Implied Question: Rav Ula ... does not mean to extrapolate that a Tam is Chayav from the fact that a Mu'ad is Patur ...

Answer: Because it is not logical to say that because it became a Mu'ad, it is more Patur than before.

Clarification: What he therefore means when he says that a Mu'ad is Patur is - that via the warning it does not become more Chayav than the Tam.

Implied Question: And when Rava asks 'Yetziva be'Ar'a ... ' ...

Answer: ... he means to ask that if the Tzad Tamus which is lenient (in that it only pays mi'Gufo) is Chayav, how much more so the Tzad Mu'adus ought to be Chayav (full damages).

Clarification: The Torah needs to write "Anashim", because had it only written "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki", we would have Darshened 'Naki me'Chatzi Kofer' (like Rebbi Eliezer), and we would have rendered both a Tam and a Mu'ad Chayav to pay D'mei V'lados.

Clarification (cont.): But now that the Torah writes "Anashim" to preclude a Mu'ad (from D'mei V'lados), we need to learn the P'tur of "Naki" with regard to a Tam, on order that it should not be 'Yetziva be'Ar'a ... '.

Clarification: When the Beraisa states 'Naki mi'Demei V'lados', it does not need to exempt him from D'mei V'lados, but rather to extrapolate that Davka a Tam is Patur (but that a Mu'ad is Chayav).

Clarification (cont.): Had the Pasuk not mentioned "Anashim" at all, we would have declared even a Mu'ad Patur, since otherwise the Torah only obligates a Mu'ad where the Tam is Chayav, as Tosfos explained above (Daf 39a DH 'Im Kein').

Clarification (concl.): So the Torah therefore inserts "Anashim" to teach us that "Naki" should now indicate that "Anashim" 've'Lo Sh'varim' is confined to Tam.

Implied Question: And as for the Beraisa in ha'Chovel (later, on Daf 87a) 'Shor Ein Meshalem ela Nezek, u'Patur mi'Demei V'lados' - implying that a Mu'ad does not pay D'mei V'lados ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... Moreover, it is similar to 'Adam' (who is a Mu'ad), yet it is Patur from D'mei V'lados ...

Answer: ... that goes according to Rebbi Akiva (but not Rebbi Yossi ha'Gellili).

Clarification: Because in connection with Boshes the Torah writes "Ki Yinatzu Anashim Yachdav Ish ve'Achiv" ...

Reason: Because from "Ish ba'Amiso" we only learn Tza'ar, and Ripuy and Sheves from "ha'Zeh", as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Meni'ach' (on Daf 33a).

Implied Question: And even Rebbi Akiva, who learns them all from "Ish ba'Amiso" ...

Answer: ... concedes that we do not learn Boshes from there, only Tza'ar Ripuy and Sheves, which generally result from a wound, which is similar to a blemish (about which the Pasuk is speaking) ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas Boshes, which usually occurs without a wound, we will learn, not from "Ish", but from "Anashim".

Question: According to both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan, why do we not learn Ripuy and Sheves from "Anashim" ("ve'Chi Yerivun Anashim") in connection with them (Ripuy and Sheves)?

Answer: The Gemara knows traditionally, that "Anashim" comes for another D'rashah.

Extension: And the same answer will serve to explain why the Gemara does not ask why we do not make the same D'rashah with regard to Ripuy and Sheves ...

Extension (cont.): ...whereas on the other hand, we know that the "Anashim" written by Boshes comes to preclude Shevarim.

Implied Question: ... and the reason that the Gemara does not ask why we do not Darshen the same with regard to Tza'ar, where the Torah writes "Ish ba'Amiso", from which we extrapolate 've'Lo Shor ba'Amiso' - 'Shor Dumya de'Ish ... ' ...

Answer: ... because the Gemara prefers to ask specifically from the Pasuk "Anashim", which is similar to the Pasuk with which Rava is dealing.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he holds like Rebbi Shimon, who says in 'Eilu hein ha'Nisrafin' (Sanhedrin, 79a & 79b) 'Niskaven Laharog es Zeh ve'Harag es Zeh, Patur mi'Misah' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and since he is Patur from Misah, he is Chayav to pay for D'mei V'lados, seeing as he does not hold of Tana de'bei Chizkiyah.

