1)

(a)

1. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Tana d'bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Korban Shevu'as ha'Pikadon by Gezel ha'Ger) "Ish O Ishah asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam" that a woman is equal to a man regarding all punishments (Lavin [Chayavei Malkus]) in the Torah.

2. d'bei Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk ... "v'Eleh ha'Mishpatim Asher Tasim Lifneihem" that they are equal to men regarding civil laws, too.

3. d'bei Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "v'Im Shor Nagach Hu ... v'Heimis Ish O Ishah" that one is Chayav Misah for killing a woman just as one is for killing a man.

(b)Having taught us that women are compared to men with regard to ...

1. ... punishments, we nevertheless need a second Pasuk to compare them with regard to civil laws because we would otherwise have thought that the comparison is confined to punishments, seeing as they, like men, require atonement.

2. ... civil laws, we nevertheless need the first Pasuk to compare them as regards punishments because we would otherwise have thought that it is confined to civil law, since had the Torah not included them in the Dinim, they would be shunned by the business world, and precluded from ever being able to buy or sell anything.

3. ... these two cases, we nevertheless need a third Pasuk to compare them as regard the death penalty because we would otherwise have thought that it is for killing a man who is Chayav all Mitzvos (including Torah-study) that one receives the death-sentence, but not for killing a woman.

4. ... the latter case, we nevertheless need the first two Pesukim because we would otherwise have thought that it is only in the last case that the Torah compares a woman to a man, because it has pity on the soul of the deceased woman, but not in other regards.

2)

(a)According to Rav Papa, Palga Nizka (Chatzi Nezek) is Mamon. Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua says that it is a Kenas (a penalty).

(b)The reason of ...

1. ... Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua is because oxen are generally considered guarded, and the owner cannot therefore be blamed for his ox's damage.

2. ... Rav Papa is because oxen are generally not considered guarded, and the owner is therefore obligated to guard it (in which case he is guilty if he fails to do so).

(c)The Torah obligates the Mazik to pay only half damages, according to ...

1. ... Rav Papa is because it has pity on him (presumably because his responsibility is constant, and it is impossible to assess when the animal is likely to get excited).

2. ... Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua is because even the half that he does pay is only a Kenas

(d)The Halachic ramifications of the Machlokes manifest themselves there where the Mazik admits that his animal did the damage, in which case based on the principle 'Modeh bi'Kenas Patur', he will be Patur according to Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua, but Chayav according to Rav Papa.

3)

(a)When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'ha'Nizak v'ha'Mazik b'Tashlumin', he means, according to ...

1. ... Rav Papa ('Palga Nizka Mamona') that the Nizak must literally share in the loss (since he really ought to receive full damage, yet he receives only half).

2. ... Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua ('Palga Nizka K'nasa') that he must accept the loss of 'P'chas Neveilah' (the depreciation of the carcass), because, as we learned above 'P'chas Neveilah d'Nizak'.

(b)In spite of having taught us that 'P'chas Neveilah d'Nizak' ...

1. ... in our Mishnah by a Shor Tam, the Tana nevertheless needs to have said it earlier by a Shor Mu'ad to teach us that even though the Mazik who allowed the ox to become a Mu'ad, it is still the Nizak who must bear the brunt of P'chas Neveilah.

2. ... earlier by a Shor Mu'ad, the Tana needs to repeat it here by a Shor Tam to teach us that even though the Mazik only pays half, we still place the onus of P'chas Neveilah on the Nizak.

(c)The Tana of the Mishnah (later) lists two differences between a Tam and a Mu'ad that a Tam pays half the damage from the body of the ox, whereas a Mu'ad pays full damage from his pocket.

4)

(a)According to Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua, the Tana not add to the list that whereas a Shor Tam does not pay on his own admission, a Shor Mu'ad does because he also omits the case of Chatzi Kofer.

(b)Chatzi Kofer is when a Shor Tam kills a person and the owner is Patur, even though he would have been Chayav if the ox had been a Mu'ad.

(c)We then go on to say that this is not really an omission, since the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who says 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'.

(d)We find it necessary to immediately retract from our original explanation to accommodate Rav Papa, according to whom a Shor Tam does pay on his own admission, in which case it is not an omission, and we would otherwise need to explain why the Tana omitted Chatzi Kofer.

5)

(a)The Beraisa states 'Heimis Shori Es Ploni O Shoro shel Ploni, Harei Zeh Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo'. Assuming that the Tana is referring to a Tam ...

1. ... the author of the first statement must be Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who holds 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'.

2. ... we will prove from the second statement that 'Palga Nizka Mamon' (like Rav Papa).

