1)

(a)Abaye learns from the Seifa of the current Beraisa that the Reisha speaks about two sets of witnesses (and not three), as we shall now see. Rava nevertheless prefers to establish the Reisha by three pairs of witnesses because the statement 'she'Harei ha'Rav Omer Kein' (of the Zomemin), is difficult to explain unless two witnesses had preceded them and testified that the master had first knocked out his tooth and then his eye.

(b)In the Seifa, where two witnesses testify that a man knocked out first his Eved's tooth and then his eye, (which pleases the Eved) and then become Zomemin, the Tana rules that they must pay the value of the eye to the master (whenever we speak of the value of the eye in this Sugya, it obviously precludes the value of the tooth).

(c)The second set of witnesses (the Mazimin) must concede that the master wounded the Eved because otherwise, the first pair of witnesses would have to pay the full value of the Eved to the master.

(d)Consequently, the Beraisa must be speaking when the second set of witnesses admitted that the master had wounded the Eved, but that he had first knocked out his eye and then his tooth.

2)

(a)In the current case (the Seifa) ...

1. ... the second set of witnesses must also have predated the incident of the first stroke that set the Eved free because otherwise, the first set of witnesses would still have to pay the full value of the Eved to the master.

2. ... the Tana must also be speaking when the Beis-Din had already ruled that the Eved had to go free because otherwise, the first set of witnesses would still have to pay the full value of the Eved to the master, seeing as the master was not yet obligated to send him away.

(b)We are referring to an earlier Beis-Din, who, according to the testimony of the second set of witnesses, had already obligated the master to set the Eved free and to pay him for his eye, before the master fled.

(c)Rava cannot establish the Seifa where a set of witnesses testified that the master had first knocked out the Eved's eye and then his tooth, before the second pair reversed the two episodes and then became Zomemin because then Beis-Din would rule like the first pair of witnesses (obligating the master to pay the smaller amount [due to the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah']), and witnesses only become Zomemin if Beis-Din initially ruled like their testimony.

3)

(a)Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika asked Rav Ashi from where Rava learned that 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah Hi'. The Seifa, we explained earlier, speaks where no witnesses who preceded the Zomemin. Neither can we learn it from the Reisha (as we originally thought) because, due to the fact that Beis-Din would rule like them against the first witnesses (because their testimony obligated the master to pay a smaller amount [as we just explained]), it would be the first witnesses who would then be Mukchashim, and not the second.

(b)Rav Ashi replied that Rava established the Seifa like the Reisha, by three sets of witnesses where the first set (the Zomemin) testified that the master had knocked out the Eved's tooth and then, his eye, and Beis-Din ruled like them. Then the second set testified, reversing the order, and making the first Mukchashin, and along came a third set and rendered the first pair Zomemin.

(c)Rava proves that 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah' from the fact that the first set of witnesses, like whom Beis-Din originally ruled, subsequently became Mukchashin and then Muzamin (to pay the master the value of the Eved's eye).

4)

(a)Abaye disagrees on the grounds that he prefers to establish the Seifa by two sets of witnesses, and not three. He does however, concede that the Reisha is speaking about three sets of witnesses (although that is not what he said earlier) because unless witnesses preceded the Zomemin, how could the Zomemin maintain that the master is pleased with their testimony ... , as we explained above.

(b)Yet he establishes the Seifa by two pairs of witnesses because there is no problem with that. When the Zomemin say that 'the Eved is pleased with their testimony', of course he is pleased to go free, irrespective of whether he receives the value of his tooth or that of his eye.

5)

(a)Rebbi Zeira's problem with the fact that if the master knocks out both the Eved's tooth and his eye, he goes free on account of the former and pays compensation on account of the latter is why he does not simply go free on account of both, and pay nothing? (Presumably, this Kashya is based on the fact that the Eved only goes free from the time that Beis-Din issue the ruling, but not from the time that the master wounded him).

(b)Abaye solves Rebbi Zeira's problem from the Pesukin "Tachas Eino" and "Tachas Shino", from which he extrapolates "Tachas Eino" 've'Lo Tachas Eino ve'Shino'; "Tachas Shino", 've'Lo Tachas Shino ve'Eino'.

(c)We assume (as we did above) that our Mishnah 'Ganav al-Pi Shenayim ve'Tavach u'Machar al-Pihem, ve'Nimtze'u Zomemim, Meshalmin lo es ha'Kol' follows the natural order (that they first testified on the Geneivah, and then on the Tevichah u'Mechirah, and they then became Zomemin, first on the first testimony and then on the second), from which Rav Idi bar Avin tries to prove that 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah Hi' (like Rava).