Question #1: The Ri queries this however, in that why should Rav Ada bar Ahavah take Abaye and Rava to task because they hold like the Rabanan?

Question #2: Moreover we will then have to say that Rav Ada and the Beraisa of Rav Chagi D'ruma'a argue with Tana de'bei Chizkiyah ...

Question #2 (cont.): ... in which case the Gemara ought to have asked here, just like Rava asked on Rav Dimi in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 35a, Tosfos, DH 'u'Mi') 'Since when does anybody not hold like Tana de'bei Chizkiyah?'

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that Rava and Abaye do not exempt oxen from D'mei V'lados from the word "Naki" if they did not aim at the woman, similar to "Anashim" about which the Pasuk is speaking.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... but if they did, then they are Chayav.

Proof: Since they did not say 'If no accident occurs to the men, he will be punished, but if it does, then he will not, irrespective as to whether they aimed at each other or at the woman herself ...

Proof (cont.): ... but not oxen, where either way, they will be punished; therefore the Torah writes "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" - that he is Patur', which would have implied that he is Patur in all cases.

Proof (concl.): It is therefore clear that if they (the animals) aimed at the woman herself, they are Chayav.

Implied Question: ... even though men are more Patur when they aimed at the woman ...

Answer: That is because 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah mineih applies to them (which it does not to an ox).

Explanation: Rav Ada bar Ahavah now asks that it must depend on Kavanah - according to Rebbi, who Darshens in 'ha'Nisrafin (Sanhedrin, Daf 79a & 79b) "ve'Nasatah Nefesh Tachas Nafesh", 'Mamon' ...

Explanation (cont.): And he does not hold like Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah, who does not differentiate between Miskaven and Ein Miskaven with regard to the value of the one that was killed

Explanation (cont.): And Rav Ada maintains that the same will apply to D'mei V'lados ...

Reason: ... because, since the Pasuk indicates that there is a distinction between Miskaven and Eino Miskaven regarding the value of the one that was killed, we will not be able to learn any P'tur Mamon by Ein Miskaven from the Hekesh ...

Implied Question: ... even though he holds of the Hekesh in connection with other issues.

Explanation (cont.): In that case, according to him (in the opinion of Rebbi), Anashim will be obligated to pay (D'mei V'lados) even if an accident occurs to the woman.

Explanation (cont.): And according to him, we will declare oxen Patur even if they aimed at the woman ...

Explanation (concl.): ... since Rebbi can only explain ("Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim') like he (Rav Ada) explains it later.

Conclusion: And from Rebbi we will take our cue in interpreting all the Tana'im, seeing as we do not find a Machlokes between them regarding this point.

Explanation: Whereas Abaye and Rava hold that, wherever the Torah reveals - such as regarding the value of the one that was killed according to Rebbi, it reveals, but by other Mamon, it does not reveal.

Proof: And this is evident in 'ha'Parah' (on Daf 49a) where Abaye and Rava hold that he is Chayav if it intended to strike the woman herself ...

Proof (cont.): ... where the Mishnah rules that if the ox aimed at another ox but it struck a woman and her babies came out, it is Patur from paying the value of the babies.

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara extrapolates that 'It is Patur because it aimed at the other ox, but if it aimed at the woman, it is Chayav ...

Proof (cont.): ... 'Let us say that this a Kashya on Rav Ada bar Ahavah?'

Proof (concl.): This implies that it is in order for Abaye and Rava to declare it Chayav ...

Implied Question: ... whereas the Mishnah in 'ha'Chovel' (later, Daf 87a), which declares an ox Patur from D'mei V'lados ...

Answer: ... speaks specifically where it did not aim at the woman, similar to the "Anashim" in the Pasuk.

Refuted Answer: The Gemara does not want to say that he did not know of those answers, and when Rebbi Eliezer told them to him, he accepted them ...

Refutation: ... since the Gemara takes for granted that he probably knew them ...

Refutation (cont.): ... and the reason that he did not accept them is because he holds like Rabah (on Daf 43a) - that if the ox is not stoned, the owner does not need to pay Kofer'.

