Version #1 - Question (Reish Lakish): "If there will be no Ason (death), he will pay".

Suggestion: We explain Ason literally. (This implies that if someone dies he is exempt, even if he was not warned!)

Answer: No, the verse means 'if there is no sentence to die (e.g. he was Shogeg, or was not warned), he will pay'.

Version #2 - Question (R. Yochanan): "If there will be no Ason, he will pay".

Suggestion: Ason means a sentence to die (if there is no sentence, he pays)!

Answer: No, Ason literally means death.

Question: Surely, all agree that one who transgressed a capital sin b'Shogeg need not pay!

(Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "One who strikes an animal... and one who strikes (kills) a man" equates these. Just like one who hits an animal pays, whether he was Shogeg or Meizid, whether or not he was aiming for this animal, and whether he hit with an upward or downward motion, also one who strikes a man is exempt (from paying) in every case.

Correction (Ravin): Rather, if one transgressed a capital sin b'Shogeg, all agree that he does not pay;

They argue about one who transgressed b'Shogeg a sin punishable by lashes and money;

R. Yochanan says that he pays. Only capital sins are equated (e:1) to striking an animal (to teach that he does not pay in any case). Chayavei Makos (sins punishable by lashes) were not equated.

Reish Lakish exempts from paying. The Torah explicitly equates Chayavei Makos to capital sins.

Question: Where did the Torah equate them?

Answer #1 (Abaye): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha-Rasha".

Answer #2 (Rava): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Makeh-Makeh".

Question (Rav Papa): From which occurrences of these words do you learn?

You cannot learn from "Makeh (one who strikes) an animal will pay for it" and "Makeh (one who strikes) a man will die", for the latter verse discusses killing a man!

You cannot learn from "Makeh Nefesh (one who mortally strikes) an animal will pay for it" and "If a man will wound a man (...so will be done to him)", for the latter verse does not say "Makeh"!

Answer (Rava): I learn from the latter verses. Both of them discuss hitting.

Question: You cannot learn about Chayavei Makos from hitting a man. One is not lashed for this, rather, he pays money!

Answer: We do not need "so will be done to him" to teach about a blow worth a Perutah, so it teaches about a blow worth less than a Perutah (which is punishable by lashes).

Question: If so, surely he does not pay!

Answer: While hitting him, he tore his silk. (The Hekesh exempts him from paying for the silk.)

Question (Rav Chiya): Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah equated striking an animal and a man. How do we know that he hit it on a weekday and always pays? Perhaps he hit it on Shabbos, and we distinguish (between Shogeg and Meizid)!

Answer (Rava) Question: What is the case of "One who strikes an animal will pay for it, and one who strikes a man will die"?

If there was no warning, we would not kill one who struck a man!

Answer: We must say he was warned.

If he struck the animal on Shabbos (with warning), he would not pay! Rather, we must say that he hit it on a weekday.

Question (Rav Papa): Rabah obligates (according to R. Meir) even one who is executed to pay a fine. Like whom does he establish our Mishnah?

If it is R. Meir, one should pay even for (raping or seducing) his own daughter!

If it is like R. Nechunya ben Hakanah (who exempts Chayavei Krisos from paying), he should not pay for his sister!

If it is R. Yitzchak (who exempts Chayavei Krisos from lashes), he should be lashed for a Mamzeres but not pay for her.

If Rabah holds like R. Yochanan, he can explain like R. Yochanan (there was no warning for lashes). But if he holds like Reish Lakish, how can he explain the Mishnah?

Answer (Abaye): Rabah must hold like R. Yochanan.

Question (Rav Masna): (A Tana obligates one who burned on Yom Kipur to pay.) According to Reish Lakish, who equates Chayavei Makos to capital sins, who is this Tana, who argues with R. Nechunya ben Hakanah?

Answer (Abaye): It is R. Meir (who says that one is lashed and pays) or R. Yitzchak.

(Beraisa): There is no fine for raping or seducing the following:

Arayos and Shniyos l'Arayos (this will be explained);

A Mema'enes (a minor who did Mi'un, i.e. decided to end her mid'Rabanan marriage);

An Ailonis;

A girl who was divorced due to Motzi Shem Ra (her husband found that she was not a virgin).