Question: Chochmas Yevanis is permitted!

(Beraisa - Rebbi): In Eretz Yisrael, one may not speak Sursi, rather Hebrew or Yevanis.

(R. Asi): In Bavel, one may not speak Arami, rather Hebrew or Persian.

Answer: The language Yevanis is permitted. Chochmas Yevanis is different; it is forbidden.

Question: Chochmas Yevanis is permitted!

(Rav Yehudah citing R. Shimon ben Gamliel): "My eye wails, from all the daughters of my city" - of 1000 children in my father's house, 500 learned Torah, and 500 learned Chochmas Yevanis, and only me and my cousin survived.

Answer: R. Gamliel's house was close to the king, so they were permitted. Otherwise, it is forbidden.

(Beraisa): One who cuts his hair Kumi (also called Beloris, i.e. he cuts the front and lets it grow in back) transgresses the Isur of going in the ways of the Emori;

Avtulmus bar Reuven was permitted to do this, because he was close to the king.

Since R. Gamliel's house was close to the king, they were permitted to speak Chochmas Yevanis.

(Mishnah): One may not raise a dog unless it is tied on a chain.

(Beraisa): One may not raise a dog unless it is tied on a chain. One may raise a dog in a city near the border. He ties it during the day, and unties it at night.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ha'Gadol): Raising dogs is like raising pigs.

Question: Why must he make this comparison? (He could simply say that it is forbidden!)

Answer: He teaches that he is cursed.

(Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): Bavel has the law of a city near the border.

He refers to Neharda'a.

(R. Dostai of Biri): "Shuvah Hash-m Rivevos (10,000's) Alfei (thousands) Yisrael" teaches that the Divine Presence does not rest on less than 22,000 Yisraelim.

If there were one less than this amount, and a woman was pregnant, about to complete the number, and she miscarried due to a dog's bark, this would cause the Divine Presence to depart from Yisrael!

A case occurred in which a pregnant woman (Leah) went to bake in another's house. A dog in the house barked at her.

The owner: Don't worry. Its teeth were removed!

Leah: The fetus already died.

(Mishnah): We do not spread traps for doves... within four Mil of a settled area (lest they eat from others).

Question: They do not go so far!

(Mishnah): Dovecotes must be at least 50 Amos from the city.

Answer (Abaye): They eat their fill within 50 Amos, but they can fly up to four Mil (from their nest).

Question: They can go further than four Mil!

(Beraisa): One may not set dove traps even 100 Mil from a settled area.

Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): That is when the area in between is settled with vineyards.

Answer #2 (Rabah): That is when the area in between is settled with dovecotes.

Question: If so, it should be forbidden to set traps due to the dovecotes!

Answers: The intermediate dovecotes are owned by Nochrim, or are Hefker, or belong to the one setting the traps.

(Mishnah): If Reuven damaged Shimon, he is liable for five categories of payment: Nezek, pain, Refu'ah (medical expenses), Sheves (compensation for loss of wages until he can work again), and embarrassment.

Nezek: If he blinded his eye, cut off his hand or broke his leg, we evaluate the loss of Shimon's value (if he would be sold to be a slave).

Pain: If he burned him with a spit or nail, even on his fingernail (so no wound will result), we evaluate how much a person of Shimon's nature would ask to receive on condition that he will be pained this way.

Refu'ah: If he hit him, he is obligated to heal him;

If sores developed, Reuven is liable only if they are due to the blow.

If [the wound seemingly] healed and returned, healed and returned, he is obligated;

If it fully healed, he is not obligated to heal him [any more].

Sheves: We consider what Shimon would earn guarding gourds, for Nezek already compensates for not being able to hold a high-paying job that requires use of his arm or leg.

Embarrassment: We evaluate this according to the one who embarrassed and the one who was embarrassed.

(Gemara) Question: Why does Reuven pay money? The Torah says "an eye in place of an eye." He should lose his eye!

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: If Reuven blinded Shimon's eye, cut off his hand, or broke his leg, the same should be done to Reuven!

Rejection: It says "one who strikes a man" and "one who strikes an animal." Just like one who strikes an animal pays money, also one who strikes a man.

If you prefer, it says "do not take ransom for the soul of a murderer, who is a Rasha and should die" - we do not take ransom for a murderer, but we take ransom for extremal limbs that do not grow back.

Question: Which verse "one who strikes a man" does the Beraisa cite?

Suggestion: It cites "one who strikes an animal will pay, and one who strikes a man will die."

Rejection: That discusses killing!

Answer: Rather, it cites "one who strikes the soul of an animal will pay for it, a soul for a soul; a man who will put a blemish in his fellow man, as he did, so will be done to him."

Question: This verse does not say 'strike' (as it says in the Beraisa)!

Answer: The Beraisa learns the concept of striking from animals to people.

Just like one who strikes an animal pays, also one who strikes a man.

Question: It says "one who strikes any soul of a man will die"!

Answer: That means that he will pay.

Suggestion: Perhaps it literally means that he is killed!

Rejection #1: The Torah equates this to "one who strikes an animal will pay for it" (the previous verse).

Rejection #2: The next verse says "like (a man) will put a blemish in a man, so will be given to him." This refers to money.

Question: Why does it say 'if you prefer'? (Why would one object to the previous answer?)

Answer: The Tana asked as follows:

Question: Why learn (the law of a man who wounds a man) from damage to an animal? We should learn from a man who kills a man!

Answer: It is preferable to learn damages from damages, and not from murder.

Question: To the contrary, it is preferable to learn (striking a) man from man, and not from (striking an) animal!

That is why the Tana wanted another answer.

(Beraisa): If you prefer, it says "do not take ransom for the soul of a murderer, who is evil and should die; he will die" - we do not take ransom for a murderer, but we take ransom for extremal limbs that do not grow back.

Question: We expound a different law from this verse, that we do not kill the murderer and make him pay!

Answer: We learn that from "according to his evilness" - we give only one punishment for his evilness, not two.

Question: We need "do not take ransom" to teach that he may not pay to exempt himself from death!

Answer: The Torah could have taught that by saying "do not take ransom for one who is evil and should die"; "the soul of a murderer" is extra, to teach that we do not take ransom for a murderer, but we take ransom for limbs.

Question: Since we have this verse, why do we need the two verses equating one who strikes an animal and one who strikes a man?

Answer: Without that verse, one might have thought that the damager can choose to pay with money or his limb;

The verse teaches that he is like one who strikes an animal, he must pay money.

(Beraisa - R. Dostai ben Yehudah): "An eye in place of an eye" refers to money (the value of the eye);

Suggestion: Perhaps it literally means that he loses his eye!

Rejection: If the damager's eye was bigger than the victim's, that would not fulfill "an eye in place of an eye".

Suggestion: Perhaps in such a case, money is paid (but not when their eyes are equal)!

Rejection: "There will be one law for you" - one law for all of you.

Question: Even if the damager's eye is bigger, (the primary damage was that) he deprived the victim of sight, so he will lose his sight!