Question: "u'Bi'er" must be coming to teach us that the owner is completely Patur, since why would we think that he is Chayav Nezek Shalem?

Answer: This is not a Kashya, because were it not for "bi'Sedei Acher" he would automatically be Chayav Nezek Shalem without the Kal va'Chomer.

Question: But did we not Darshen 'Kaspo shel Zeh ve'Lo Kaspo shel Acher'?

Answer: We can only preclude from "Kaspo" Chatzi Nezek that pays from the body of the ox - that the Kesef of this one pays Chatzi Nezek from its body and not the Kesef of another one ...

Answer (cont.): ... and in our case, if in the Chatzer of the Nizak he would pay Chatzi Nezek, he would have to pay from his pocket.

Answer (concl.): ... whereas earlier, if he would have been Chayav by Shen va'Regel in the R'shus ha'Rabim, he would have paid mi'Gufo just like Keren.

Question: How can we learn here (Shen va'Regel) from Keren, which justifiably pays only Chatzi Nezek even in the Chatzer of the Nizak, seeing as the owner does not pay from his pocket ... ?

Answer: Tzeroros will prove otherwise, since the owner pays from his pocket, according to Rav Papa (above on Daf 3b), yet he pays only Chatzi Nezek.

Question: If Shen va'Regel pays only Chatzi Nezek in the Chatzer ha'Nizak, why do we need the D'rashah 'Kaspo shel Zeh ve'Lo Kaspo shel Acher, seeing as the Kal va'Chomer that we learnt earlier is no longer applicable?

Answer: If not for "Kaspo", we would relinquish the current Kal va'Chomer, which is lenient regarding payment, and adopt the Kal va'Chomer that we learned earlier which is stringent.

Implied Question #1: We cannot learn it from "Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach" ...

Answer: ... since we need that to teach us that one may not take money from a murderer to exempt him from the death penalty, as the Gemara says in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 37:) ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas the Gemara here is speaking about putting him to death and making him pay Kofer, like the Din by an ox.

Implied Question #2 & Answer: Nor can we learn it from Tana de'bei Chizkiyah (Ibid, Daf 35a), since from there we only learn that one is Patur from paying be'Meizid just like be'Shogeg (Note: this is what the Gemara says there).

Answer (cont.): ... whereas Kofer by Adam, as long as we do not find any P'tur by him, we cannot learn from there.

Sugya in ha'Chovel: In Perek ha'Chovel (later on Daf 83:) the Gemara Darshens 'le'Nefesh Rotze'ach I Atah Loke'ach Kofer Aval Atah Loke'ach Kofer le'Rashei Evarim', which it queries in that we need it to teach us not to issue two punishments - money and the death-sentence?

Clarification: It is not referring to the Kofer of our Sugya ...

Reason: ... because if it was, it ought to have answered that we learn that from "Alav", ve'Lo al ha'Adam.

Clarification (cont.): It is therefore speaking about money that one is Chayav together with the Chiyuv Misah ...

Comment: ... and the Gemara erred in the same way as it did in Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 37b), where the Gemara asks, in connection with the D'rashah "Lo Yih'yeh Ason" - 'Why do we need the Pasuk "Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach?, by which it means to ask why we cannot learn it from "Lo Yih'yeh Ason"?

Conclusion: ... so we see that the Gemara thinks that the Pasuk is speaking about money that one is Chayav together with the Chiyuv Misah.

Question: Whereas Adam is Mu'ad to begin with ... ?

Answer: It is learning Nizkei Adam from Nizkei Adam.

Explanation: The Gemara could have posed the same She'eilah with regard to a Chayah, which is its way to damage.

Explanation (cont.): ... whereas Bor and Eish are precluded from "Alav", just as Adam is.

Question #1: Why does the Gemara have a Safek? Why is it not obvious that Keren is more stringent for this reason?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that we can learn it from Keren via a Kal va'Chomer since it is not Mu'ad to begin with ...

Refutation: ... because it is currently not applicable to assume this, as Tosfos explained in the Mishnah (See Maharsha), since we can counter with 'Adam will prove it, which is Mu'ad to begin with, yet he is Patur from Kofer'.