(b)What leads us to believe that the Tana is indeed speaking about a Shor Tam is the fact that instead of going on to differentiate between Mu'ad and Tam, he continues 'Heimis Shori Es Avdo shel Ploni, Ein Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo'.

(c)He is Patur in that case because, seeing as one pays a fixed amount (thirty Shekalim) for one's ox killing an Eved, it is a Kenas and 'Modeh bi'Kenas Patur'.

(d)We refute this explanation however by establishing the entire Beraisa by a Mu'ad, and it is because the Tana is not concerned with a Tam, that he prefers to go on to the case 'Heimis Shori Mu'ad Es Avdo shel Ploni' rather than that of a Shor Tam.

6)

(a)We can infer from the Beraisa 'Zeh ha'Klal, Kol ha'Meshalem Yoser Al Mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo' 'ha Pachos mi'Mah she'Hizik, Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo' (a Kashya on Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua).

(b)We refute the suggestion that the Tana really implies 'Ha K'mah she'Hizik, Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo' because then the Tana ought to have said 'Zeh ha'Klal, Kol she'Eino Meshalem K'mah she'Hizik' (incorporating both someone who pays more than the damage and someone who pays less).

(c)Nevertheless, we conclude 'Tiyuvta v'Hilchesa' because the Tana could not really have said what we just suggested, because of the case of 'Chatzi Nezek Tzeroros', where the Mazik pays by his own admission, in spite of the fact that he pays less than the full damage, even according to Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua (because, as we learned earlier, it is a 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai' that it is a Toldah of Regel and not Keren).

7)

(a)Based on 'Palga Nizka' K'nasa, if a dog ate a lamb, or a cat, a chicken the owner pays only half damages, because it, too is unusual, and is therefore a Toldah of Keren.

(b)These damages cannot be claimed in Bavel because all Dinim of Kenas require S'muchin, and there is no Semichah in Bavel.

(c)But if the Nizak seized the Mazik we allow him to retain it (see Tosfos DH 've'I Tafas').

(d)We qualify the previous Halachah by restricting it to a large lamb and a large chicken respectively; but should the dog eat a small lamb or the cat, a small chicken, they must pay in full, because it is then considered normal, in which case it is Shen, and not Keren.

8)

(a)If, in the previous case, the Nizak asks for a Din Torah in Eretz Yisrael the Mazik is obligated to go (together with the rogue animal), and what's more, should he fail to comply, Beis-Din place a Niduy on him.

(b)Rebbi Nasan extrapolates from the Pasuk "Lo Sasim Damim b'Veisecha" that one is forbidden to raise a dangerous dog or place a rickety ladder in one's house.

(c)And as long as the Mazik fails to carry this out we place a Niduy on him (to force him to remedy the situation).

9)

(a)Our Mishnah lists five Tamin and five Mu'adin. The five Tamin are Negichah (goring), Negifah (pushing), Neshichah (biting), Revitzah (crouching) and Be'itah (kicking).

(b)Shen is Mu'ad to eat what is fitting for it, and Regel to break as it walks along. The third Mu'ad is Shor ha'Mu'ad. The fourth is a Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak (as will be explained in the Sugya), who pays full damage even though it did not gore three times.

(c)The fifth Mu'ad is Adam ha'Mazik.

(d)Despite the fact that the Tana lists Keren and its four Toldos as five Tamin, he lists them as only one once they become Mu'adin because they all become Mu'ad in the same way (through witnesses and warning).

10)

(a)The Tana Kama states that wild beasts (such as wolves, lions, bears, leopards and panthers) that are privately owned, are considered Mu'ad from the start. According to Rebbi Elazar once they are trained, they become Tamin.

(b)Rebbi Elazar concedes however that a snake is always a Mu'ad.

11)

(a)We ...

1. ... extrapolate from our Mishnah 'ha'Shen Mu'edes Le'echol ... ' that the Tana must be speaking in the domain of the Nizak.

2. ... can therefore learn from the following statement 'Beheimah Einah Mu'edes (Leshalem Kuleih)' that Shor Tam pays half damages even in the Reshus ha'Nizak.

(b)Having just proved that the Tana is speaking in the Reshus ha'Nizak, the author of this statement is the Rabanan of Rebbi Tarfon.

12)

(a)The author of the statement 've'Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak' is Rebbi Tarfon (who holds that Keren in the Reshus of the Nizak pays full damages.

(b)We reconcile the discrepancy in the Mishnah by establishing the Reisha like the Rabanan, and the Seifa, like Rebbi Tarfon, as we learned earlier from Shmuel.