Question: What did the ox do? Surely it is she who signed her own death-warrant by bringing it on herself?

Answer: It speaks, as Rabeinu Chananel explains, where the ox jumped on her to rape her, and where the Yeitzer-ha'Ra then overcame her and she complied willingly.

Implied Question: And even according to the opinion in Kesuvos (Perek Na'arah, Daf 51b) that 'If at first she is Oneis and at the end, willing, she is permitted (to return to her husband)' ...

Answer: … that is only if the beginning of the Bi'ah was be'Oneis, but here, where the beginning of the Bi'ah was performed with her consent, she is unanimously forbidden, and is also Chayav Misah

Implie Question: Even though the Gemara in 'Keitzad ha'Regel' (above, Daf 19b) asks what the Din will be in a case where the animal swished its Eiver Tashmish (and caused damage) ...

Answer: … that is because that entails a slight Shinuy (change from the norm.), rendering it more like Keren ...

Answer (cont.): … whereas raping is not a Shinuy, and is not comparable to Keren ...

Answer (concl.): In fact, it is completely like Shein, which damages by way of eating.

Implied Question: It ought to have presented a case of 'Shein' here ...

Answer: … only since it mentions 'Regel' at the end of the second Perek (Daf 26a), it mentions it here, too.

Clarification: Rava stated it here according to this Beraisa, as Tosfos explained at the end of the second Perek (Daf 26a DH 'Alma').

Implied Question: We cannot establish the case where the first three times it intended to kill an animal and it killed a person (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Answer: … because in such a case, it would not be a Mu'ad for people, seeing as it did not intend to gore a person.

Implied Question: Nor is it a Mu'ad if it killed three times by the admission of the owner ...

Answer: … as the Gemara said in the second Perek (Daf 24a) 'An ox does not become a Mu'ad until it is warned (three times) in the presence of the owner and in front of Beis-Din.

Halachah: It is evident from the entire Sugya that one is not Chayav to pay ful damages the third time, as Tosfos explained in the second Perek (Daf 24a, DH 've'Lo').

Question: We need it for a ben Peku'ah, according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Meir, who hold that it does not require Shechitah (Chulin, Daf 74.) (See Hagahos ha'Rav Renchberg)?

Refuted Answer: And if one tries to answer that it is not called 'Shor' ...

Refutation: … but in connection with Petter Chamor we see that it is called 'Seh' (in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 12a) and in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 74b).

Refutation (cont.): In fact, it is evident in Yoma (Daf 49b & 50a) that even after it has been Shechted, it is called 'Par', how much more so a ben Peku'ah.

Answer #1: The Gemara anyway queries the D'rashah (and granted, it could have asked that too).

Answer #2: In any event, according to the Gemara's conclusion the question is answered, since we learn from "Besaro" that (it is forbidden) even if he Shechted it and turned it into Basar.

Clarification: And "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" comes to forbid 'Hana'as Oro'.

Question: And if one will ask, if so, let the Pasuk leave out "Lo Ye'achel"?

Answer: If so, we would have established "Naki" to forbid specifically Hana'as Basar.

Clarification: This statement is really superfluous, since without Rebbi Avahu, the Gemara could only have explained the Pasuk with regard to Hana'ah ...

Reason: … seeing as it is not needed to forbid eating.

Question: Deriving benefit from Chametz on Pesach ought to be subject to Kareis, since the Torah writes "Ki Kol Ochel Chametz ve'Nichr'sah"?

Refuted Answer: And in case one answers that indeed it is ...

Refutation: Then, when the Gemara in Perek Kol Sh'ah (Pesachim, Daf 23b) asks what the difference is between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Avahu, it should have cited this point as the answer?

Answer: From "Lo Sochlu" we can learn "Lo Ye'achel" or "Lo Sochal", but we cannot learn "Ki Kol Ochel" from "Lo Sochlu".

