Answer #1 (Rava citing Rabanan): The Beraisa is like Shimon ha'Teimani, who said 'just like the judges and witnesses can see his fist...' This implies that Beis Din must evaluate the item used to damage;

Once Beis Din sentences the ox to be stoned, we do not delay to evaluate whether or not it was apt to cause the damage.

Answer #2 (Rava): The Beraisa is even like R. Akiva. The case is, the owner fled (and we cannot obligate a man who is not here).

Question: If he fled, even if they didn't judge the ox to stone it, we cannot judge the damage!

Answer: The case is, the owner fled after testimony was accepted.

Question: If the owner is not here, who will pay?

Answer: The victim will rent out the ox for plowing.

Question: If so, even regarding a Tam, we should first judge it to pay the damage through plowing, then judge it to stone it!

Answer (Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana): This shows that money that can be earned through plowing is not considered part of the ox (a Tam pays only up to the value of the animal.)

Question: Must we evaluate for damage (whether the damaging object was apt to cause the damage)?

Perhaps we evaluate only by killing, for not everything can kill, but anything can (do some) damage;

Or, also for damage, we must evaluate the object.

Answer #1 (Mishnah): The Torah discusses a (standard) pit to teach that just like a pit is 10 Tefachim deep, which can kill, in all cases (pits of other shapes) one is liable for 10 Tefachim.

If an animal fell in a pit less than 10 Tefachim, if it died he is exempt. If it was hurt, he is liable.

Suggestion: The Mishnah considers from below (from shallow to deep), a pit between one Tefach and (but not including) 10 Tefachim is liable for damage, not for death;

This shows that any size can damage. No evaluation is needed!

Rejection: No, the Mishnah considers from above (from deep to shallow). A pit of 10 Tefachim can kill. Slightly less than 10 Tefachim can damage, but cannot kill;

For damage, we must evaluate whether the object was apt to damage the injured party.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): If a man hit his slave on the eye and blinded him, or on the ear and deafened him, the slave goes free;

If he hit him near the eye and now the slave cannot see, or near the ear and now the slave cannot hear, the slave does not go free.

Question: What is the reason?

Suggestion: We say that the blow was not enough to blind or deafen him, because damages need evaluation.

Rejection (and Answer to Question 2) : No, we say that the slave blinded or deafened himself from fright.

(Beraisa): If one frightens someone, Beis Din does not make him pay, but he is liable b'Yedei Shamayim;

If he was Toke'a in his ear and deafened him, he is exempt;

If he was holding him when he was Toke'a, he is liable.

Answer #3 (Beraisa): For five payments we evaluate and make the damager pay immediately. For Refu'ah and Sheves, we estimate how much they will be until the victim recovers;

If he did not recover as quickly as expected, he only gets the amount of the evaluation;

If recovered sooner than expected, he gets the entire evaluation.

This teaches that we evaluate for damages!

Rejection: We knew that we estimate how long he will be bedridden. The question was whether or not we must evaluate if the object used to damage was apt fitting to damage.

Answer #4 (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 teaches that we evaluate for damages.

(Beraisa): If recovered sooner than expected, he gets the entire evaluation.

This supports Rava.

(Rava): If we estimated that a man will be bedridden the entire day, and he recovered in the middle of the day and was able to work, this was Hash-m's kindness upon him. He receives Sheves for the entire day.

(Mishnah): If Levi spat at David, and the spit reached him...

(Rav Papa): This is only if the spit landed on him. If it landed on his clothing, Levi is exempt.

Question: Even if it lands on his clothing, this is no less than verbal embarrassment!

Answer (R. Yosi bar Avin): Our Mishnah teaches that one is exempt for verbal embarrassment.

(Mishnah): The payment is according to his prestige.

Question: Does the first Tana teach a leniency or a stringency?

If he teaches a leniency, less distinguished people receive less than 400;

If he teaches a stringency, more distinguished people receive more than 400.

Answer (Mishnah - R. Akiva): 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.

This implies that the first Tana teaches a leniency.

(Mishnah): A case occurred in which a man uncovered a woman's head... (R. Akiva agreed to give him time to pay.)

Question: R. Chanina taught that if one damaged someone, we do not give him to time to pay!

