Question: We wanted to show that Shen and Regel should pay half damage, not full damage! (Perhaps the verse teaches that they pay full damage only in the victim's premises!)

Answer: "They will divide its value (of an ox that gored, to pay half-damage)", not of another (i.e. Shen or Regel).

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Shen and Regel pay only half-damage in the victim's premises!

Keren is liable in a Reshus ha'Rabim, yet it only pays half-damage in the victim's premises. Shen and Regel are exempt in a Reshus ha'Rabim, all the more so they should pay only half-damage in the victim's premises!

Rejection: "He will pay" - full payment.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should exempt Keren in a Reshus ha'Rabim!

Shen and Regel pay full damage in the victim's premises, yet they are exempt in a Reshus ha'Rabim. Keren pays only half-damage in the victim's premises, all the more so it should be exempt in a Reshus ha'Rabim!

Rejection (R. Yochanan): "They will divide" - half- damage (of Keren) is the same in a Reshus ha'Rabim and in the victim's premises.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that man pays Kofer (when he kills)!

An ox does not pay the four damages (other than Nezek, i.e. pain,...), yet it pays Kofer. Man pays the four damages. All the more so he should pay Kofer!

Rejection "Like all that will be placed on him (a man whose ox killed, but Kofer is)", not (placed) on a murderer.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that an ox pays the four damages!

Man does not pay Kofer, yet he pays the four damages. An ox obligates its owner to pay Kofer, all the more so it should be liable in the four damages!

Rejection: "(The four damages are for) a man (who damages) his fellowman", not for an ox that damages a man.

Question: If an animal trampled on a baby in the victim's premises, does it pay Kofer?

Do we equate it to Keren? After an animal gores two or three times, this becomes its nature, and it pays Kofer. It is an animal's nature to trample, so there is Kofer also for this!

Or, perhaps Kofer applies only to Keren, in which it intended to damage?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Tarfon): If Reuven brought his ox into Shimon's yard without permission, and it killed Shimon, the ox is killed. Reuven pays full Kofer, whether the ox was Tam or Mu'ad.

Question: From where does R. Tarfon learn full Kofer (for a Tam in the victim's premises)?

Suggestion: He holds like R. Yosi ha'Glili, who says that a Tam pays half-Kofer in a Reshus ha'Rabim. A Kal va'Chomer from teaches that it pays full Kofer in the victim's premises.

This shows that Kofer applies to Regel! (He learns from Regel, which is exempt in Reshus ha'Rabim, and pays full Kofer in the victim's premises.)

Answer #1 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): No, the Kal va'Chomer is from (standard) damages of Regel.

Question: We cannot learn from damages of Regel, for damages apply to fire (and Kofer does not)!

Answer: We learn from damages of Regel for concealed things. Fire is exempt for such damage.

Question: We cannot learn from damages of Regel of concealed things, for such damages apply to a pit (and Kofer does not)!

Answer: We learn from damages of Regel to Kelim. A pit is exempt for such damages.

Question: Such damages apply to fire (like we asked above)!

Answer: We learn from damages of Regel to concealed Kelim (such damages do not apply to pits or fires).

Objection: Such damages apply to man (who does not pay Kofer)!

Answer #2: Indeed, he learns from Kofer of Regel. This teaches that Kofer applies to Regel.

Support (R. Acha mi'Difti): Presumably, this is correct. If we learned from damages of Regel, we could ask that Kofer does not apply to Regel!

(Mishnah): Man is always Mu'ad, whether he damaged b'Shogeg or b'Mezid (with or without intent), awake or asleep;

If (b'Shogeg) he blinded a man's eye, or broke Kelim, he pays full damage.

(Gemara) Inference: The Mishnah teaches about blinding an eye, similar to breaking Kelim. Just like the four payments do not apply to Kelim, also to blinding (b'Shogeg)!

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Chizkiyah): "A wound Tachas (in place of) a wound" obligates for Shogeg like for Mezid, for Ones like for willing.

Question: We need that verse to obligate for pain, even when paying Nezek (loss in permanent earning potential)!

Answer: Had it said 'Petza b'Patza' (a wound for a wound), we would have learned only one thing. Rather, it says "Petza Tachas Patza", to teach both.

(Rava): If a man did not know that there was a stone in his lap, and he stood up, and it fell:

Regarding damage, he pays Nezek, but not the four damages (pain, medical expenses, Sheves, and embarrassment);

Regarding Shabbos, the Torah forbade only intended Melachah;

Regarding exile (if it killed a man), he is exempt;

Regarding his slave (if the stone destroyed a limb of the slave), R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue about this.

(Beraisa): If a slave asked his master (a doctor) to paint his eye (to cure it) or dig around his tooth, and the master blinded the eye or knocked out the tooth, the slave tricked his master and goes free;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "and he will destroy it" he goes free only if the master intended to destroy it.

If a man knew about the stone in his lap, but forgot and stood up, and it fell:

Regarding damage, he pays Nezek, but not the other four damages;

Regarding exile, he is exiled - "bi'Shgagah" implies that he once knew;

Regarding Shabbos, he is exempt;

Regarding his slave, R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue.

If a man intended to throw a stone two Amos and it went four Amos:

Regarding damage, he pays Nezek, but not the four damages;

Regarding Shabbos, the Torah forbade only intended Melachah;

Regarding exile, "who did not lie in wait", excludes this case (from being executed; rather, he is exiled; alternatively - he is not exiled).

Regarding his slave, R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue about this.

If a man intended to throw a stone four Amos and it went eight Amos, (the law is the same as above, except for Shabbos);

Regarding damage, he pays Nezek, but not the four damages;

Regarding Shabbos, if he did not care where it lands, he is liable. If not, he is exempt.

Regarding exile, "who did not lie in wait", excludes this case (from being executed; rather, he is exiled; alternatively - he is not exiled).

Regarding his slave, R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue.

(Rabah): If Reuven threw a Kli off the roof, and Shimon broke it in mid-air with a stick, Shimon is exempt, for it was already (destined to be) broken.

(Rabah): If Reuven threw Levi's Kli off the roof, and there were pillows on the ground, and David removed the pillows, or even if Reuven removed them, he is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: When he threw it, his arrows ceased (it was not destined to break, therefore, he is exempt. Rashi - removing the pillows is Gerama (causation), which is exempt. Magid Mishneh - Rabah did not discuss David's liability.)

(Rabah): If Reuven threw a baby off the roof; and Shimon killed the baby in mid-air with a sword, R. Yehudah ben Beseira and Chachamim argue about this.

(Beraisa): If 10 men hit Reuven, each with a different stick, and he died, whether they hit him at the same time or one after the other, they are exempt;

R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if they hit him one after the other, the last one is liable, for he made him die sooner.