Rav Yosef: You cannot retract. The poor already acquired it!

Even though there are no poor people here, I acquired on behalf of poor people elsewhere.

(Rav Yehudah): Orphans do not need Pruzbul (a document in which one gives his debts owed to him to Beis Din, so the loans will not be cancelled in Shemitah).

(Rami bar Chama - Beraisa): Orphans do not need Pruzbul. R. Gamliel and his Beis Din are like the father of orphans.

Chanan Bisha was Toke'a a man. Rav Huna obligated him to pay a half Dinar. Chanan had a rubbed out Dinar that people did not accept. He hit the man another time, and gave him the Dinar.

(Mishnah): An ox that is Mu'ad to gore oxen (and it) is not Mu'ad to gore other animals (Amora'im argue about whether or not the text of the Mishnah includes the words in parentheses);

An ox Mu'ad to gore people (and it) is not Mu'ad for animals; an ox Mu'ad to gore small animals (and it) is not Mu'ad for big animals;

In every case, it pays full damage for what it is Mu'ad, and half-damage for what it is not Mu'ad.

Talmidim: (What is the law of) an ox Mu'ad to gore on Shabbos (and it) is not Mu'ad during the week(?)

R. Yehudah: It pays full damage for goring on Shabbos, and half-damage on a weekday.

It becomes Tam again after three consecutive Shabbosos without goring.

(Gemara - Rav Zvid): The Mishnah says 'an ox that is Mu'ad to gore oxen, and it is not Mu'ad for other animals...'

(Rav Papa): It says 'an ox that is Mu'ad to gore oxen is not Mu'ad for...'

Rav Zvid holds that an ox Mu'ad for one thing is assumed to be Mu'ad for others, unless we see otherwise;

Rav Papa holds that an ox Mu'ad for one thing is not Mu'ad for others, until it become Mu'ad for them.

Rav Zvid learned from the Seifa. An ox that is Mu'ad for small animals (and it) is not Mu'ad for big animals.

Granted, if the text is 'and it is not Mu'ad', this teaches that an ox Mu'ad for small animals is assumed to be Mu'ad for big animals.

But if the text is 'is not Mu'ad', the Chidush would be that an ox Mu'ad for small animals is not assumed to be Mu'ad for big animals. The Reisha already taught a bigger Chidush (that Mu'ad for small animals of its species is not Mu'ad for small animals of another species)!

Rav Papa says that we could not learn from the Reisha. One might have thought that once it starts goring a species, it does not distinguish between big and small animals of the species. The Seifa teaches that this is not so.

Rav Papa learned from the Reisha. An ox that is Mu'ad for people is not Mu'ad for animals.

Granted, if the text is 'is not Mu'ad', this teaches that an ox Mu'ad for people is assumed not to be Mu'ad for animals (even though animals lack Mazel, and it is easier to gore them).

But if the text is 'and it is not Mu'ad', the Chidush would be that an ox Mu'ad for people is assumed to be Mu'ad for animals. The previous clause already taught a bigger Chidush (Mu'ad for animals of one (even its own) species is Mu'ad for animals of another species)!

Rav Zvid says that the clause is needed to teach about returning to the status of Tam. I.e., it was Mu'ad for people and for animals, and it stopped being Mu'ad for animals (three times, it refrained from goring them). One might have thought that since it remains Mu'ad for man, it is not considered Tam for animals. The Seifa teaches that this is not so.

Question (against Rav Zvid - Beraisa - Sumchus): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that an ox Mu'ad for people is Mu'ad for animals.

If it is Mu'ad to gore man, all the more so to gore animals!

This implies that the Chachamim who argue with him hold that Mu'ad to gore man is not Mu'ad for animals (and our Mishnah is like Chachamim)!

Answer: The Beraisa discusses returning to the status of Tam. The first Tana holds that it reverts to being Tam for animals, even though it remains Mu'ad for man. Sumchus holds that a Kal va'Chomer teaches that it remains Mu'ad for animals!

If it remains Mu'ad for man, all the more so for animals!

Support #1 (for Rav Zevid - Rav Ashi - Mishnah - Talmidim): (What) if it is Mu'ad to gore on Shabbos, (and it) is not Mu'ad during the week(?)

R. Yehudah: It pays full damage for goring on Shabbos, and half-damage on a weekday.

Granted, if the text is 'what if... and it is not Mu'ad...?', the Talmidim asked and R. Yehudah answered.