Answer: That refers to damage that causes monetary loss. Embarrassment causes no loss.

(Mishnah): The man waited for her... (R. Akiva told him... 'one may not injure himself...')

Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Akiva): You toiled for naught. One may injure himself.

Answer #1 (Rava): One may not bodily injure himself, but he may embarrass himself.

Question: The Mishnah discusses embarrassment, and R. Akiva said that one may not injure himself!

Answer: He told the man as follows. Not only regarding embarrassment, in which Reuven may embarrass himself, (even if Reuven does so) if Shimon embarrasses him he is liable;

Even regarding bodily damage, in which Reuven may not damage himself, (even if Reuven damages himself and shows that he does not care,) if Shimon damages him, he is liable.

Question: One may damage himself!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one who swore to harm himself and did not do so is exempt!

Rejection: "(If one swore) to harm or to benefit..." - just like the benefit discussed is optional (not a Mitzvah), also the harm. This includes one who swore to harm himself (he is liable if he does not do so).

Answer #1 (Shmuel): The Beraisa discusses an oath to fast.

Question: The Beraisa (Shevu'os 27b) also discusses harming others. Can one make others fast?!

Answer: Yes, he locks them in a room without food!

Objection (Beraisa): The oath to harm others is 'I will hit Ploni' or 'I will bruise his brain.'

Answer #2 (to Questions (b) and (g)): Tana'im argue about this. (Each Tana holds that R. Akiva agrees with him.)

Question: Which Tana forbids one to damage himself?

Answer #1 (Beraisa - R. Elazar): "The blood of your souls I will demand" - I will demand of your souls, your blood (that you yourselves spilled).

Rejection: Perhaps only suicide is forbidden, but not wounding oneself.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): We tear clothing out of grief over a death. This is not forbidden due to 'Darkei ha'Emori (following Nochri practices)';

R. Elazar says, one who tears too much transgresses 'Bal Tashchis (wastefully destroying)'.

All the more so, R. Elazar holds that one who damages his body transgresses!

Rejection: Perhaps damaging one's body is less severe, for the damage can heal, unlike tearing clothing.

R. Yochanan would call his garments 'what honors me.'

When Rav Chisda would walk among thorns, he would lift his garment, because damage to the body heals, but damage to clothes does not heal.

Answer #3 (Beraisa - R. Eliezer Hakapar b'Ribi) Question: "V'Chiper Alav me'Asher Chata Al ha'Nefesh" - against (or regarding) which soul did he sin?

Answer: He pained his own soul by denying himself wine.

One who denies himself wine is called a sinner. All the more so, one who (fasts and) denies himself all food sins!

(Mishnah): One who cuts his young trees...

(Rabah bar bar Chanah - Beraisa): If Reuven claimed against Shimon 'you killed my ox' (or) 'you cut my young trees', and Shimon answered 'you told me to do so', he is exempt.

Objection (Rav): A damager cannot exempt himself by saying this!

Rabah bar bar Chanah: There is a mistake in the text. I will no longer recite the Beraisa.

Rav: The text is correct. The Beraisa discusses an ox that must be killed or a tree that must be cut.

Question: If so, what was Reuven's claim?

Answer: He wanted to do the Mitzvah himself.

(Beraisa): "He will spill (the blood of a wild animal or bird) and cover" - the one who slaughters covers;

R. Gamliel once obligated a man to pay 10 gold coins for covering the blood of what another man had slaughtered.

(Rav): One may not cut a date tree that bears a Kav of dates.

Question (Beraisa): An olive tree that bears a quarter Kav of olives may not be cut.

Answer: The amount for olive trees is smaller, for olives are more important than dates.

R. Chanina: My son died only because he cut a fig tree prematurely.

(Ravina): If the wood is worth more than the fruit, one may cut it.

Support (Beraisa): "Only a tree that you know" refers to a fruit-bearing tree (you may cut it when besieging a city). "That it is not a fruit tree" refers to a barren tree.

Question: If we may cut even fruit-bearing trees, why does the verse allude to a barren tree?

Answer: We may cut fruit trees only if there are no barren trees there.

Suggestion: Perhaps one may not cut a tree even if its wood is worth more than its fruit (if barren trees are around)!

Rejection: "Only" excludes this.