Answer #2 (R. Elazar): The entire Mishnah is like R. Tarfon. The Reisha discusses a field in which only the victim may leave fruit, and both the victim and damager may have animals;

Regarding Shen, it is like the victim's yard. Regarding Keren, it is like Reshus ha'Rabim.

Objection (Rav Zevid of Neharda'a - Mishnah): Shen is Mu'ad to eat what is fitting for it;

Inference: It is not Mu'ad for something it does not normally eat.

Eating something it does not normally eat is Keren. R. Tarfon obligates full damage in the victim's Reshus!

Answer #3 (Rav Zvid): The entire Mishnah is like Chachamim. It is abbreviated, and means as follows. There are five Tam damagers. If they damage repeatedly, they become Mu'ad.

Shen and Regel are Mu'ad from the beginning. This is in the victim's premises.

Version #1 - Objection (Ravina - a later Mishnah): An ox that damages in the victim's premises. What is the case?

The Mishnah would ask 'what is the case' only about something that was already taught! (According to Rav Zvid, the Mishnah did not discuss Keren in the victim's premises.)

Answer #4 (Ravina): The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means as follows. There are five Tam damagers. If they damage repeatedly, they become Mu'ad;

Shen and Regel are Mu'ad from the beginning;

The Mu'ad that the Torah mentions is one of the five Tam damagers that damaged repeatedly;

If an ox damaged in the victim's premises, R. Tarfon and Chachamim argue about this;

There are also other Mu'adim - a wolf, lion, bear, leopard, Bardelus, and snake.

A Beraisa explains exactly like Ravina.

Version #2 - Question: The Mishnah says that there are (only) five Tamim and five Mu'adim. There are more!

Also a wolf, lion, bear, leopard, Bardelus, and snake are Mu'adim!

Answer (Ravina): The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means as follows. There are five Tam damagers (like he explained in Version #1)...

(Mishnah): An animal is not Mu'ad to crouch...

Version #1 (R. Elazar): This refers only to big Kelim. It is normal for it to crouch and break small Kelim.

Support (for R. Elazar - Beraisa): An animal is Mu'ad to walk and to break and crush people, animals and Kelim. (It crushes small people, animals and Kelim by crouching.)

Rejection: Perhaps it crushes them against a wall (without crouching).

Version #2 (R. Elazar): It is abnormal to crouch and break not only big Kelim, rather, even small Kelim.

Question (Beraisa): An animal is Mu'ad to walk and to break and crush people, animals and Kelim.

Answer (R. Elazar): Perhaps it crushes them against a wall.

Version #3 - Question (Mishnah): An animal is not Mu'ad to crouch;

Contradiction (Beraisa): ...(It is Mu'ad to)...crush people, animals and Kelim.

Answer (R. Elazar): It is Mu'ad to crouch on small Kelim, but not on big ones.

(Mishnah): A wolf, lion...

Question: What is a Bardelus?

Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): It is an Apa (snake?).

Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): (In addition to those of our Mishnah), even a Tzavu'a (hyena?) is Mu'ad;

R. Elazar says, even a snake.

(Rav Yosef): Tzavu'a is an Apa. (R. Meir said that it is not listed in our Mishnah!)

Answer: Bardelus is Apa, i.e. a female Tzavu'a. R. Meir adds, even a male Tzavu'a. (Some switch the genders.)

(Beraisa): A male Tzavu'a changes every seven years. It becomes a bat, then a small bat, then a Kimush, then a Chu'ach, then a Shed (demon).

A human spine becomes a snake after seven years if he does not bow at 'Modim'.

Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): (In addition to those of our Mishnah), even a Tzavu'a;

R. Elazar says, even a snake.

Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Elazar): If it (a wolf, lion...) is domesticated, it is not Mu'ad!

Correction: The Beraisa should say 'R. Elazar says, (only) a snake is Mu'ad.'

(Shmuel): If a lion ate from an animal (without killing it) in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is exempt. If it first killed the animal, it is liable.

It is exempt for eating without killing, for this is normal. Shen is exempt in a Reshus ha'Rabim;

If it first killed the animal, it is liable, for this is abnormal. Keren is liable in a Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: Is it really abnormal for a lion to kill an animal? "A lion tears (kills) for its cubs"!

Answer: A lion tears for its cubs, but not for itself.

Question: "And it chokes (kills prey, and brings it) to female lions."

Answer: It chokes to bring prey to female lions (but not for itself to eat).

Question: "And it fills (holes of) its dwelling with torn animals."

Answer: It kills to fill its dwelling, but not to eat immediately.

Question (Beraisa): Also a Chayah (i.e. just like a lion) that entered the victim's premises, tore an animal and ate meat, pays full damage.

Answer #1: The case is, it tore the animal to store it.

Question: It says that it ate meat!

Answer: It tore it intending to store it, then it reconsidered and ate it.

Objection #1: How would we know this?

Objection #2: Shmuel said that one pays if it kills. He should be concerned lest it tore to store up, then reconsidered!

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The Beraisa means that if it tore an animal to store it or it ate meat without killing, it pays full damage.

Answer #3 (Ravina): Shmuel discusses a domesticated lion, according to R. Elazar.

Question: If so, even eating without killing should be considered abnormal!

Correction: Ravina did not explain Shmuel. Rather, he meant that the Beraisa discusses a domesticated lion, according to R. Elazar.

Question: If so, it should only pay half-damage!

Answer: The case is, it became Mu'ad.

Question: If so, why was this taught regarding Toldos of Shen? It is a Toldah of Keren!

This is left difficult.

(Mishnah): The difference between Tam and Mu'ad is that Tam pays half-damage mi'Gufo (up to its own value), and Mu'ad pays full damage from the Aliyah.

(Gemara) Question: What is 'the Aliyah?'

Answer (R. Elazar): It is the Me'ulah (best) of the damager's property.

(R. Elazar): "They buried (Chizkiyahu) in Ma'alei of the tombs of the house of David" - near the best of the family, David and Shlomo.

Question: "They buried (Asa) in the bed... full of fragrances and Zenim" - what are these?

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): They are many types of fragrances.

Answer #2 (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): They are fragrances that incite people to Zimah (immorality).

(R. Elazar): "They dug a pit to trap me" - people suspected Yirmiyahu that sinned with a Zonah;

(R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): They suspected that he sinned with a married woman.

Question: Granted, R. Elazar learns from "a Zonah is a deep pit";

Question: What is R. Shmuel's source?

Answer: A married woman who has adultery is also a Zonah!

Question: "All their counsel is upon me, to die" applies to Bi'ah with a married woman, not with a Zonah!

Answer: They cast him into a pit of mud (to kill him).

(Rava): "They should stumble in front of you" - (Yirmiyahu requested that those who seek to harm him,) even when they give Tzedakah, make them stumble, by presenting them with unworthy recipients, so they will not get reward.