Question #2: Moreover, one can ask how one can learn (Regel) from Keren, which is Chayav in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Question: Even without Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, one can learn it from a Kal va'Chomer in that 'If already Shen va'Regel, which are Patur in the R'shus ha'Rabim, are nevertheless Chayav full Kofer in the R'shus ha'Nizak, how much more so Keren?

Answer: If, due to the fact that Kofer is Patur in the R'shus ha'Rabim, Kofer was different than the Din of Nezek, then one would not be able to learn a Kal va'Chomer.

Implied Question: When Abaye and Rava argue in Perek Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chanishah (later, Daf 41a & 41b) in the case of 'Regel she'Darsah al gabei Tinok be'Chatzer ha'Nizak', and Rava exempts the owner from paying Kofer ...

Answer: ... that is according to the Tana there, and not because he (Rava) holds like that.

Explanation #1: And we learn Ripuy, Sheves and Bo'shes from Tza'ar, which is Chayav even when there is Nezek ...

Proof: ... as`is implied in 'ha'Chovel' (Daf 95a), where it cites a Beraisa - 'All of them are Chayav to pay even where there is Nezek', and Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava explains that we learn it from the Pasuk "Petza Tachas Patza", implying that we learn all of them from Tza'ar.

Explanation #2: And according to Rav Papa there (on Daf 85b) who cites the Pasuk "ve'Rapo Yerapei" - to teach us that one is Chayav even where there is Nezek, we will learn the other three from Ripuy.

Question: The Gemara here implies that where there is no Nezek Tza'ar is more obviously Chayav, seeing as we need a Pasuk to render him Chayav where there is Nezek ...

Question cont.): ... whereas in Perek ha'Chovel (Daf 83b) it implies the opposite, when it asks 'Who is the author of the ruling that Tza'ar pays where there is no Nezek?'?

Answer: 'she'Lo be'Makom Nezek' there speaks where he did not even make a mark, as the Tana says there 'If he burnt him on his fingernails'; whereas 'she'Lo be'Makom Nezek' here speaks where he struck him on his flesh, where the mark is visible, only he did not decrease his value ...

Answer (cont.): ... and 'Tza'ar be'Makom Nezek' here is speaking where he severed his hand or broke his foot, thereby decreasing his value, something that we can learn neither from a wound nor from a burn.

Question: Above (at the end of Amud Alef) the Gemara said that someone who blinds one's friend's eye be'Shogeg or be'Oneis pays Nezek but not the four things.

Question (cont.): Why is he not Chayav Tza'ar as well, seeing as the same Pasuk from which we learn Nezek, we also learn Tza'ar?

Answer: As much as we can declare Shogeg Patur, we do. Therefore, the Pasuk that includes Shogeg, we confine to Nezek, about which the basic Pasuk is speaking, but not to Tza'ar.

Question: In the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 24b, See Tosfos there DH Miba'i) the Rabanan establish the Pasuk "ve'Shichasah" to where one stretches one's hand into the stomach of a Shifchah and blinds the eye of the fetus inside her, where he is Patur, since he did not intend to touch the eye; in our case too, he did not intend to touch the eye?

Answer: The Rabanan only exempt him there because a. He did not intend to touch his eye and b. he acted with the intention of doing good to the Eved (as is the case there), but not where he did intend to touch his eye - even if he meant to do good ... or if he did not mean to do good ... even if he did not intend to touch the eye (as is the case here).

Answer to Following Question: The Gemara makes this D'ashah because the Torah writes "bi'Shegagah" a number of times in connection with Galus ...

Question: Since by Cheilev too, even though the Torah writes "bi'Shegagah", the Gemara does not require him to have had prior knowledge ...

Answer (cont.): .. and it is for the same reason that, at the beginning of 'Eilu hein ha'Golin' (Makos, Daf 7b, See Tosfos DH 'Ela') the Gemara precludes 'Omer Mutar' from Galus, from "bi'Shegagah", even though by Shabbos and Avodah Zarah too, the Torah writes "bi'Shegagah", yet we declare Omer Mutar Chayav - in Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos, Daf 68b and 69a).

Clarification: With regard to Shabbos he is Patur - even according to Abaye, who declares him Chayav in Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos, Daf 73.), that speaks specifically where he intends to throw two Amos and then discovers that it was (not two Amos, but) four ...

