(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili): "He transgressed in Hash-m" includes Kodshei Kalim, which are a person's property;

Ben Azai says, this includes Shelamim;

Aba Yosi ben Dostai says, Ben Azai said 'only a Bechor (is a person's property).'

Version #1 - Question: Ben Azai said 'this includes Shelamim' (i.e. but not all Kodshim Kalim). What did he come to exclude?

Suggestion: He excludes a Bechor.

Rejection: Shelamim requires Semichah (pressing on the animal's neck), accompanying flour and wine offerings, and waving the chest and foreleg, and still, we say that it is the owner's money. All the more so, a Bechor is the owner's property!

Answer (R. Yochanan): He excludes Ma'aser of animals.

(Beraisa): It says about Bechor "Lo Sipadeh (it will not be redeemed)." It may be sold unblemished when alive, and if blemished, alive or slaughtered;

It says about Ma'aser "Lo Yiga'el (it will not be redeemed)". (We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah from Cherem that) it may not be sold, alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished. (Therefore, it is not considered the owner's property.)

Version #2 (Ravina) Question: Aba Yosi ben Dostai said that Ben Azai said 'only a Bechor.' What did he come to exclude?

Suggestion: He excludes a Shelamim.

Rejection: A Bechor is Kodesh from the moment it is born, and still, it is the owner's property. All the more so, a Shelamim is the owner's property!

Answer (R. Yochanan): He excludes Ma'aser.

(Beraisa): It says about Bechor "Lo Sipadeh." It may be sold unblemished when alive, and if blemished, alive or slaughtered;

It says about Ma'aser "Lo Yiga'el." It may not be sold, alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished.

Question: Aba Yosi said that Ben Azai said only a Bechor (implying, nothing else)!

This is left difficult.

(Rava): The Mishnah says 'property in which there is no Me'ilah.' This refers to property to which the law of Me'ilah does not apply to, i.e. a person's property.

Question: If so. the Mishnah should have said so explicitly!

This is left difficult.

(R. Aba): If a Shelamim damaged, we collect from the meat, not from the Eimurim (the parts of a Korban offered on the Mizbe'ach).

Question: This is obvious! The Eimurim are to Hash-m!

Answer: One might have thought that we collect from the meat the complete (half) damage, even though the Eimurim were partners in the damage. He teaches that this is not so.

Question: According to which Tana is this?

Suggestion: It is like Chachamim.

Rejection: This is obvious! Chachamim say that when we cannot collect from one of two damagers, we do not collect extra from the other to compensate.

Suggestion: It is like R. Nasan.

He says that when we cannot collect from one of two damagers, we collect extra from the other to compensate!

Answer: This can be like either Tana'

It can be like Chachamim. They said that one damager does not pay the other's share only when there are two damagers. When there is one damager, perhaps they admit that we collect from wherever we can!

It can be like R. Nasan. He said his law only regarding a pit, for the victim can claim 'my ox is in your pit. What I cannot collect from the ox that pushed my ox, I will collect from you;'

Here, one cannot say that the meat without the Eimurim caused all the damage!

(Rava): If a Korban Todah damaged, we collect from the meat, not from the bread brought with it.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: The Chidush is in the end of his teaching. The victim eats the meat, and the Miskaper (the one obligated to offer the Korban, i.e. the damager) brings the bread.

Question: This is also obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that since the Korban is invalid without the bread, the one who will eat the meat must bring the bread. He teaches that this is not so. The bread is the obligation of the owner of the Korban.

(Mishnah): Property of members of the covenant.

Question: What does this come to exclude?

It need not exclude Nochrim. A later Mishnah exempts the ox of a Yisrael that gores the ox of a Nochri!

Answer: That Mishnah explains our Mishnah.

(Mishnah): Specific property.

Question: What does this come to exclude?

Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): It excludes when we do not know which animal damaged.

Question: A later Mishnah teaches that two oxen of two men were chasing an animal, and we do not know which damaged it, they are exempt.

Answer: That Mishnah explains our Mishnah.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): It excludes Hefker property.

Question: What is the case?

If a man's ox gored a Hefker ox, surely he is exempt. No one can ask him to pay!

Answer: Rather, a Hefker ox gored a man's ox.

Question: He can take the ox that damaged!

Answer: The case is, someone else took it before the victim.

Answer #3 (Ravina): If Reuven's ox damaged, and Reuven made it Hekdesh or Hefker, he is exempt.

Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Even if the owner made his animal Hekdesh or Hefker after it damaged, he is exempt.

We learn from "the owner was warned, and it killed" - the killing and bringing to trial must like one (the animal had one owner the entire time).

Question: Is this enough? We should also require the final verdict in the same status - "the ox will be stoned" is the final verdict!

Correction: Indeed, the killing, bringing to trial and final verdict must like one.

(Mishnah): Except in the premises of the damager.

This is because he can say 'your ox had no right to be on my property.'

(Mishnah): ...And the joint property of the damager and victim.

(Rav Chisda): One is liable for Shen and Regel in the joint property of the damager and victim;

The Mishnah means 'except in the premises of the damager (where he is exempt). In the joint property of the damager and victim, when he damages, he must pay.'

(R. Elazar): One is exempt for Shen and Regel in the joint property of the damager and victim;

The Mishnah means 'except in the premises of the damager, or in the joint property of the damager and victim (where he is exempt). 'And when he damages, he must pay' comes to include Keren.

This is like Shmuel (who says that Keren was not yet mentioned in the Mishnah. 'Ox' refers to Regel);

Question: Rav says that 'ox' includes all damages of an ox. What does 'when he damages, he must pay' come to include?

Answer (Beraisa): 'When he damages, he must pay' comes to include a Shomer Chinam, a borrower, a Shomer Sachar, and a renter, when an animal in their Reshus damaged (this will be explained);

A Tam pays half-damage, a Mu'ad pays full damage.

If the wall broke down at night, or robbers made an opening and the animal went out and damaged, the Shomer is exempt.

Question: What case does this discuss?

Suggestion: The lender's animal damaged the borrower's animal (and the lender must pay). 2. Rejection: Had it damaged someone else's animal, the borrower would have needed to pay (for not guarding it properly). Should the lender pay for damage to the borrower's animal?!

Answer #1: Rather, the borrower's animal damaged the lender's animal.

Objection: Had another's animal damaged the lender's animal, the borrower would have had to pay full damage. If the borrower's (Tam) animal did the damage, should he pay only half-damage?!

Answer #2: Really the lender's animal damaged the borrower's animal. The case is, the borrower accepted only to guard the lender's animal from being damaged, but not from damaging.