Implied question: We could say that Mefateh is liable for a minor, who cannot pardon, according to Rabanan, who say that there is a fine where there is a sale (a minor. If so, there is no proof that it goes to her father!)

Answer: The Gemara understands that we discuss a Na'arah. The simple reading of our Mishnah is that it refers to the Reisha, i.e. the Mishnah Elu Na'aros (29a, which is like R. Meir, and discusses only a Na'arah).

Question (Ri): [R. Shimon] should exempt without this reason! Even for withholding wages and a loan, which are written in the verse, one is obligated a Korban only if he designated a Kli for [payment of] the loan or wages (Bava Metzi'a 48a)!

Here, regarding a fine, how does designation apply? Here we discuss before standing in judgment, for Abaye asks below about if he stood in judgment!

Answer (Ri): The case is, he designated a Kli for him, so that when he will stand in judgment and be obligated to him, the Kli will be designated for him to collect from it the payment for the rape.

Question: Will we say that R. Shimon holds that one can be Makneh (transfer ownership of) Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam (something that is not yet in the world)?

Suggestion: Perhaps if one says "this Kli will be yours if rain falls today", it is considered Davar she'Ba l'Olam [and similarly here, designation helps].

Rejection: That is because the Kli that he gives to him is in the world. He acquires it retroactively when the rain falls;

This that he said "if it falls" was a mere Tenai (stipulation).

However, here he does not give the Kli immediately. He merely designated it to collect the fine from it, if he will be obligated when he stands in judgment. This is Lo Ba l'Olam!

Suggestion: Perhaps indeed [R. Shimon holds that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam].

Rejection: If so, he should be listed in Kidushin (62b) along with the Tana'im who hold that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

The Gemara asked there "we should list also R. Akiva!"

Answer (Ri): R. Shimon says one [reason why he exempts], and he has also another [reason];

Firstly, designation does not help, for it is Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, since he is not liable at all until he stands in judgment, and after that;

And further, even if he acquires through his designation, this is not denial of Mamon, for one does not pay Kenas due to his admission. If he admits, he is exempt!

Rabanan hold that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam. There (Kidushin 62b), we listed only Tana'im (who hold like this) whose names were mentioned.

Question: In this Mishnah, the only argument is that Rabanan hold that he claims the Boshes and Pegam, and R. Shimon holds that he claims the Kenas;

However, if he would explicitly specify that he claims the Kenas, Rabanan would exempt, just like R. Shimon;

If so, why does [Abaye] ask according to R. Shimon more than according to Rabanan? He could have asked also according to Rabanan, if he specified that he claims the Kenas! (Pnei Yehoshua - Tosfos' question is difficult only for Rashi. Tosfos explains in the next Dibur that Abaye asks about our Mishnah, in which Rabanan say that after Beis Din obligates him, it is total Mamon, even to bequeath to his sons. All the more so, they hold that there is Korban Shevu'ah for it!)

On the Beraisa brought below, he should have asked his question according to R. Shimon!

The text: This is the text in all Seforim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Or perhaps, even if he stood in judgment, and [now] if he admits, he is liable, even so he is not liable Korban Shevu'ah, since initially it was a fine;

It is not like a deposit that the Torah mentions [regarding Korban Shevu'ah].

Inference: It is obvious to Abaye that it is Mamon for all other matters when he stood in judgment, i.e. to pay due to his admission, or to bequeath it to his sons. Why should it be different?!

Abaye asks only about Korban Shevu'ah, because it is written "v'Chichesh", and we require like a deposit, which was initially Mamon, like I explained.

Source: The Gemara below forced him to explain like this. Abaye asks at the end of the Sugya (Sof 42b) on the Mishnah, that R. Shimon exempts... and says that the reason is because he did not stand in judgment;

Citation (42b) Inference: Had he stood in judgment, in which case he pays due to his admission [he is liable also Korban Shevu'ah].

Inference: It is obvious to Abaye that when he stood in judgment, it is Mamon.

Objection #1: If so, we must erase the text in Seforim [which says here that Abaye asked "after he stood in judgment, is he exempt through his admission?"]

Objection #2: Why did Abaye challenge Rabah from our Mishnah "if she did not collect until [her father died, it is hers]"?

If you will say that [it is obvious to Abaye that] it is Mamon to bequeath to his sons, this is difficult for himself, for Abaye himself admits that it is Mamon in every way!

He asks only about Korban Shevu'ah, like I explained.

Objection #3: Why did we need to answer that Rabah discussed other fines? We should say that he says that also the fine of Ones is Mamon, to be liable through his admission after he stood in judgment;

Even at the end of the Sugya, it is obvious to Abaye that it is Mamon, regarding that he is liable through admission!

Objection #4: Abaye challenged Rabah (Sof 42b), for R. Shimon exempts because he did not stand in judgment. Had he stood in judgment, in which case he pays due to his admission, he is liable Korban Shevu'ah;

Abaye should challenge himself, since it is obvious to him that for all fines, it is Mamon to be liable due to his admission!

