1)

(a)We just cites the Beraisa that, if Beis-Din inadvertently dealt with the case of Misah and sentenced the Mu'ad ox to death, they will not open the case of damages at all. The Rabanan de'bei Rav establish this like Rebbi Shimon ha'Timni who requires the weapon [or the animal that killed] to be assessed in Beis-Din. On the other hand, having ruled that the animal is Chayav Misah, we will apply the principle of 'Inuy ha'Din' (that it is forbidden to refrain from carrying out the death-sentence overnight).

(b)Rabah disagrees. According to him, the Tana might even hold like Rebbi Akiva (who does not require the weapon or the animal that killed to be assessed). Nevertheless, Beis-Din do not judge the animal in order to pay damages because we are speaking in a case where the owner ran away, and we cannot sentence the ox in his absence.

(c)And the reason that the ox is nevertheless sentenced to death for the first goring is because the owner only ran away after the first witnesses had already been accepted.

2)

(a)We ask that, seeing as the Mu'ad will be sentenced to death for the first goring (and Asur be'Hana'ah), what would be the point of judging it for damages first. There is no question of judging it for damages which we would then claim from the Mazik's property because the Tana is speaking in a case where the Mazik has no property with which to pay.

(b)The point of judging it for damages first would be to rent it out for plowing, until it has earned enough to pay for the damages, and then to open the proceedings for the first goring.

(c)In that case, we ask, why do we not also judge the Tam first for damages, in order to pay the Nizak from the income of the plowing before judging it for the first goring, to which Rav Mari Brei de'Rav Kahana replies that the proceeds of the plowing is considered min ha'Aliyah, and a Tam only pays mi'Gufo.

3)

(a)We ask whether we assess for damages like we assess for Misah. We are considering assessing the object that caused the damage.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Masei "be'Even Yad asher Yamus Bah" that the murder-weapon must be assessed.

(c)We try to resolve our She'eilah from the Beraisa which, after giving the Shiur for a Bor of Misah as ten Tefachim, adds 'Hayu Pechusin me'Asarah Tefachim, ve'Nafal le'Tocho Shor O Chamor ... Huzak Bo, Chayav' by explaining 'Pachos me'Asarah Tefachim' to mean anything from one Tefach to ten Tefachim (in which case it is evident that no assessment is necessary).

(d)We refute this proof however, by explaining 'Pechusin me'Asarah Tefachim' to mean from ten Tefachim and downwards, which implies that a pit does not need to be ten Tefachim when it comes to Nizakin, but that it nevertheless requires assessment.

4)

(a)We try to resolve our She'eilah from the Beraisa which absolves someone who strikes the wall next to his Eved and deafens or blinds him from having to set him free because, we think, such a stroke is insufficient to make him deaf and it must have been the weakness of the Eved that caused him to go deaf or blind (a clear proof that a stroke requires assessment).

(b)We refute this proof however, on the basis that even if any stroke will suffice to make him deaf or blind, the master will be Patur from freeing his Eved because, seeing as he did not even touch the Eved, it is clear that it is the Eved's nervousness that is partly to blame for the wound.

(c)And we prove this from another Beraisa, which rules that someone who makes his friend deaf by blowing in his ear is Patur be'Dinei Adam, but Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim (which he would not be if the stroke would be inadequate to make him deaf).

(d)He will even be Chayav be'Dinei Adam if he grabbed him before blowing, because then it is his act that caused the deafness, rather than the nervousness of the Nizak.

5)

(a)Another Beraisa explains how all five things require assessment. Beis-Din assess Ripuy and Sheves for the entire period that they expect the Nizak to be bed-ridden, and the Mazik is obligated to pay up front.

(b)The Tana rules that if they assessed the Nizak up to a certain date with regard to Ripuy and Sheves ...

1. ... but he took longer to heal than expected the Mazik pays the initial amount (and no more).

2. ... and he healed quicker than expected the Mazik still pays the initial amount (and the Nizak's gain is his good fortune).

(c)We cannot resolve our She'eilah from there (that damages require assessment, too) because the Beraisa is talking about assessing the wound, whereas the She'eilah concerns the weapon.

(d)We finally resolve the She'eilah from Shimon ha'Timni who specifically learns from "Egrof" (fist) that the weapon needs to be assessed by both the witnesses and the Beis-Din ('just as a fist is assessable ... ' [and even Rebbi Akiva agrees that the witnesses at least, need to assess it]).

