Implied Question: The Gemara could not have established the case in the opposite fashion (that the best property of the one who damaged was equivalent to the worst of the one who was damaged). (Note: Why didn't the Gemara do so?)

Answer: Everyone would agree in such a case that he would only have to pay from the property that he has, and that he is not obligated to buy other property. This is as the Gemara in Bava Kama (7b) states that if he only has low-grade property, everyone collects from his low-grade property.

Observation: If Rebbi Akiva would evaluate based on regular standards of property (and not based on the personal holdings of the one who was damaged or the one who damaged), we could say that the following case could have been given. The case is where the one who damaged has low, medium, and high grade property. His low grade property (meaning, based on his own standards) is like the general standard of high grade property. His best property is equivalent to the best property of the one who was damaged.

Even according to the opinion that we evaluate based on personal standards (and not general standards), the Gemara could have said that the difference between them is that the high grade property of the one who damaged is equivalent to the low grade property of the one who was damaged. According to the opinion that one can either pay money or his high grade property, he could choose to pay money according to Rebbi Yishmael. However, according to Rebbi Akiva he would have to pay from his high grade property.

Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Gemara establish that this is referring to a case where the animal damaged Hekdesh through the categories of Shen (teeth) and Regel (feet)? There is no exemption of "Rei'eihu" -- "friend" there. Additionally, we cannot learn from Keren (horns) that Shen and Regel also are exempt from damages of Hekdesh, as Keren is different because the animal is not considered a Muad originally (as opposed to Shen and Regel which start off with a liability to pay for all of their damages).

The Gezeirah Shaveh of "Tachas Nesinah Yishalem Kesef" (see Bava Kama 5a and Rashi there DH "Tachas" who explains this string of Gezeiros Shavos that link all types of damages) was only accepted to say that all damages pay Meitav, not regarding other details of payment. If the Gezeirah Shaveh would apply to all laws of damages, then all types of damages would be exempt in the public domain (like Shen), from damages to vessels (like Bor), animals no longer fit for Kodshim (like Bor), and hidden things (like Aish).

Answer#1: Being that it says "Rei'eihu," it is no longer possible to learn Meitav regarding Shen and Regel damages to Hekdesh from a Kal v'Chomer from a regular person. It is possible to ask that a regular person is better regarding Keren. The Gemara indeed asks this question soon, as a regular person is obligated to pay another person for damages.

When the Gemara says that the case is when someone says that he takes upon himself to give a Manah etc., it does not want to say it is talking about Shen and Regel. This is because it is more understandable to ask the question that a regular person is better than Hekdesh from one case of damages to another case of damages. However, the Gemara would not have asked this question from damages to loans. This is evident from the fact that when the Gemara establishes that this is according to Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya, the Gemara does not ask that a regular person is better regarding loans with interest and Ona'ah (over/under charging) and apply this to damages.

Answer#2: It is also possible to say that all categories of damages are indeed exempt when they damage Hekdesh, as is apparent from the Yerushalmi in the beginning of our chapter. The Yerushalmi asks, what are we discussing? If it is about damages, the Beraisa states, "An ox of his friend and not an ox of Hekdesh." If it is about damages done by one's body, Rebbi Chiya taught there are damages for (damaging) a regular person but not for Hash-m (Hekdesh). Rather, the case is where a person says that he is taking upon himself to give a Manah to Hekdesh. This implies that we do not find damage done to Hekdesh (where one is liable) by Shen, Regel, or a person who damages.

In Bava Kama (9b), the Mishnah states that when one damages possessions that one cannot usurp (meaning they are privately owned, as opposed to Hekdesh), he is liable for damages. This Mishnah is discussing damages by all four main categories of things that damage, even the damage done by a person, according to the opinion that "Maveh" refers to a person.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia (99b) implies that a person who damages Hekdesh is liable to pay the principle. (Note: This implies that a person who damages indeed must pay Hekdesh!)

Answer: This is only according to Rabbinic law.

Question: (Note: Some laws of) Hekdesh are derived from Terumah, about which the Pasuk states, "When he will eat," (Vayikra 22:14) excluding someone who damages Terumah. A person is liable to pay for the principle that he damaged, as Terumah is the money of the Kohen. (Note: We should similarly say that a person who damages Hekdesh must pay, just like he must pay for Terumah.)

Answer: Even though a person is liable to pay if he damages Terumah, we do not derive this law from the Pasuk of "When he will eat," but rather from a different Pasuk. This is because it is like he is stealing from his friend, and damaging him.