Implied Question: Even though Shechitah with a piece of rock is Kasher …

Answer: … nevertheless (the Gemara thought) the Torah forbids this form of Shechitah since it resembles Sekilah,

Gemara's Answer: And it answers 'Does the Torah mention specifically 'a knife' - in that we only include a rock via a Ribuy

Gemara's Answer (cont.): Consequently, Shechitah with a rock is a basic Shechitah Lechatchilah no less than that of a knife.

Gemara's Answer (concl.): Consequently, one cannot differentiate between a rock and a knife.

Implied Question: Strictly speaking, the Gemara ought to have cited the Beraisa cited in Chulin (15b) - 'ba'Kol Shochtin bein be'Tzur bein bi'Kerumis ... ', which implies Lechatchilah?

Answer: … only it prefers to cite a Mishnah.

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless, it relies on the Beraisa, which permits it even Lechatchilah.

Conclusion: In fact, the Gemara in 'ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 56b), cites the Beraisa on this very point.

Inference: This implies that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili Darshens 'Esin', since he Darshens later 'Naki mi'Demei V'lados'.

Question: In Perek ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 70b) in connection with the Mishnah: Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili Omer 'bi'Teme'ah Tamei bi'Tehorah Tahor', because he Darshens 'Mehalchei Kapayim be'Chayah Timeisi lach'.

Question (cont.): And the Gemara asks that he should also declare Tamei a K'lutah (whose hooves are split) in the stomach of a K'lutah, since it is an animal with four legs inside an animal with four legs?

Question (concl.): What is the Gemara's Kashya? It says 'bi'Teme'ah Tamei', which is the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, because, since he Darshens 'Esin', he must concur with Rebbi Shimon, who forbids a camel that is inside a cow ...

Source: … as is evident in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 6b) - that the one who holds that it is permitted, does not Darshen 'Esin'?

Answer #1: The Gemara asks in Chulin from a Kalut, the head and most of which are similar to its mother, and which Rebbi Shimon concedes is permitted, as is evident in the first Perek of Bechoros (Ibid.) (See Mesores ha'Shas & Gilyon ha'Shas).

Answer #2: The Gemara wants to resolve Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in Chulin even according to the Rabanan in Bechoros.

Implied Question: Even though in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 30b) the Gemara Darshens from the fact that the Torah writes "Ish Imo ve'Aviv Tira'u" and "es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" that 'the Torah compares fearing/respecting one's parents to fearng Hashem'?

Answer: the Gemara is reluctant to establish it as an additional Asei.

Question: Why does the Torah see fit to write "Mipnei Seivah Takum", since we can learn it from here?

Answer: The current Pasuk is speaking about one's main Rebbi, as we learned in the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (4:12) 'The respect of your Rebbe should resemble the respect of Hashem'; or else it is speaking about a distinguished Talmid-Chacham, who has the same Din as one's Rebbe.

Implied Question #1: He (Rebbi Eliezer) does not want to learn 'Naki mi'Demei V'lados like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili ...

Answer: … due to the Kashya of "Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim'.

Implied Question #2: Nor does he Darshen 'Naki mi'Demei Eved', with reference to the thirty Sela'im of an Eved ...

Answer: … because he holds like Resh Lakish, who says later on (Daf 43a) that when the ox is not stoned the owner does not pay K'nas.

Implied Question: … and even though Rebbi Eliezer obligates him to pay Kofer …

Answer #1: … that is because he Darshens "Im Kofer", 'to include Kofer she'Lo be'Kavanah like Rebbi Yochanan later (on Daf 43b) ...

Answer #1 (cont.): … but he does not Darshen "Im Eved", as Resh Lakish explains there

Answer #2: And Rebbi Eliezer does not hold of the S'vara of Rebbi Akiva, who initially thinks that a Tam pays the value of the Eved from the Mazik's pocket, as he explains later (on Daf 42b).

Question: Why does he not say 'Naki mi'Demei Eved' - literally from paying his value, since there where one does not pay K'nas one pays Damim, as is implied later (on Daf 43a) ...

Question (cont.): … which is why it is necessary to declare a Tam Patur?

Answer #1: Since by Tam there is no K'nas where there is Kavanah, it is obvious that where there is no Kavanah he does not pay Damim.