Support: ... similar to the case where someone intends to cut something that is detached and cuts what is attached (on Daf 72b) - which speaks where he thought that it was detached and then discovered that it was attached ...

Reason: Because if he intends to cut the one and then cuts the other, that is 'Mis'asek' (which is Patur) - as is evident in Perek 'Safek Achal' (Kerisus, Daf 19b).

Explanation #1: In the first Lashon, Rashi explains that it comes to teach us that someone who intended to throw two Amos but threw four is precluded from "Ki Yazid".

Query: However, he ought rather have said that he is precluded from "Makeh Ish va'Meis", which is written earlier, than to explain that he is precluded from "Ki Yazid" which is written later.

Question: Why is it necessary to teach us that someone who intends to throw two Amos but throws four is Chayav Galus, why would we even think that he is Patur?

Refuted Answer: It cannot be coming to teach us that he is Patur from Misah ...

Refutation: ... since it is obvious that Shogeg is Patur from Misah.

Answer: The Gemara in 'Eilu hein ha'Golin' (Makos, Daf 7b & 8a, See DH 'Asher) Darshens 'P'rat le'Miskaven Lizerok be'Tzad zeh ve'Zarak be'Tzad acher' ...

Answer (cont.): ... and it is from that Pasuk that we would have exempted him also for 'Niskaven Lizerok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba'.

Explanation #2: However, according to Rashi's latter explanation that he is Patur from Galus ...

Question: ... it is a little difficult, since in Perek Eilu hein ha'Golin (Makos, Daf 7b), the Gemara Darshens "Im be'Fesa be'Lo Eivah Hadafo" - 'excludes a Sonei'; 'be'Lo Tzediyah" precludes 'Niskaven Lizerok be'Tzad zeh ve'Halchah le'Tzad acher' and "va'asher Lo Tzadah" precludes 'Niskaven Lizerok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba'.

Question (cont.): It should rather have learned the case of 'Niskaven Lizerok be'Tzad zeh ... ' from "asher Lo Tzadah", which is written at the beginning of 've'Eileh ha'Mishpatim', since it is more reason to be Patur, as for example, where he intended to throw it to one side not in the direction of the murdered man?

Answer: Seeing as the Tana began Darshening from "be'Lo Tzediyah", it mentioned 'Niskaven Lizerok be'Tzad Zeh ... ' first, since he wants to mention the more obvious case first.

Question: Why, in Perek Eilu hein ha'Golin, does the Gemara need to learn 'Niskaven Laharog es ha'Beheimah ve'Harag ha'Adam' from "bi'Veli Da'as", seeing as it is synonymous either with 'Niskaven Lizerok be'Tzad Zeh ve'Zarak be'Tzad acher, or with 'Niskaven Lizerok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba'?

Answer #1: We need it to teach us a case where the animal and the man were next to each other (See also Maharsha).

Answer #2: ... or a case where he thought it was an animal and it turned out to be a man.

Question: Rebbi and the Rabanan (at the beginning of Eilu hein ha'Golin (Ibid.) argue in a case where 'the metal flew off the handle (of an ax)' or where 'the wood that is being chopped flew up', one renders the one Chayav (Galus), whilst the other one renders the other Chayav ...

Question (cont.): Why is he Chayav? Why is it any different than 'Niskaven Lizerok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba'? Seeing as he intended to chop the wood that was in front of him, and it flew to a more distant point?

Establishing the Text: The correct text is 'Rabah' ...

Proof: Since Rava (above, Daf 17b) was not sure whether we go after the beginning of his action or not, and the Gemara there attempted to resolve his quandary from Rabah, who was his Rebbe.

Explanation #1: Rav Alfas explains that Rabah follows his own reasoning, since at the beginning of ha'Gozel Kama (later, on Daf 98a) he does not hold of 'the Din of Garmi'.

Explanation #2: The Ri however, maintains that this is 'G'rama be'Nizakin' (cited later, Daf 80a), which is Patur according to all opinions (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Clarification: This case is not comparable to that of a T'reifah, cited in 'Eilu hein ha'Nisrafin' (Sanhedrin, Daf 78a).