Now (that we have established this), all damages that one is exempt from when he or his possessions damage Hekdesh are derived from a person who damages Hekdesh (and is exempt). After all, it is more understandable to say that a person who damages Hekdesh with his hands should be liable than if he digs a pit or sends a fire (which causes damage to Hekdesh). (Note: Being that he is exempt if he himself damages Hekdesh, all other types of damage must also be exempt.)

Question: If so, why is the Pasuk of "Rei'eihu" necessary? (Note: If all damages to Hekdesh are exempt because they are derived from damage done by a person himself, why does the Torah have to state a Pasuk of Rei'eihu to exempt the goring of an ox? It is obvious!)

Answer: If we would not have found in one place that the Torah gave a complete exemption to someone who (his possessions) damaged Hekdesh, we would not derive from the Pasuk, "When he will eat," that a person who damages is excluded. We instead would have stated that he is exempt from paying the extra fifth (that one pays when eating Terumah accidentally).

Question: The Gemara in Bava Kama (5a) asks why two types of damages from an ox are not listed. The Gemara answers that Rebbi Akiva broke his power. (Note: This means that Rebbi Akiva in fact holds that the two types of damage, a Tam damaging an animal and a Tam damaging a person, are actually similar. Although Rebbi Akiva said that the latter pays full damages, the Gemara answers that the collection is still limited to the value of the Tam, similar to collecting from a Tam who damages an animal.)

The Gemara could still ask that the Mishnah should list both an ox who damages a regular person and an ox who damages Hekdesh, as their laws are different according to Rebbi Akiva!

Answer: The Mishnah there is not discussing differences involving Hekdesh.

Question: One can still ask (on Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya's position in our Gemara) that a regular person must be paid for damage done by people and pits. Hekdesh is not "strong," as it does not receive payment when a person damages it, as the Pasuk says, "When it will be eaten," excluding a person who damages it (Terumah, see previous Tosfos at length). The Pasuk similarly states regarding damages from a pit, "And the dead animal will be his," referring to the one who owns the dead animal (not Hekdesh). (Note: How can we say that a regular person whose Tam gores Hekdesh should pay more to Hekdesh than he would pay if the ox gored was owned by a private person?)

Answer: We can make the following Kal v'Chomer. If the Keren of a regular person, a lenient law evident from the fact that a Tam only pays half of the damages, is obligated to pay from high-grade property if the damage is done by a Muad, certainly Keren done to Hekdesh which is generally more strict is liable (to pay from Meitav). (Note: In other words, once we learn that Rei'eihu is coming to say Hekdesh is more strict than a regular person regarding Keren, there is no reason to exclude Keren from Meitav just because Hekdesh is weaker regarding other types of damages. (Note: See note 303 in the Otzar Mefarshei Ha'Talmud on this Tosfos.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that since Rebbi Akiva said that the high grade property collected is based on the person damaged, and he is being lenient by saying that the one who damaged can pay with his low grade property (which is equal to the best quality of the one who was damaged), why would he say that this is certainly so regarding Hekdesh? This is a leniency!

Question: This is difficult. Even so, we still need a Kal v'Chomer to tell us that he pays from the best grade quality, and not worse grade quality, of the one who was damaged!

Opinion#2: It appears that the correct explanation of the Gemara's question is as follows. What is the Kal v'Chomer to Hekdesh? It cannot be regarding damages done to Hekdesh, as that is derived from the Pasuk of "Rei'ehu," as taught by Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya. It must be that the Kal v'Chomer is derived regarding Meitav. Rebbi Akiva would not have had to tell this to Rebbi Yishmael, being that Rebbi Yishmael himself would agree to this, if it were not that he held the person is totally exempt. (Note: In other words, if their argument is regarding whether or not someone is liable when his ox damages Hekdesh through goring, Rebbi Akiva is not making a point when he says that there is a Kal v'Chomer that he pays Meitav. This is because Rebbi Yishmael would agree to this, were it not for the fact that he argues that in this case the person is totally exempt. The fact that Rebbi Akiva states the Kal v'Chomer implies that they must not have the same argument as the Chachamim and Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya.)

Opinion#3: Rebbi Shlomo from Rhodes answers that the Gemara's question is as follows. What is the Kal v'Chomer from Hekdesh that makes us evaluate based on the best quality of the one who was damaged and not the one who damaged? How would we even know what the best quality owned by Hekdesh is? Perhaps there is something that has been dedicated to Hekdesh at the end of the earth that has no equal (and is of the highest quality in the world)! It must be that we evaluate based on the one who damaged, as it is not possible to evaluate based on the one who was damaged.

Explanation: They only argue where there is a difference. (Note: Everyone agrees that it is always good to give nice logical reasons for the Mitzvos, as long as it does not change the laws. However, Rebbi Shimon goes further and applies logic in a way where it even changes the law. This is what Tosfos means when he says they argue when there is a difference (Maharam).)