Explanation #2: Abaye was unsure according to R. Shimon, for we find in our Mishnah that according to R. Shimon, it is not Mamon to bequeath to his sons;

Therefore, he asked according to R. Shimon whether or not it is not considered Mamon also regarding Korban Shevu'ah and admission;

He asked about both of them, like the text in all Seforim, for one depends on the other;

If he is liable due to his admission, if so, he denied Mamon, and he is obligated Korban Shevu'ah;

If he is exempt through his admission, if so, he did not deny anything!

Therefore, below Rabah needed to answer "I say that it is Mamon to bequeath it to his sons";

He could not say that it is Mamon to be liable through admission, for since he exempts from Korban Shevu'ah, this implies that had he admitted, he would be exempt.

Implied question: Below, Abaye said "had he stood in judgment, he would pay through his admission." (This is difficult also for Abaye. He holds that since it was initially Kenas, R. Shimon exempts!)

Answer: He means that had he stood in judgment, and she became a Bogeres, and she died, and [her father] inherited her, [the Bo'el] is liable Korban Shevu'ah.

Observation: Similarly, if he admits, he is liable, for one depends on the other.

Alternate text: Some erase "and he is liable Korban Shevu'ah" from the text, for below Rabah said "I said that it is Mamon to bequeath it to his sons";

The text [here] says only "rather, it is Mamon." He did not explain until the end that he said so regarding bequeathing it to his sons."

Defense (of our text - R. Yitzchak): One should not erase this from the text due to this. Based on what we conclude, that Rabah discussed other fines, he retracted;

Initially, he answered Abaye that [after standing in judgment] the fines of Ones and Mefateh are Mamon.

Explanation (R. Yitzchak): Rabah received from his Rebbeyim that it is Mamon. He initially answered [that this is] regarding Korban Shevu'ah;

After Abaye refuted this, he retracted and said "I did not receive that it is Mamon regarding Shevu'ah, rather, to bequeath it to his sons."

Support - Question: When [Abaye] later challenged him from our Mishnah, why was this difficult for 22 years? He should have retracted from his words!

Answer: Rather, surely he received from his Rebbeyim.

Question: How does designation of a Kli apply to a slave? Once he knocked out his tooth, the slave acquired himself! (Above (DH R. Shimon), Tosfos brought that Korban Shevu'ah applies only if he designated a Kli for payment.)

Regarding a slave, the Torah revealed that he acquired himself once he knocked out his tooth, like we say in Bava Kama (74a). After this, it is not a fine!

Suggestion #1: The case is, he knocked out his tooth and blinded his eye. He goes free due to his tooth, and [his master] pays to him the value of his eye. [His master] designated a Kli for the value of his eye.

Suggestion #2: Alternatively, the slave claims [from his master] his earnings [after the master knocked out his tooth], and [his master] designated a Kli for this.

Rejection: It is proven from Gitin (62b) that the one who holds that he goes free due to his tooth and [his master] pays to him the value of his eye, holds that he does not need a Get Shichrur (document of freedom), and R. Shimon explicitly holds that he needs a Get Shichrur!

Answer: When he blinded his eye, he need not designate a Kli. There is no greater designation than this! The slave claims his own body from his master, that he free him and write for him a Get Shichrur.

Question: Obviously, he is not liable Korban Shevu'ah for the slave! (Shevu'ah does not apply land, slaves and documents.)

Even R. Eliezer, who expounds Ribuy and Mi'ut, and includes land for Shevu'ah, he exempts regarding Korban Shevu'ah;

In Shevuos (37b) he expounds "mi'Kol", but not all, and likewise [he should exclude] slaves [from Korban Shevu'ah].

Answer: Even though there is no Korban Shevu'ah for land, there is for slaves.

Support: We find that R. Meir holds that we do not swear about land, and regarding slaves, he holds that we swear, like we say in Bava Metzi'a (100b).

Question: Granted, according to R. Yochanan it suffices to designate a Kli, for he holds that money acquires [Metaltelim, mid'Oraisa]. This is fine;

Even though he designated a Kli for the fine and [the claimant] acquired it, in any case it has the law of Kenas regarding Korban Shevu'ah and several things, until it comes to his hand.

However, according to Reish Lakish, that one is obligated Korban Shevu'ah only when he took it from him and returned and deposited it with him, why does R. Shimon exempt here?

Since he stood in judgment and took it from him, it is total Mamon!

Answer (Rashba): According to Reish Lakish, we can say that we discuss when he gave to him a Kli for a security for his fine, and later deposited it with him;

Since he gave to him only for a security, it is not considered Mamon, even though it was b'Yado.

Question (R. Yitzchak): When he knocked out his tooth and blinded his eye, why is he not obligated Korban Shevu'ah?

