Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): He first answered that it intended for an animal.

Answer #2 (Rav Tavyumi): He first answered that one witness or the owner told us that it killed.

Rav Kahana holds that even though the case of intent for an animal is a better answer, when he thought of another answer, he gave it as well.

Rav Tavyumi holds that once he thought of the better answer, he discarded the inferior answer.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili): "The owner of the ox is clean" from paying for a miscarriage aborted (due to the ox goring the mother).

R. Akiva: We learn from "when men will fight", not oxen!

Question: Why does R. Yosi ha'Glili disagree?

Answer #1 (Rav Ula brei d'Rav Idi): R. Akiva's verse does not suffice!

One might have thought that it excludes only oxen that resemble men, i.e. Mu'adim, but a Tam pays. "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches that this is not so.

Objection (Rava): How could one think that a Mu'ad is exempt and a Tam is liable?!

Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, one might have thought that R. Akiva's verse excludes oxen that resemble men, i.e. Mu'adim, and all the more so a Tam is exempt;

"The owner of the ox is clean" teaches that only a Tam is exempt, but a Mu'ad is liable.

Question (Abaye): If so, we should say the same about embarrassment!

We exclude (from paying for embarrassment) oxen that resemble men, i.e. Mu'adim, all the more so a Tam;

"The owner of the ox is clean" teaches that only a Tam is exempt, but a Mu'ad is liable!

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yosi ha'Glili holds this way!

Rejection: If so, R. Yosi ha'Glili should have expounded "the owner of the ox is clean" to exempt from paying for an aborted fetus and embarrassment!

Answer #3 (Abaye and Rava): When men fight, if the woman lives, they pay (for the fetus), and if she dies, they are exempt (from paying, since they are liable to death);

One might have thought that oxen are liable in either case. "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches that oxen are always exempt.

Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The exemption of men does not depend on a fatality, rather on intent! (Rashi - men are liable even if she dies, if they did not intend to kill her. Tosfos - Abaye and Rava exempt only oxen like men, i.e. that did not intend for her, but obligate an ox that intentionally gored her.)

Answer #4 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): When men fight, intending for each other, even if the woman dies, they pay (for the fetus). When they intend for her, they are exempt (if she dies);

One might have thought that oxen are liable in either case. "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches that (Tam) oxen are always exempt.

Rav Chagai taught a Beraisa supporting Rav Ada bar Ahavah.

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "The owner of the ox is clean" from the 30 Shekalim for killing a slave.

Question: R. Akiva should challenge himself like he challenged R. Eliezer (41b 3:a:1)! A Tam pays only from itself. Since we may not benefit from the damager, obviously it does not pay 30 Shekalim!

Answer #1 (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): The case is, the owner slaughtered it first.

One might have thought that the 30 Shekalim are paid from it. R. Akiva teaches that this is not so. Since it should be killed, even if it was slaughtered, we do not collect from it.

Question: If so, why did R. Akiva ask against R. Eliezer? There also, one might have thought that if it was slaughtered, we collect from it!

Answer: R. Akiva wanted to see if R. Eliezer had a better answer.

Question: Why didn't R. Eliezer give this answer?

Answer: When the ox killed without intent, it is not killed at all. One might have thought it pays Kofer. R. Eliezer teaches that this is not so.

Here, the ox should be killed. No verse is needed to exempt from Kofer, even if it was slaughtered.

Objection (and retraction of Answer #1: Surely, R. Akiva agrees to this!

Answer #2 (Rav Asi): Since R. Akiva holds that a Tam that gores a man pays full damage (less what the man damaged it), one might have thought it pays 30 Shekalim of a slave from the Aliyah, like a Mu'ad. "The owner of the ox is clean" teaches that this is not so.

Objection (R. Zeira - Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Like this law will be done to it" - a Tam pays only from its own value, not from the Aliyah!

Answer #3 (Rava): We need a verse to teach that a Tam does not pay for a slave, because the Torah was more stringent about a slave than about a free man (and pays from the Aliyah);

Kofer is only the person's value, but one pays 30 Shekalim even for a slave worth one Sela!

Support (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "The owner of the ox is clean" from paying for a slave.

Question: A Kal va'Chomer teaches this! One pays the full value of a free man, yet this is only for a Mu'ad. A Tam is exempt. One never pays more than 30 for a slave, all the more so a Tam is exempt!

Answer: The Torah was more stringent about a slave! For a free man, one pays only his value. One pays 30 Shekalim even for a slave worth one Sela! Therefore, the verse is needed.

(Beraisa - R. Akiva) Question: Why must it say "and it killed a man or woman"?

"If an ox will gore a man or woman" already obligates for a woman like for a man!

Answer: Rather, it equates a woman to a man: just like damage payments due to a man go to his heirs, also payments due to a woman go to her heirs.

Question: Does R. Akiva hold that a man doesn't inherit his wife?!

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "He will inherit her" teaches that a man inherits his wife.

Answer (Reish Lakish): Since Kofer is not paid in her lifetime, only after death, it is only Ra'uy (apt to come). A husband inherits only what was Muchzak (in her possession), not what was Ra'uy.

Question: Why is Kofer only paid only after death? (It should be paid once we anticipate that the victim will die!)

Answer: "And it killed a man or woman, the ox will be stoned (...Kofer will be placed)" - Kofer is only after stoning, which is after the victim dies.

Question: R. Akiva says so (that he does not inherit them) even about damages (that are paid in her lifetime)!

(Beraisa): If a man hit a woman, making her miscarry, he pays Nezek and pain to her, and compensation for the fetus to her husband;

If there is no husband (he died), his heirs receive his share. If she died, her heirs receive her share (of payments for Nezek and pain. Her husband does not inherit it!).

If she was a freed slave or a convert (and her husband is also, and they died without heirs), the damager is exempt.