Question: But if the text is 'is not Mu'ad', did the Talmidim come to teach R. Yehudah the law?!

Also, what is the Chidush of his response?

Support #2 (R. Yanai - Reisha): It pays full damage for what it is Mu'ad, and half-damage for what it is not.

If the text is 'and it is not Mu'ad', this teaches that normally it is assumed to be Mu'ad;

Since the Chidush of the Mishnah is the inference, it proceeds to explain it, how much it pays for each (even though this is no Chidush).

Question: But if the text is 'is not Mu'ad', this is the Chidush. Why does the Mishnah continue to teach that a Mu'ad pays full damage, and a Tam pays half-damage? We already know this!

According to Rav Papa, an ox that gores three different animals is Mu'ad for all (animals).

(Beraisa): If an ox saw six oxen, one after the other, and it gored the first, third and fifth, it is Mu'ad to gore every alternating ox.

(Beraisa): If an ox saw six different animals, one after the other, and gored the first, third and fifth, it is Mu'ad to gore every alternating animal (of all species).

Question: If an ox gored three oxen, and then two different animals, what is the law?

Do we join the third ox to the first two, and it is only Mu'ad for oxen?

Or, do we join the third ox to the two animals that followed, and it is Mu'ad for all animals?

Question: If we join it to the oxen, if it gored a donkey, a camel, then three oxen, what is the law?

Do we join the first ox to the first two animals, and it is Mu'ad for all animals?

Or, do we join it to the two oxen that followed, and it is Mu'ad only for oxen?

Question: If an ox gored three times on Shabbos, once on Sunday, and once on Monday, what is the law?

Do we join the last Shabbos goring to the first two Shabbos gorings, and it is Mu'ad only for Shabbos?

Or, do we join it to the two weekday gorings, and it is Mu'ad for all days?

Question: If an ox gored on Thursday, Friday, and three times on Shabbos, what is the law?

Do we join the first Shabbos goring to the two weekday gorings, and it is Mu'ad for all days?

Or, do we join it to the two Shabbos gorings, and it is only Mu'ad for Shabbos?

These questions are unresolved.

(Rav): If an ox gored on the 15th, 16th and 17th of three consecutive months, it is Mu'ad to gore according to this pattern.

(Shmuel): It is not Mu'ad until it gores three times after the same skip (i.e. after the 18th of the next month).

Note: Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding establishing a Veses (the fixed cycle when a woman usually menstruates), and this is the source for their dispute about Mu'ad.

(Rava): If three times an ox heard a Shofar, and it gored each time, it is Mu'ad to gore upon hearing a Shofar.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that the first time was only because it was afraid (not due to a nature to gore). Rava teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If a Yisrael's ox gored a Hekdesh ox or vice-versa, it is exempt. One is liable for "Shor Re'ehu (the ox of his fellowman)", not the ox of Hekdesh.

If a Yisrael's ox gored a Nochri's ox, it is exempt. If a Nochri's ox gored a Yisrael's ox, whether it is a Tam or Mu'ad, it pays full damage.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah is not like R. Shimon ben Menasya.

(Beraisa): If a Yisrael's ox gored a Hekdesh ox or vice-versa, it is exempt - "Shor Re'ehu", not the ox of Hekdesh;

R. Shimon ben Menasya says, a Yisrael's ox that gores a Hekdesh ox pays full damage, whether Tam or Mu'ad, it pays full damage.

Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?

If "Shor Re'ehu" is a condition to be liable, a Yisrael's ox that gored a Hekdesh ox should be exempt!

If "Shor Re'ehu" merely discusses a typical case, but the Torah obligates even when it is not his fellowman's ox, a Hekdesh ox that gored should also be liable!

Suggestion: Perhaps "Shor Re'ehu" is a condition to be liable, but a Kal va'Chomer obligates a Yisrael's ox that gored a Hekdesh ox:

A Yisrael's ox is liable for goring a Yisrael's ox, and all the more so for goring a Hekdesh ox!

Rejection: If so, we could not learn more than the source, i.e. half-damage for a Tam, due to Dayo!

Answer (Reish Lakish): The Torah obligated full damage (for Mu'ad);, all animals were included. It taught that a Tam pays half-damage only regarding "Shor Re'ehu";

It did not teach this for goring a Hekdesh ox, so it pays full damage.

Had the Torah come to exempt for goring a Hekdesh ox, it would have written "Shor Re'ehu" regarding a Mu'ad!