. Oshiya and R. Chiya. R. Oshiya gave the number of Avos (13), to exclude those of R. Chiya;

Question: Why did R. Chiya say there are (only) 24 Avos? What does he exclude?

Answer: He excludes a Moser (one who informs to the government to take someone's property) and Mefagel (one who disqualifies a Korban through improper intent during the Avodah).

Question: He should have listed them!

Answer #1: He did not list Mefagel, for he discusses only Chulin.

Answer #2: He did not list Moser, for he damages through mere words. R. Chiya does not list such damagers.

Question: He listed Motzi Shem Ra, who damages through words!

Answer: Motzi Shem Ra is liable only if he also did an action (relations).

Question: He listed Edim Zomemim, who damage through words alone!

Answer: The Torah calls their words a Ma'aseh (action) - "like he plotted La'asos (to do)."

Question: The Tana of our Mishnah mentioned Avos, because there are also Toldos;

R. Oshiya and R. Chiya also mentioned Avos. What are the Toldos of their additions?

Answer (R. Avahu): They are all called Avos because they pay from Meitav.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: (The Torah teaches about Meitav regarding a Mu'ad ox.) An extended Gezeirah Shavah teaches this about all 24. Regarding every one, it says "Tachas", "Nesinah", "Yeshalem" or "Kesef".

(Mishnah): The Re'i of an ox is unlike that of Mav'eh...

Question: Why does the Mishnah say this?

Answer (Rav Zvid): The Mishnah suggested that one damager could have been learned from another. Then it shows why it could not be learned.

(Mishnah): The Re'i of these two, which are alive...

Question: Why does the Mishnah say this?

Answer (Rav Mesharshiya): The Mishnah suggested that one damager could have been learned from two damagers. It then shows why it could not be learned.

(Rava): A pit and any of the others could teach (through a Tzad ha'Shavah) the remaining two;

The only exception is Keren. We could not learn it, for the sources are Mu'ad from the beginning, but Keren is not.

According to the opinion that it is more reasonable to obligate Keren, for it has intent to damage, even Keren could be learned. (Rashi was unsure which opinion this is. Tosfos says that it is the opinion that half damage is Mamon, not a fine. The Gra holds that it is the conclusion of Rav Yehudah (4a).)

Question: If so, why did the Torah write all four?

Answer: The Torah teaches special laws about each of them:

It teaches Keren to distinguish between Tam and Mu'ad;

It teaches Shen and Regel to exempt them in Reshus ha'Rabim;

It teaches a pit to exempt for Kelim damaged in a pit;

Question: R. Yehudah obligates even for Kelim. What special law of a pit does he learn?

Answer: We exempt for a man damaged in a pit.

It teaches fire to exempt for Tamun (things that were concealed).

Question: R. Yehudah obligates even for Tamun. What special law of fire does he learn?

Answer: One is liable even if a field or rock was charred.