He is liable through his admission, since he stood in judgment and Beis Din exempted him (the slave went free), he (the master) has no claim against him (the slave. The master should be liable for the second limb, like anyone who wounded a Yisrael!)

Answer: Perhaps since he still needs a Get Shichrur (he is still considered his slave, so), if he would admit that he blinded his eye, he would not go free. (Only witnesses can obligate him.)

Question: If he did not stand in judgment, obviously he is not obligated Korban Shevu'ah, for he did not deny anything, for if he would admit, he would be exempt! Why do we need the verse v'Chichesh for this?

We should have asked "why does it say that we learn from v'Chichesh? It should say that [we learn from] "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim"!

We ask like this below "why does it say that we learn from v'Chichesh? It should say that [we learn from] "v'Nasan"!

Answer: Here, we do not want to ask so, for we could say that it is a mere Asmachta;

However, below we asked properly. Just like v'Chichesh is a proper Drashah for other fines, similarly it is a proper Drashah regarding Ones and Mefateh.

Explanation: R. Shimon does not argue with this, that one does not abandon [claiming] something that if [the defendant] will admit to, he is obligated, and claim something that if [the defendant] will admit to, he is exempt;

This is because here, everything has a fixed amount (Maharam, Tosfos Yeshanim). (Only regarding Ones and Mefateh, in which the fine is fixed, but Boshes and Pegam are not fixed, R. Shimon holds that he claims what is fixed, even though the defendant can exempt himself from it, rather than what is not fixed, even though the defendant cannot exempt himself from it.)

Explanation: Granted, I (Abaye) hold that it is a fine in every respect, since the Torah revealed regarding Korban Shevu'ah;

However, according to you (Rabah), it should be of the brothers!

Question: Did Rabah not know our Mishnah?!

Answer (Riva): Rabah said that it is Mamon to bequeath to his sons, i.e. when the daughter is not alive;

However, our Mishnah discusses when the daughter is alive. Then it is not proper to bequeath it to his sons as long as it did not come to his hand, for one does not bequeath rights in his daughter to his sons

Abaye, who challenged him, did not want to distinguish like this, and Rabah agreed [that one should not distinguish like this].

Explanation: Regarding Motzi Shem Ra, about whom it says v'Nasnu l'Avi ha'Na'arah, we can say that v'Nasan is different than v'Nasnu. (Rashash - v'Nasnu refers to Beis Din. Therefore, once they ruled, it is as if they gave it. R. Akiva Eiger asks what is Tosfos' source that Motzi Shem Ra is Mamon to bequeath to his sons.)

Explanation: Granted, according to me (the Makshan), we do not learn anything from v'Nasan. We learn the entire matter from v'Chichesh;

Even though it is not Mamon to bequeath to his sons, we learn from there, since the Torah revealed about Korban Shevu'ah;

However, according to you (Rav Yosef), who learn from v'Nasan that it is not Mamon until he gives it, and the father did not own it after (i.e. simply due to) the judgment, just like (he did not own it) before the judgment, if so it should have said [that we learn from] v'Nasan!

We do not need the verse v'Chichesh for this, for since if he admits he is exempt, he is exempt also from Korban Shevu'ah.

Implied question: Now it is total Mamon, for it did not come to his hand due to a fine, and if he would admit to it he would be liable! (If so, Korban Shevu'ah should apply to it.)

Answer: Even so, he is exempt from Korban Shevu'ah due to "v'Chichesh."

Support: This was the Gemara's question, based on this answer "this excludes these, which are Kenas." [We ask that] it is Mamon!

Until now it was fine that he called it a fine, since it came to him due to a Kenas, and if he admitted, he would be exempt;

However, now that we establish the verse in such a case, e.g. she stood in judgment and died, and it did not come to [her father] due to a Kenas, rather, due to inheritance...

It is obvious that if he admitted, he is liable. Why is it called a fine?

We answer that the text should say "this excludes these, which were initially Kenas."

Now all fines, after standing in judgment, are Mamon, and one is liable through admission. Even so, it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv, from "v'Chichesh", that one is exempt from Korban Shevu'ah.

Similarly, even according to R. Elazar, who says that one swears about land, it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that one is exempt from Korban Shevu'ah, even though he is liable through his admission.

Explanation: He said this according to Rabah's words;

It is fine for me. I hold regarding all fines, that even if he stood in judgment, he does not pay through his admission;

Really, R. Shimon considers it a fine until it comes to his hand, like we learn from "v'Chichesh."

[The Beraisa] is fine. Whenever he is liable through his admission, he is liable also Korban Shevu'ah, e.g. if she stood in judgment, became a Bogeres and died, for he inherits her.

However, according to you, all fines after standing in judgment, or Ones and Mefateh after she stood in judgment, became a Bogeres and died, even though he is liable through his admission, he is exempt from Korban Shevu'ah. For you, [the Beraisa] is difficult!