Answer (Rabah and Rav Nachman): That Beraisa discusses a divorcee.

Question: If she is a divorcee, she should get the payment for the fetus! (Rosh - 'Tiflog' is not precise. Rashba prefers texts that say 'Tishkol' in place of 'Tiflog'.)

Answer (Rav Papa): The Torah said that the father gets it, even if she was never married to him.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "like Ba'al ha'Ishah will place upon him " (we expound this as if it said Bo'el, the one who had Bi'ah with her.)

Question: Why did Rabah and Rav Nachman establish the Beraisa to discuss a divorcee? Each of them could have explained it even if she was not divorced!

(Rabah): A firstborn gets an extra share in land given to pay a loan that was owed to his father, but not if it was paid in money. (It is as if the land was Muchzak to be his father's, for he had a lien on it. The money was only Ra'uy. Likewise, a husband would not receive money paid for Kofer for his wife, for it is only Ra'uy.)

(Rav Nachman): A firstborn gets an extra share in money given to pay a loan that was owed to his father, but not if it was paid in land. (When he gets back money, like he lent, it is as if it was Muchzak to be his father's. Land was only Ra'uy to come. Likewise, a husband would not receive land paid for Kofer for his wife, for it is only Ra'uy.)

Answer: These teachings are like Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, according to Chachamim. Above (a) they explain like Rebbi (who says that a firstborn gets an extra share of a loan, whether it was paid in land or money).

(Reish Lakish): One does not pay if his ox killed a slave unintentionally - "he will give 30 Shekalim, and the ox will be stoned." The owner pays only when the ox is stoned.

(Rabah): One does not pay if his ox killed a free man unintentionally - "the ox will be stoned, and also the owner will die. If Kofer will be put upon him... " - the owner pays only when the ox is stoned.

Question (Abaye - Mishnah): If a man said 'my ox killed Ploni or Ploni's ox', he pays due to his own admission.

Suggestion: He pays Kofer (even though his ox is not stoned due to his admission)!

Answer: No, he pays (like) money (normal damages), not Kofer.

Question (Reisha): If he said 'my ox killed Ploni's slave', he does not pay due to his own admission!

Why shouldn't he pay as money?

Rabah: I could tell you that the Reisha discusses paying money, and the Seifa discusses the fine, but that it is a poor answer.

Answer (Rabah): Both discuss money;

Regarding a free man, he (sometimes) pays Kofer through his own admission (this will be explained) so when there are no witnesses, he pays money;

Regarding a slave, he (never) pays a fine through his own admission (like we will explain), so when there are no witnesses, he does not pay money.

One pays Kofer through his own admission, for example, if witnesses testify to the goring, but they did not know if the ox was Mu'ad, and the owner says that it was Mu'ad.

One does not pay the fine for a slave through his own admission, (even) if witnesses testify to the goring, but they did not know if the ox was Mu'ad, and the owner says that it was Mu'ad.

Question (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak - Beraisa): Anything liable for (killing) a free man is liable for a slave. This applies to Kofer, and killing the ox.

Question: Kofer does not apply to slaves!

Answer: Rather, it refers to money (their value).

Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak or Rabah): The Beraisa means that any case that pays Kofer for a free man, i.e. with intent according to witnesses, pays the fine for a slave;

Cases that pay money for a free man, e.g. without intent according to witnesses, pay money for a slave.

Question (Rava): If so, one should pay money when one killed through fire b'Shogeg according to witnesses!

Question: How does Rava know that one does not?

Suggestion (Mishnah): If Reuven lit a stack of grain and there was a goat tied to it and a slave nearby, and they were burned, Reuven is liable. If there was a slave tied to it and a goat nearby, and they were burned, Reuven is exempt (even if he is not Chayav Misah for killing the slave).

Rejection: Reish Lakish said, the case is that he directly burned the slave. He is exempt because he is liable to death!

Answer #1 (Beraisa): Stringencies of a fire over a pit... fire is liable even for things unfitting for it to consume.

It does not say that a fire pays money without intent, but a pit does not.'

Rejection: Perhaps the Tana omitted some stringencies.

Answer #2: Rava himself did not know whether one pays money for fire without intent according to witnesses;

Do we say that an ox pays Kofer with intent, so it pays money without intent, but fire does not pay Kofer with intent, so it does not pay money without intent?

Or, do we say that just like an ox pays money without intent, also fire, even though an ox pays Kofer with intent and fire does not?

This question is unresolved.

(Rav Dimi, citing R. Yochanan): "If Kofer will be set on him" includes Kofer without intent like with intent.

Question (Abaye): If so, you should also learn from "if a slave" that one pays the fine for a slave without intent as with intent!

Suggestion: Perhaps that is the law!

Rejection: Reish Lakish taught that an ox that unintentionally killed a slave is exempt from 30 Shekalim.

Answer: (That is the law.) Rav Dimi argues with Reish Lakish.

(Ravin, citing R. Yochanan): "If a slave" teaches that one pays the fine for a slave without intent as with intent.

Suggestion: Since Reish Lakish does not expound "if a slave" like R. Yochanan, he also argues about Kofer!

Rejection: No, he agrees about "if Kofer".

Question: What is the difference?

Answer: "If Kofer" is written regarding the payment. "If a slave" is not.