Version #3 (Rav Zvid - Beraisa): "And it found" excludes a victim who brought himself to be damaged;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, this teaches that if Reuven threw a stone, and Shimon stuck out his head and was killed, Reuven is exempt.

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is exempt from exile, but he is liable in four payments of damage.

Version #3 obligates for four damages even when the victim brought himself to be damaged. All the more so, it obligates in the cases of Versions 1 and 2 (when the shop owner knew that someone entered, he is more negligent);

Versions 1 and 2 obligate in four damages when the shop owner knew he had entered, but if Shimon brought himself to be damaged, Reuven would be totally exempt!

(Beraisa): If workers came to demand their wages from their boss, and one was bitten by the boss' dog, the boss is exempt;

Others say, workers are entitled to demand payment.

Question: What is the case?

If the boss can be found in the city, why do Others permit them to enter to demand wages?

If the boss is usually at home, what is the reason for the first Tana?

Answer: The case is, the boss is sometimes at home. The workers called at the porch, and the boss said 'yes'.

The first holds that 'yes' means 'come in.' The second Tana holds that 'yes' means 'wait there'.

The following Beraisa is like the opinion that 'yes' means 'wait there'.

(Beraisa): If a worker came to demand his wages from his boss, and he was gored or bitten by the boss' ox or dog, the boss is exempt, even though the worker had permission to enter.

Question: Why is he exempt?

Answer: The case is, the boss said 'yes', and this means, 'wait there'. (The Beraisa means 'even though the worker thought that he had permission to enter').

(Mishnah): Two oxen damaged each other. If they are Tamim, they (i.e. whichever damaged more) pay half the excess damage;

If they are Mu'adim, they pay all the excess damage;

If one is Tam and one is Mu'ad, if the Mu'ad damaged more, it pays all the excess damage;

If the Tam damaged more, it pays half the excess damage.

Similarly, if two men damaged each other, they pay all the excess damage.

If a man and a Mu'ad ox damaged each other, they pay all the excess damage.

If a man and a Tam ox damaged each other, if the man damaged more, he pays all the excess damage;

If the Tam damaged more, it pays half the excess damage;

R. Akiva says, even a Tam that damaged a man pays all the excess damage.

(Gemara - Beraisa): "Like this law will be done to it" - just like when an ox damaged an ox, a Tam pays half the excess damage, and a Mu'ad pays full damage, the same applies to a Tam or Mu'ad that damaged a man;

R. Akiva says, "like this law" - like the latter law (Mu'ad, which was mentioned last), not like the former (Tam).

Suggestion: Perhaps (a Tam that damaged a man) pays even more than its value!

Rejection: "Will be done to it" - it pays only from its body.

Question: What do Chachamim learn from "this"?

Answer: This exempts the ox from the four damages (other than Nezek).

Question: What is R. Akiva's source for this?

Answer: He learns from "a man who will wound his fellowman", not an ox that will wound a man.

Chachamim hold that if we had only R. Akiva's verse, one might have thought that it is exempt only for pain (for the victim does not lose money due to it), but it pays medical expenses and Sheves. Therefore, we need also "this".

(Mishnah): If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is worthless, the victim takes the damager.

(Gemara): The Mishnah is like R. Akiva.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): The ox is evaluated in Beis Din.

R. Akiva says, the ox itself is taken.

R. Yishmael holds that the victim is like a creditor. The damager owes him money;

R. Akiva holds that they are (usually) partners in the ox that damaged (the victim's share is according to the damage. In this case, he entirely owns the damager.)

They argue about "they will sell the live ox and split its money." R. Yishmael holds that this is an instruction to Beis Din;

R. Akiva says, the verse addresses the victim and the damager.

Question: Practically, what difference is there between R. Yishmael and R. Akiva?

Answer: They argue about if the victim made the damaging ox Hekdesh (According to R. Akiva, it takes effect. According to R. Yishmael, it does not.)

Question (Rava): According to R. Yishmael, if the damager sold the ox, what is the law?

Since the victim is only a creditor, the sale is valid;

Or, since the victim has a lien on the ox, it is invalid!

Answer (Rav Nachman): The sale is invalid.

Question (Beraisa): The sale is valid.