Answer #2: It is not a S'vara to establish the P'tur of "Naki" other than in connection with a Chiyuv that is written explicitly in the Parshah.

Clarification: According to these reasons, we can also understand why Rebbi Akiva, who will Darshens later (Daf 42a) 'Naki mi'Demei Eved' (from the thirty Sela'im of Eved), why he declines to learn 'Naki mi'Demei Kofer' ...

Clarification (cont.): … since even a Mu'ad is Patur she'Lo be'Kavanah.

Implied Question: Neither does he want to learn 'Naki mi'Demei ben Chorin', even though by a Mu'ad there is Damim she'Lo be'Kavanah?

Answer: The reason is as Tosfos just explained either because the Torah does not mention Damim, or because seeing as we do not find Kofer by Tam, it is not necessary to preclude Damim.

Question: The Gemara later (on Daf 43b) learns Damim by Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah from Shor she'Lo Kavanah, even though there is no Kofer by Eish?

Answer: That is not the same - because Kofer is not applicable by Eish at all. Therefore on account of Kofer we will not leave out Damim, whereas by Shor, to which Kofer is applicable, despite which there is no Kofer by a Tam, there is no S'vara to declare Chayav Damim she'Lo be'Kavanah.

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, Rebbi Eliezer finds it logical to establish "Naki" by Kofer more than anything else, because that is the simple explanation of the Pasuk ...

Alternative Explanation (cont.): … seeing as immediately afterwards, the Torah writes that if it is a goring ox, he must pay Kofer.

Question: Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who learns that 'a Tam pays Chatzi Kofer', and that 'Naki mi'Demei V'lados', should rather have learned 'Naki me'Chatzi Kofer for the reason that Tosfos just presented?

Answer: Since the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay Chatzi Nezek, he does not consider it logical to exempt him from Chatzi Kofer,

Question: According to Rebbi Yehudah, a MU'ad pays full Kofer, even though the ox is stoned ...

Question (cont.): In which case he pays from his pocket even though as far as damages is concerned he pays from the body of the ox ...

Reason: Seeing as he holds 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomo Omedes'?

Answer: Mu'ad is different, since the Torah reveals (that he pays Kofer), and it may well be that it is on account of the Tzad Mu'ad that he must pay full Kofer ...

Answer (cont.): But a Tam, which the Torah does specifically mention, one can only learn from Nezikin, and Nezikin itself one only pays from the body of the ox.

Explanation #1: In Perek ha'Ta'aruvos (Zevachim, Daf 71a, Tosfos DH 'Al') and at the beginning of Perek Kol ha'Asurim (Temurah, Daf 28a & 28b) Rashi explains that an neither an ox that gored nor one that raped can be sentenced to death on the testimony of its master because it is a case off 'Modeh bi'Kenas'.

Question #1: But where is it written that the killing of one's ox is a K'nas, asks the Ri?

Question #2: Moreover, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 10a) the Gemara says that if Reuven claims that Shimon raped his ox, he together with a second witness combine to have it sentenced to death, because 'A person is not relative/close to his money'.

Question #2 (concl.): So what if he isn't? Why is he not Patur anyway on account of 'Modeh bi'Kenas'?

Explanation #2: The reason that the ox cannot be sentenced to death on the testimony of its master, even if there are two owners (such as where it is owned by two partners) who both testify, would therefore appear to be because 'A person is a relative/close to his money'.

Implied Question: And it is only in Sanhedrin that the Gemara says that he is not ...

Answer: Because it speaks there where they also come to testify on his friend (Shimon), and since he is believed on his friend, he is also believed on his ox, as is clear from the Sugya there.

Answer (cont.):

Reason: Because we Pasken (above, Daf 15b) that 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'.

Implied Question: Presumably, the Gemara could just as well have asked on the case of one witness (since one witness is not believed to extract money) ...

Reason: And it is not logical to say that he is not considered 'Marshi'a es Atzmo' when he admits rather than swears (to counter the witness) ...

Reason (cont.): … even though the Chiyuv came upon him due to the witness.

Answer: And it only mentions the more straightforward case.