Implied Question: One cannot compare this to the case in 'Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (Daf 26b) of 'Underneath him were cushions and covers ... ' (where the Gemara rules that he is Patur) ...

Answer: ... because he did not need to assume that they would remove the cushions, thereby causing the vessels to break.

Explanation #1: This means that he should wait until he meets him in the street outside his house.

Explanation #2: Some have the text 'If he is generally seen in town' - because, since he does not usually leave town, one will often find him outside his house.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... but if he is not generally to be found in town, such as for example, a peddler, they are permitted to enter his house, to catch him before he leaves.

Clarification: Because if he is generally to be found ... , then it is obvious that 'Yes' implies 'Remain where you are'; whereas if he is not, it means 'Come in'.

Clarification: This can only be referring to a case where he is 'Shechi'ach and Lo Shechi'ach' ...

Reason: ... because if it referred to where he is Shechi'ach, then it is obvious that 'Yes' would mean 'Remain where you are', and the Tana would not call it 'Nichnas bi'Reshus'.

Question: The entire Mishnah is superfluous?

Answer #1: We need it according to Rebbi Akiva - that one should not say that since, the ox goes over to the Nizak, each one's ox belongs to the other one (See Mesores ha'Shas), and if he declares it Hekdesh, it will be Hekdesh ...

Answer #1 (cont.): The Mishnah therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

Answer #2: But even according to Rebbi Yishmael, there is a difference - where, in the event that Reuven's ox gets lost, he cannot claim that he will take his full half-damage from Shimon's ox, and that Shimon will lose his claim, because, since his (Reuven's) got lost, he cannot claim from its body.

Question: According to the Rabanan, why does the Torah need to write "ka'Mishpat", seeing as without it, we know that if a Tam wounds a person, he pays Chatzi Nezek, as why would we think that it pays Nezek Shalem?

Answer: Because the Torah needs to write "ha'Zeh" to exempt it from paying the four things, and were it not for 'ke'Mishpat Shor be'Shor', we would not have been able to Darshen "ha'Zeh" to exempt it from the four things.

Answer (cont.): But we would have "ha'Zeh" - ke'Tachton, ve'Lo ke'Elyon" (like Rebbi Akiva) since that D'rashah is more logical.

Question: We already know that from 'ke'Mishpat Shor be'Shor, kach Mishpat Shor be'Adam'?

Answer: We would not know the current D'rashah from there, since the four things are not applicable to an ox, seeing as Tza'ar and Boshes simply don't apply, and Ripuy and Sheves are included in Nezek ...

Answer (cont.): ... because when they assess the initial value of his ox against its current value, the owner has the option not to cure it, but to sell it immediately, and to purchase another one.

Answer (cont.): 2. Answer (cont.): It therefore transpires that when he pays him, he is able to purchase an ox that is equivalent to his own.

Conclusion: ... whereas a person has to heal himself ...

Conclusion (cont.): ... and Sheves applies to him, too.

Alternative Text: Some have the text 'Tza'ar and Boshes', but not Ripuy and Sheves.

Question: Why would we think that he is Chayav to give him Ripuy and Sheves ...

Refuted Answer: It cannot be from a Kal va'Chomer from Adam, who is not Chayav to pay Kofer ...

Refutation: ... because on the other hand, Adam pays Tza'ar ... ?

Answer: The question is a non-starter ...

Reason: Since when the Torah obligates Adam to pay Ripuy and Sheves, it is merely a Giluy Milsa (revealing what is obvious), seeing as they are really included in Nezek, and Nezek the Torah specifically obligates an ox to pay.

Implied Question #1: The Gemara could have said that, according to one he is able to pay him off with money, and according to the other, he is not (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Implied Question #:2: And similarly, where the Nizak sold it, in which case, it is sold for plowing according to Rebbi Yishmael, as we learn in our Sugya (on Amud Beis), but not according to Rebbi Akiva (See Hagahos ha'G'ra).

Implied Question #3: ... or else where the Mazik improved or made it weaker, as the Gemara will say later ...

Implied Question #4: ... or in various other points that the Gemara Darshens in 'Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chamishah' (Daf 36b) that they differ,

Answer: ... only the Gemara merely picks one of the differences.

Clarification: ... Because according to Rebbi Yishmael, it is not Kadosh.

Question: Why is it not Kadosh according to the opinion that holds in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 30b) that one claims retroactively?

Answer: He only claims retroactively, according to that opinion, there where he ultimately claims, but in this case, where, according to Rebbi Yishmael, the Nizak agrees to accept money, and does not claim the ox, it is not Kadosh.

Clarification: Nevertheless, the ox is Kadosh according to Rebbi Akiva ...

Reason #1: ... seeing as they are partners.

Reason #2: Moreover, according to him the body and the improvement are Kadosh from the moment he (the Nizak) declares them Hekdesh.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas in the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael, even according to those who hold that the Nizak claims retroactively, the improvement belongs to the Mazik, and is not therefore Kadosh until the Nizak claims it.

