Halachah: We can extrapolate from here that witnesses in money-related matters may not be related either to the debtor or to the creditor

Question: Based on the Gemara in Chulin, which learns from a Pasuk that in a case such as this we follow the Rov, Rabeiu Tam asks why we do not do so here?

Answer: Indeed, he replies, if we did not ask the witnesses such a question, we would not suspect such a rare coincidence; Only we deliberately ask them, so that, in the event that they reply that they don't, we will invalidate their testimony.

Proof: This can be compared to the type of weapon that was used, which we do not need to ask the witnesses, yet, if we do, and one says this kind of sword, and the other, a different kind of sword, their testimony is disqualified. Granted, in the latter case, 'I don't know' does not disqualify the testimony, our case is worse, inasmuch as it directly concerns the victim himself - so thy don't need to contradict each other in order to be Pasul.

Question: Rabeinu Tam's reasoning however, is very unclear. Why, if we do not ask the witnesses, the murderer will be Chayav, and if we do and they don't know, he will not?

Refutation: And as for his proof from two kinds of swords, it is not compatible with our case. There, as long as we have not asked them anything, we do not need to suspect that perhaps their statements will clash, but once they do, their testimonies appear false. Bear in mind that witnesses would generally take note of the murder weapon, more so than the color clothes he is wearing, where even a discrepancy will not render the testimony Pasul. But Rabeinu Tam's statement, that when one does not ask the witnesses, whether the victim was not a T'reifah, the murderer is Chayav, but if one does, and they do not know, he is Patur, is unreasonable.

Alternative Explanation: It therefore seems that when the Gemara says 'Lo Neherag Adam le'Olam' is not meant literally, but rather that usually that would be so. Why is that? Because seeing as the Beis-Din asked them so many extra questions, it would be virtually impossible for the witnesses not to contradict each other, thereby invalidating their testimony.

Another Possible Explanation: Why can we not answer that R. Akiva, follows his own reasoning in Bechoros, where he is concerned about the minority.

Refutation: Because there is no Tana who is concerned about the minority more than R. Meir, and even he concedes that where there is no option, we follow the majority, and in our case, there is no option.

Reinstatement of Answer: It is however, possible to find a case where there is an option - where the membrane of the brain is revealed, and after the witnesses saw that it was complete, the murderer came and pierced that spot and killed him.

Question: What can one say regarding Avodah-Zarah and Shabbos, which are not so easily subject to exemption? So how can R. Tarfon and R. Akiva categorically state that nobody would ever have been killed?

Answer #1: They are nevertheless justified in making such a statement, since Avodah-Zarah and Shabbos are not as common as murder and Arayos.

Answer #2: And besides, one can ask them whether they know that the sinner was not a T'reifah, because if he was, then even if other witnesses are Mazim them, they cannot be sentenced to death, since the person that they tried to kill was a dead man.

Explanation: In those times, their roofs were flat (not sloping like ours). When they made their roofs, smeared them with cement, and wanted to smoothen the cement, would take a round longish stone, with a long handle, and roll along the surface of the roof to smoothen the cement. That stone was called a 'Ma'agilah'.

Question: 'Why does the Mishnah not add 'and the rope snapped (Nifsak)', like it does in the Seifa?

Answer: When the Tana says 'Naflah', it means that it slipped from his hand. The reason that the Tana does not want to say that it snapped is because then, the Mishnah will not go like Rebbi, who says later that 'Nifsak' is Patur

Explanation: Some say that the Tana is learning 'Lo Zu Af Zu' (a progression of Chidushin; not only this, but even that): Not only 'Me'agel', who has no personal reason to be careful, goes into Galus, but even 'Meshalshel be'Chavis', who is does not want his barrel to break` and even 'Yored be'Sulam', who is afraid that he may fall and die.

Question: Why can we not answer that the Pasuk is speaking where he killed on purpose, but where there was no warning?

Answer #1: That we also learn that he is Patur from Galus, from the extra "B'li Da'as" in the Pasuk there.

Answer #2: Alternatively, that even if we don't, it is equally obvious that he is Patur from Galus, since the Pasuk writes "ve'Hu Lo Sonei, a clear indication that he only goes into Galus if he killed unintentionally.

Question: The Torah writes "Shegagah" both by Cheilev and by `Shabbos, yet the Gemara in Shabbos obligates a child who grows up among Nochrim to bring Korbanos for contravening them.

Answer: It is different here, since the Torah adds an extra "Shegagah", to preclude 'Omer Mutar' as well.

Explanation: Rashi explains in Bava Kama that the Pasuk only comes to preclude (Miskaven li'Zerok Shetayim ve'Zarak Arba'ah) from Misah, but not from Galus.

Refutation: This does not appear correct however, because if it was, it would not be compatible with the other rulings.

Alternative Explanation: It therefore seems correct to say that he is Patur from Galus too, as we explained in Bava Kama.

Question: By the same token, we will presumably learn from 'Ya'ar' a Chiyuv Galus in any location where the Mazik is standing, and where the Nizak is permitted to enter, too. If that is so, then why does the Mishnah later declare Chayav somebody who throws a stone from his own domain into the R'shus ha'Rabim, killing the person who is standing there, in the process? After all, the Nizak is not standing in the same location as the Mazik (as he is in the case of Ya'ar)?

Answer: Our premise was incorrect, as we only learn from the case of 'Ya'ar' that both Mazik and Nizak are permitted to remain in the location where the damage takes place, but not in which R'shus it needs to occur.

Clarification: It must have been the rung that killed the person below, but not the person climbing the ladder. This is because one is only Chayav if whoever or whatever killed the victim is descending that one is Chayav, but not if he/it is ascending.

Explanation #1: According to this alternative answer, everybody holds that the rung slipping is considered a Yeridah - and they go on to explain why one holds Chayav and one holds Patur, and establishes the earlier

Question #1: In that case, the Gemara ought to have said that both Beraisos hold that it is considered Yeridah, only one speaks by Isla ... ?

Question #2: And besides, when the Gemara initially said that everybody considers it Aliyah, this Beraisa would then clash with the Beraisa above "O Hishlich Alav", to include a Yeridah which is needed for the Aliyah ('Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' [see Maharam])?

Explanation 2#: It therefore appears more correct to explain that both Beraisos, which are speaking where the rungs were firm and not wormy, both hold that the rung slipping is considered Aliyah. It is not however, speaking about a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah', as this is not what the Beraisos are arguing about.

Explanation Continued: And when the Gemara continues 'Ha ve'Ha le'Galus ... ', the Beraisa which holds 'Chayav' is then speaking about a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah'.