Suggestion: Tana #1 holds like Rava, and Tana #2 argues with Rava!

Rejection: Both Tana'im hold like Rava. Tana #2 holds that Chachamim strengthened a husband's lien on his wife's property (therefore, freedom does not uproot his lien).

Rejection #3: Neither Tana holds that there was an enactment. They argue about whether or not Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf, like the following Tana'im argue:

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven sold his slave Tavi to Shimon, and stipulated that Tavi will still serve Reuven for 30 days, (for those 30 days,) since Tavi is with Reuven, Reuven is considered his owner regarding the law of 24 hours. (A master is killed for striking his slave only if the slave died within 24 hours of the blow.)

R. Meir holds that Kinyan Peros (his labor) is like Kinyan ha'Guf.

R. Yehudah says, Shimon is considered the owner regarding the law of 24 hours, since he owns him.

He holds that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf.

R. Yosi says, both are considered owners regarding the law of 24 hours. Reuven is like an owner, because Tavi is with him, and Shimon is an owner, for Tavi is Shimon's property.

He is unsure whether or not Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf. Since there is a doubt, we cannot kill either (if the slave lived 24 hours).

R. Eliezer says, neither is considered an owner for the law of 24 hours. Shimon is not, for Tavi is not with Shimon, and Reuven is not, because Tavi is not Reuven's property.

(Rava): R. Eliezer learns from "for he (the slave) is his money" - his exclusive money.

Question: Like whom is the following teaching?

(Ameimar): If a man and his wife sold her Melug property, the sale is void.

Answer: It is like R. Eliezer (neither is considered the full owner).

Question: Like whom is the following Beraisa?

(Beraisa): A half-slave, or a slave of partners, does not go free for loss of a limb.

Answer (Rav Mordechai citing Rava): It is according to R. Eliezer;

Just like he expounds (regarding the law of 24 hours) "for he is his money" - his exclusive money, he also expounds (regarding freedom for loss of a limb) "his slave" - he belongs only to him.

(Mishnah): If one was Toke'a a man (hit him near the ear; alternatively he blew a Shofar in his ear), he pays one Sela;

R. Yosi ha'Glili says, he pays a Maneh (this will be explained).

One who slaps a man on the jaw pays 200 Zuz. If he slapped with the back of the hand, he pays 400.

If he tugged on his ear, pulled his hair, spat at him (and the spit landed on him), took his cloak off, or uncovered a woman's head in the market, he pays 400.

The rule is, the payment is according to his prestige.

R. Akiva says, we view even the poorest Bnei Yisrael as if they were rich people who lost their money, for they descend from Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov;

A case occurred in which a man uncovered a woman's head in the market. R. Akiva obligated him to pay 400 Zuz. R. Akiva agreed to give the man time to pay.

The man waited for her, and saw her by the entrance to her Chatzer. He broke a small flask of oil in front of her. She uncovered her hair to dab the oil into her hair. The man had witnesses see this.

The man: Why should I pay her 400 Zuz? (She uncovered her hair just to take advantage of a paltry amount of oil!)

R. Akiva: That is no claim. One may not injure himself, but if he does, he is exempt. Others may not injure him, if they do, they are liable.

One may not cut down one's trees. If he does so, he is exempt. If others do this, they are liable.

(Gemara) Question: Is the Maneh of the Mishnah Tzuri (pure silver, 100 Zuz), or common money (worth an eighth as much, for seven eighths is copper)?

Answer: A case occurred in which Levi was Toke'a David. Levi came in front of R. Yehudah Nesi'ah:

R. Yehudah Nesi'ah: There is me, and there is R. Yosi ha'Glili. You must pay a Maneh Tzuri. (This shows that the Mishnah refers to a Maneh Tzuri.)

Question: What is the meaning of 'there is me, and there is R. Yosi ha'Glili'?

Answer #1: It means 'I saw you be Toke'a, and R. Yosi ha'Glili obligates a Maneh Tzuri.'

Question: This implies that a witness can judge the case. We learned differently!

(Beraisa - Rebbi Tarfon): If the Sanhedrin saw a murder, some members testify on this in front of other members (who judge the case);

R. Akiva says, they are all witnesses, and a witness cannot judge the case.

Even Rebbi Tarfon permits only that some testify and others judge. He agrees that one who testifies cannot judge that case!

Answer: The Beraisa a Sanhedrin that saw a murder at night, for they cannot judge at night. (However, a judge can judge based on what he sees during the day!)

Answer #2 (to Question (j)): His words meant 'I hold like R. Yosi ha'Glili, who obligates a Maneh Tzuri, and witnesses testified against you, so you must pay a Maneh Tzuri.'

Question: Does R. Akiva really hold that a witness cannot be a judge?

(Beraisa - Shimon ha'Teimani): "When a man will hit his fellow man with a rock or his fist" - just like the judges and witnesses can see his fist (and gauge whether or not it is apt to cause the damage that resulted), they must see anything used to hit;

This excludes when only the witnesses saw the object he hit him with (it was lost before the trial).

R. Akiva: (Even if Beis Din sees the rock,) did he hit him in front of Beis Din, and they saw how many times he hit him, and which limb he hit, the thigh or over the heart?! If he pushed him off a roof, must Beis Din go see the roof, or must we bring the house to Beis Din?! If the house fell, must we rebuild it?!

Rather, the verse teaches that just like the witnesses can see his fist, they must see anything used to hit. This excludes witnesses who never saw the rock with which he hit him.

Summation of question: R. Akiva said 'did he hit him in front of Beis Din...?' This implies that had he hit him in front of Beis Din, even though Beis Din (saw and) are witnesses, they may judge the case!

Answer: R. Akiva holds that they may not judge. He addressed Shimon ha'Teimani, who holds that they may judge.

(Beraisa): If a Tam ox killed and damaged, we judge it to stone it, but not to pay the damage;

If a Mu'ad ox killed and damaged, first we judge it to pay the damage, then we judge it to stone it;

If first they judged it to stone it, they do not then judge it to pay the damage.

Question: Even if they first judged it to stone it, they should then judge it to pay the damage