Implied Question: Presumably, even though, according to Rebbi Akiva, the ox is in his possession from the time of the damage - even before the Din Torah takes place, as we consider it as if half the damage was already in his hand from that moment

Chidush: Despite the fact that we Pasken 'Chatzi Nezek K'nasa'.

Answer: Nevertheless, if the witnesses testify that the ox gored on Sunday, and other witnesses came and testified that on the Sunday they were with them, but that the ox gored on Friday, they (the first witnesses) are obligated to pay ...

Answer: Because when they testified the Mazik was not yet factually obligated to pay

Reason: ... since as long as the matter on which they testified has not yet been revealed, he has the status of one who is not obligated to pay, even though the ox belongs to the Nizak from the time of the damage ...

Support: ... as is evident in 'Merubeh' (Daf 74ra & 74b) in connection with the case of 'Two witnesses who testify that so-and-so knocked the tooth of his Eved and blinded him, and other witnesses came and switched the order and declared them Zomemin' ...

Support (cont.): ... and the Gemara establishes the case where they claimed that the master performed those acts earlier than the testimony of the first witnesses, yet the Gemara asks 'If he (the master) has not yet been to Beis-Din, he ought to pay the full value of the Eved, seeing as he is not yet Chayav to pay?'

Support (concl,): So we see that we do not consider the person Chayav to pay, as long as what he did is not known, even though the Eved gains his freedom immediately ...

Source: .... as the Gemara Darshens there "Tachas Eino", 've'Lo Tachas Eino ve'Sheino'.

Question #1: The Mishnah says in Perek Na'arah (Kesuvos, Daf 41b & 42a) that if a Na'arah who has been enticed becomes a Bogeres before she has managed to appear in eis-Din, she may keep the K'nas herself'.

Question #1 (cont.): Why is that, considering that the father merits it from the time of the enticement? It therefore seems that one only merits a K'nas from the time of the court-case, whereas here Rebbi Akiva maintains that one acquires it from the time of the damage?

Question #2: And similarly, we find in 'Merubeh' (Daf 74B and 75a), where it implies that, if not for the Pasuk "Tachas Eino", which implies 've'Lo Tachas Eino ve'Shino', we would say that if he blinds him and knocks out his tooth, he would go out for his eye and his tooth.

Question #2 (cont.): So we see that one does not merit (a K'nas) until the court-case, whereas here Rebbi Akiva holds from the time of the damage.

Question #3: Moreover Rebbi Akiva holds in 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, 42:) that an Eved who goes out with Shen ve'Ayin requires a Get Shichrur, and the Gemara says there that the opinion that holds that also holds that he goes out with Shen ve'Ayin?

Answer: Maybe the reason that he acquires from the time of the goring is only because the Pasuk indicates that it does, inasmuch as Rebbi Akiva understands that "u'Machru" refers to both the Mazik and the Nizak.

Answer (cont.): And in the case in 'Merubeh' (Daf 74b [of Shen ve'Ayin]) too. the Pasuk indicates the same thing according to the opinion that explains it that way.

Clarification: According to Rebbi Akiva, it is Kadosh.

Implied Question: ... even though in the event that he admits, he is Patur ...

Reason: .. since it is a K'nas ...

Answer: Nevertheless, at this point, he has not admitted.

Clarification: Were it not for Rebbi Avahu however, it would not be Kadosh, since Kedushas Damim does not override Shibud.

Case #1: ... and it speaks here about an ox that is blemished.

Case #2: Or about a Tam that the owner declared Hekdesh to Bedek ha'Bayis, which is Kadosh Kedushas Damim ...

Source: ...as the Gemara states in Temurah (Daf 6a) 'If someone is Makdish unblemished animals to Bedek ha'Bayis, what he did is valid.

Question: This poses a Kashya on Rabeinu Tam, who maintains that all Kedushas Metalt'lin overrides Shibud, even though if is Kedushas Damim?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Rabanan strengthened the Shibud of the Nizak ...

Source: ... similar to the Gemara in 'ha'Chovel' (Daf 90a & 90b) which states that the Rabanan strengthened the husband's Shibud.

Conflicting Opinion: He argues with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who declares him Chayav in 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, Daf 41a & 41b), according to one of the Amora'im there.

Conflicting Opinion: Not like ben Nannes in Perek Mi she'Hayah Nasuy (in Kesuvos, Daf 94a) ...

Clarification: ... according to whom - Just as by land the latter creditor takes precedence over the latter purchaser, due to the principle of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (closing the door on borrowers) ...

Clarification (cont.): ... so too, even though the Nizak claims from the latter purchaser because he has a Kol, as the Gemara explained earlier, he cannot claim from the latter creditor, on account of Ne'ilas Deles.