(d)We refute his proof however by establishing the Mishnah where the witnesses became Zomemin on the Tevichah first, and only then on the Geneivah.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar have the same Machlokes as Abaye and Rava regarding 'Eidim she'Hukcheshu ve'li'be'Sof Huzmu'. One says 'Neheragin', and the other, 'Einan Neheragin'. Rebbi Elazar says 'Eidim she'Hukcheshu be'Nefesh, Lokin'.

(b)What he means is that if two pairs of witnesses argue over whether Reuven killed Shimon or not, the pair which testified that he did receives Malkos.

(c)We prove from this ruling that, in the Machlokes over 'Eidim she'Hukcheshu ve'li'be'Sof Huzmu' it must be Rebbi Elazar who says 'Ein Neheragin', because it would be problematic if they were put to death, due to the principle that someone who is subject to the death-penalty cannot receive Malkos.

(d)Despite the fact that it is a matter of two against two, Abaye explains that the witnesses who testified that Reuven killed Shimon receive Malkos because we are speaking when the allegedly dead man turned up on his own two feet.

7)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if someone steals a sheep ...

1. ... through two witnesses and either one witness subsequently testifies that he Shechted or sold it or he admits to having done it pays Kefel, but is Patur from Daled ve'Hey (on account of the principle 'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur').

2. ... and Shechts it on Shabbos or to Avodah-Zarah pays Kefel but is Patur from Daled ve'Hey (on account to the principle 'Kam leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' [someone who is Chayav Miysah at the hand of Beis-Din is exempt from paying]).

(b)In a case where he steals a sheep from his father and Shechts or sells it after his father's death (even assuming that he has brothers), the Tana exempts him from paying fourfold because, seeing as he is a joint-owner, it is not "u'Tevacho" 'Kuleih be'Isura' (he has not Shechted it entirely be'Isur).

(c)The Tana Kama exempts from Daled ve'Hey someone who Shechted or sold the animal that he stole and declared Hekdesh because the animal that he Shechted belonged to Hekdesh, and the Torah only obligates Daled ve'Hey on an animal that belonged to a Hedyot.

(d)Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Tana Kama in a case of Kodshim which the owner is not obligated to replace should anything happen to it (i.e. if he declared 'Harei Zu' [a Nedavah]), but he argues with him by Kodshim on which he is liable (where he declared 'Harei Alai' [a Neder]), as will be explained later in the Sugya.

8)

(a)In the case of 'Ganav al-Pi Eid Echad O al-Pi Atzmo ... Eino Meshalem Arba'ah va'Chamishah', the Tana needs to present the case of 'Atzmo' to teach us 'Modeh bi'Kenas Patur'. And he finds it necessary to add 'al-Pi Eid Echad' to teach us that in the same way as the testimony of the one witness will obligate the Ganav to pay Daled ve'Hey should a second witness join him, so too, will a pair of witnesses who arrive after he has confessed obligate him to pay Daled ve'Hey.

(b)This comes to preclude from Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said 'Modeh bi'Kenas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim, Patur'.

(c)Rav Chisda queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa, which relates how Rebbi Yehoshua once discovered Raban Gamliel in a happy frame of mind because he had inadvertently knocked out Tavi his Eved's eye, and he thought that he would now go free to become a full-fledged practicing Jew.

(d)Rebbi Yehoshua dampened his elation however by informing him that since he had no witnesses, Tavi would have to remain an Eved (presumably, because he holds 'Modeh bi'K'nas, Patur').

9)

(a)We infer from Rebbi Yehoshua's words 'Ein bi'Devarecha K'lum, she'K'var Ein Lecha Eidim' that if he had had witnesses, they would have effectively set Tavi free, a Kashya on Rav (because he holds 'Modeh bi'Kenas, ve'Achar-kach Ba'u Eidim Patur').

(b)We answer that Raban Gamliel's confession took place outside of Beis-Din, and was therefore not taken into account. Yes Rebbi Yehoshua was indeed the Av Beis-Din, but still the confession took place outside of Beis-Din.

(c)Another Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehoshua as saying 'Ein bi'Devarecha K'lum, she'K'var Hodisa'. Initially, we connect the Machlokes between the two Beraisos to the question of 'Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim' the first Beraisa holds Chayav, the second Beraisa, Patur (like Rav).

(d)We conclude however, that both Beraisos hold 'Modeh bi'Kenas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim, Patur (like Rav) and whereas the first Tana holds that Raban Gamliel's admission took place outside of Beis-Din (as we explained earlier), the second Beraisa holds that it took place in front of Beis-Din, and was therefore valid).