For example, they argue regarding taking the clothing of a widow as collateral and by a king having more wives (see Bava Metzia 115a which discusses both arguments). Here, too, they argue based on Rebbi Shimon's using the logic behind the Pasuk regarding evaluating the property of the one who damaged.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the Gemara is starting to say something else with this phrase, and it is not connected to why a woman collects low grade property when collecting her Kesuvah.

Opinion#2: It seems that we can explains the Gemara in the following manner (in which it is all connected). You should not say that the first reason given that she receives low grade property, because a woman wants to get married more than a man, is invalid. The argument one would make is that we see we worry about Cheena, meaning that we want men to be favorable in the eyes of women so that the women should marry them. (Note: The Maharam points out that Tosfos here is using Rashi's definition of Cheena, despite the fact that he argues that this is the correct definition (see next Tosfos below).) Due to this, Chazal did not institute that she should give him a Kesuvah if she bothered him until he was forced to give her a Get (otherwise she might not get married). This is a reason that they should institute that she receive mid-grade property. (Note: This is why the Beraisa gives a second reason.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this is in order that men should be favorable in the eyes of women, in order that the women will agree to marry them.

Question: This is difficult. In Kesuvos (84a), Rebbi Akiva states in a Mishnah that the money should be given to the weakest (when there are more than one person who have a lien on an estate). Some in the Gemara explain that this is due to Cheena.

According to Rashi she should not be called the weakest as, on the contrary, the man is the weak one here as he has to find favor in the eyes of the women!

In Kesuvos (52b) and Kidushin (30b), the Gemara discusses the Pasuk, "Take for your sons wives, and your daughters give to men." The Gemara says that it is understandable that one takes wives for his son, as it within his son's ability. However, what can he do for his daughter? This implies that a prospective husband more easily finds a woman to marry than a woman finds a husband.

This also fits with the Gemara's previous statement that a woman wants to get married more than a man.

Answer: The correct explanation seems to be that of Rabeinu Chananel, who explains that Cheena means that everyone should find favor in her, and want to marry her. This (explanation) is also explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi in our chapter.

Implied Question: One cannot answer here, as the Gemara answered previously, that it must be taught that a Kesuvah collected from the orphans is only from low grade property (and not from mid-grade property), just like anything else collected from them. (Note: Why can't we give this answer?)

Answer: This is because the Beraisa states that one who is damaged collects high grade property from them. (Note: This shows that we are not talking about collecting from orphans, who would never have to pay with high-grade property.)

Text: There are some Sefarim that have the text as follows. If you will say that this is talking about collecting from the orphans, doesn't the Mishnah say that one cannot collect etc. The Gemara's question (according to this text) is regarding one who damages and a creditor (who the Beraisa seemingly states are collecting high-grade and mid-grade property respectively).

Explanation: Rashi explains that she originally seized movable objects from his son (as future payment) for her Kesuvah. She then gave them to his father so that he should accept to be a Kablan for her Kesuvah, and afterwards she gave these objects back to his son. (Note: This is the way that the Maharam understands Rashi according to Tosfos (at this point). For another understanding of Tosfos, see the notes on the Tosfos Ha'Rosh (Mossad Harav Kook) on Tosfos.)

Question: This is difficult. We say in Bava Basra (174a) that where the Kablan took the money being borrowed from the lender and gave it to the borrower, the lender has no claim on the borrower (and must claim the money from the Kablan). (Note: Similarly, if she gave the father collateral and he gave it back to his son, it would seem that she could not even collect from the son.)

Answer: Perhaps the case (in Bava Basra ibid.) is where the guarantor took the money from the lender and gave it to the borrower (without any interaction between the lender and borrower). Even though the implication there is that it is dependent on how this is phrased, perhaps both (proper phraseology of accepting becoming an Areiv and this method of giving) are required (to make the lender unable to claim payment from the borrower).

Explanation#1: Our Gemara's case is where he does not have money. If he did have money, why would the collection of damages be from high-grade property if the orphans have money? Even if the orphans are minors that the guarantor cannot demand the money from in Beis Din, the people who are collecting the damages should only be allowed to collect from low-grade property, as the orphans have money.

Explanation#2: Rashi explains that here the case is that he has no money. If he did have money, the Gemara in Bava Basra (173a) states that when someone lends someone else money with a guarantor, one does not first attempt to collect the loan from the guarantor.

Question: This is difficult (proof), as the Gemara here is talking about an Areiv Kablan (who one can collect from before attempting to collect from the borrower.)