Answer: The sale is valid, but the victim may collect it from the buyer.

Question: If the victim may collect it from the buyer, in what sense is it sold?

Answer: The buyer may work with it until the victim takes it. (Rashi - if the buyer worked with it, he does not pay the victim for the work.)

Inference: If a debtor sells Metaltelim, Beis Din takes them from the buyer to pay the creditor?!

Rejection: No. Damages are a special case. It is as if the damaging animal is an Aputiki (collateral designated for collection of the loan).

Question: Rava taught that if a man made his slave an Aputiki and sold it, Beis Din collects from the slave. If he made his ox an Aputiki and sold it, Beis Din does not collect from it!

Answer: They collect from a slave because it becomes known that it was made an Aputiki. (The buyer knew that it might be collected. Word does not spread when an ox is made an Aputiki);

When an ox gores, it becomes known, for people call it a goring ox!

(Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arava - Beraisa) If he sold the ox, it is not sold. If he made it Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh.

Question: Who sold the ox?

Suggestion: The damager sold it. Since his sale is invalid, the Beraisa must be like R. Akiva.

Rejection: If he made it Hekdesh, it is not Hekdesh. This is like R. Yishmael!

Answer #1: Rather, the victim sold it. Since his sale is invalid, the Beraisa be like R. Yishmael.

Objection: If he made it Hekdesh, it is not Hekdesh. This is like R. Akiva!

Answer #2: Really, the damager sold it. The Beraisa is like both Tana'im.

If he sold it, it is not (permanently) sold. This is even according to R. Yishmael, for the victim has a lien on it (and can collect it);

If he made it Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh. This is even according to R. Akiva, due to R. Avahu's law;

(R. Avahu): (If one was Makdish his property, and creditors had a lien against it, really, it is not Hekdesh. The creditor takes the property, and pays a small amount to Hekdesh. It is not a real redemption.) This is a decree, lest people say that Hekdesh becomes Chulin without redemption.

(Beraisa): If a Tam damaged, before Beis Din judges the case, if it was sold or made Hekdesh, this stands. If it was slaughtered or given for a gift, what was done was done;

After Beis Din judges the case, if it was sold or made Hekdesh, this is invalid. If it was slaughtered or given for a gift, nothing happened;

If (other) creditors collected it, whether the damager borrowed before or after the damage, the collection is invalid, for a Tam pays only from itself.

If a Mu'ad damaged, before or after Beis Din judges the case, if it was sold or made Hekdesh, this stands. If it was slaughtered or given for a gift, what was done was done;

If creditors collected it, whether the damager borrowed before or after the damage, the collection is valid, because a Mu'ad pays from the owner's pocket.

Explanation: (Before Beis Din judges the case,) if he sold it, it is sold. I.e. if the damager sold it, it is sold regarding work;

If he made it Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh. I.e. a redemption is required, like R. Avahu taught. (Hekdesh Damim (something not used for the Avodah, but Hekdesh sells it and uses the money) cannot overcome the victim's lien on it.)

If it was slaughtered or given for a gift, what was done was done.

Question: Granted, a gift stands. The receiver may work with it until it is collected;

However, if it was slaughtered, the victim may still collect, from the meat!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps the victim can collect only when the ox is alive!

Rejection: "They will sell the ox" applies even after slaughter.

Answer (Rav Shizbi): It says 'what was done was done', for a slaughtered animal is worth less.

Inference (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): If Reuven damages land on which Shimon has a lien, he is exempt.

Question: Obviously, we can infer this!

Answer: One might have thought that we cannot infer this. Here, the slaughterer only took the wind (life) out of the animal.

Question: Rabah already taught this!

(Rabah): If Reuven burned Shimon's documents, he is exempt.

Answer: One might have thought that there he can say 'I burned only paper', but for a real action, such as digging pits on a field (which decreases the value), he would be liable. The case of a damaging ox teaches that this is not so

(Beraisa): If creditors collected it, whether the damager borrowed before or after the damage, the collection is invalid, because a Tam pays only from itself.

Question #1: Granted, when he borrowed after the damage, the victim has precedence to collect; 1. However, when he borrowed before the damage, the creditor should have precedence!