Question: Perhaps he does not Darshen "Im Kofer", but does Darshen "Im Eved"?

Answer: If he does not Darshen "Im Kofer", he certainly does not Darshen "Im Eved", as is evident later (on Daf 43b)

Question: What pushes him to answer? Why can we not say that also Rebbi Akiva knew the answer (of Rebbi Eliezer), only he thought that perhaps Rebbi Eliezer has a better answer, as the Gemara stated earlier in connection with 'Kadam ve'Shochto'?

Answer: It is appropriate to say that regarding 'Kadam ve'Shochto', which is not a good answer, as the Gemara explained there.

Answer (cont.): But as far as the answer 'Heimis al-Pi Eid Echad' and that of 'Niskaven'' is concerned, it is not possible to say that perhaps he has a better answer, since these are sound answers, on which there is nothing to ask.

Implied Question: Even though if he is worth a hundred Sela'im, he only pays thirty ...

Answer: Nevertheless, since the Torah gives a fixed amount of thirty Sela, even if he is worth only a Sela or more, an amount that is constant, it transpires that it is payable even if the ox is worth nothing.

Statement: This Beraisa proves that Rebbi Akiva did not accept Rebbi Eliezer's answer ...

Proof: Since even though Rebbi Akiva does not Darshen 'Naki me'Chatzi Kofer', he nevertheless declares a Tam Patur ...

Reason: This is because since the ox is not Chayav Sekilah, it is obvious that it is Patur from Kofer.

Clarification: This means from the thirty Sela'im (K'nas) of an Eved.

Opinion: Some commentaries however explain that one is even Patur from paying the regular value of the Eved, how much more so, the K'nas.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra, Daf 113.) learns that 'A husband does not take Ra'uy like he takes Muchzak' from a different Pasuk ...

Answer: It does not learn it from here, since we would have thought that Kofer is different, in that it is always Ra'uy, and that we cannot therefore learn other cases of Ra'uy from it.

Answer (cont.): Nor can we learn Kofer from there - since there the husband cannot take from the inheritance that fell only after his wife died, whereas the wound for which the Kofer falls due, took place during the lifetime of the woman, and we would have therefore thought that the husband does receive it.

Implied Question: He mentions Nezek and Tza'ar ...

Answer: Because they (pregnant women) generally feel more pain ...

Answer (cont.): And their value drops when they miscarry through a stroke more than when they give birth naturally.

Answer (concl.): Whereas generally speaking, she does not require special medical treatment, nor is she prevented from working any more than any other woman who gives birth. In effect, the effects are the same as they would have been had she given birth at the end of her pregnancy.

Question: But why does the Tana not mention Boshes?

Answer: Because someone who intends to embarrass Reuven and embarrasses Shimon is Patur according to Rebbi Shimon in 'ha'Chovel' (later, Daf 86a), and the Beraisa is speaking where he aimed at his friend and struck the woman, as is the simple case in the Torah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that she conceived from the Ger or from the Mehuchrar.

Support: And this is implied in the Gemara in 'ha'Parah' (on Daf 49a) when it states 'They only learned that where he wounded her in the life-time of the Ger'..

Refuted Explanation #2: And we cannot learn like the Riva, that she conceived when she was still a Shifchah, in which case the husband is not entitled to anything of the V'lados, seeing as they belong to the master, and now (before she is struck) she is set free ...

Support of Explanation #2: ... as is implied by the words 'She was a Shifchah ... ' ...

Refutation: ... since the implication of the Gemara in 'ha'Parah' supports Rashi's explanation.

Implied Question: And the reason that it states 'She was a Shifchah and was set free, and not 'She was a Meshuchreres' is ...

Answer: ... because, since it must be speaking where she had no children (who would inherit her), it says 've'Nishtachrerah', which implies just recently.

Answer (cont.): And the same will apply to a Yisre'elis who is married to a Ger, where the Mazik is Patur, seeing as the value of the V'lados goes to the husband.

Implied Question: And the reason that it mentions specifically a Shifchah and a Giyores is ...

Answer: ... because it is the norm. for a Meshuchreres to marry a Meshuchrar and a Giyores, a Ger.