6)

(a)The Beraisa that we just learned, which obligates the Mazik to pay the full assessment of Ripuy and Sheves even if the Nizak healed quicker than expected, supports Rava, who says that if they assessed a wounded man Ripuy and Sheves for one day, and he healed in half a day the Mazik must nevertheless pay for the full day.

(b)We learned in our Mishnah that one is Chayav to pay Boshes for spitting at someone if the spit reaches him. Rav Papa qualifies the Halachah by establishing it specifically when the spit falls on his body, but not if it falls on his clothes.

(c)Spitting on his clothes is indeed no different than embarrassing him by calling him names for which one is not Chayav either.

7)

(a)With regard to the amounts fixed by the Tana in our Mishnah, the Tana Kama states 'Zeh ha'K'lal, ha'Kol L'fi Kevodo' which means either le'Kula (that the amounts pertain to a Nizak who is wealthy, but that when he is poor, the Mazik pays less) or le'Chumra (that the Tana refers to a Nizak who is poor, but that if he is rich, he pays more).

(b)We resolve the quandary from Rebbi Akiva ('Afilu Aniyim she'be'Yisrael ... ') which implies a Chumra, that the Tana Kama must go le'Kula ...

(c)... because if the Tana Kama was referring to the poorest of the poor, 'ha'Kol L'fi Kevodo' was coming to be Machmir, and Rebbi Akiva was merely corroborating the Tana Kama's statement, then he should have obligated the culprit in our Mishnah to pay more than four hundred Zuz.

(d)We resolve Rebbi Chanina, who does not allow any extension of time for damages, with Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah, who gave the culprit time when he asked for it by establishing Rebbi Chanina by actual damage, which causes the Nizak a loss of pocket, and Rebbi Akiva by Boshes, which does not.

8)

(a)When Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa, said to the culprit in our Mishnah 'You dived into deep waters and brought up some clay'! he meant that his efforts to prove that the woman had no self-respect anyway, were all in vain (as we explained in the Mishnah).

(b)The problem with the Beraisa, which continues 'Adam Rashai Le'chabel be'Atzmo ... ' is that it clashes with our Mishnah which specifically writes 'af-al-Pi she'Eino Rashai'.

(c)Rava draws a distinction between Chavalah on oneself, which is forbidden and Boshes, which is permitted.

(d)And when our Mishnah, with reference to Boshes, states 'af-al-Pi she'Eino Rashai ... ', what the Tana means is 'it goes without saying that one is Chayav Boshes (even where the Nisbayesh did it to himself too) , which a person is permitted to do to himself, but one is even Chayav for Chavalah, which he is not.

9)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with bringing a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for making a false oath) "Lehara O Leheitiv" that just as "Leheitiv" refers to something that is permitted, so to does "Lehara" ...

(b)... which appears to prove that one is permitted to wound oneself .

(c)Shmuel refutes the proof by establishing "Le'hara" by someone who swore to fast.

(d)The Beraisa declares void a similar Shevu'ah to do harm to others, which Shmuel will explain to mean that he swears to lock him in a room without food.

10)

(a)We reject Shmuel's interpretation of the Beraisa however, on the basis of another Beraisa, which specifically describes 'Hara'as Acherim' as 'striking so-and-so and splitting his brains'.

(b)And to reconcile this Beraisa (as well as the Beraisa where Rebbi Akiva himself permits wounding oneself) with Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah, which forbids wounding oneself we will have to turn it into a Machlokes Tana'im as to what Rebbi Akiva holds.

(c)Rebbi Elazar ...

1. ... interprets the Pasuk in No'ach "ve'Ach es Dimchem le'Nafshosechem Edrosh mi'Yad ... " to mean that Hash-m will punish anyone who commits suicide (as if the Torah had written 'mi'Yad Nafshosechem Edrosh es Dimchem').

2. ... argues with the Tana Kama of the Beraisa who permits tearing one's clothes over a dead person (for whom one is not obligated to tear Keriy'ah) inasmuch as he holds that someone who does so has transgressed the La'av of bal Tashchis.

(d)We cannot equate the Tana in our Mishnah, who quotes Rebbi Akiva as saying that one is forbidden to wound oneself ...

1. ... with Rebbi Elazar in the first Beraisa because death is obviously worse than merely wounding oneself.

2. ... with Rebbi Elazar in the second Beraisa because tearing clothes falls under the category of 'bal Tashchis', whereas a temporary wound does not.

11)

(a)In support of the previous distinction between one's body and one's clothes ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan tended to call his clothes 'Mechabdusai' (the ones that honor me).

2. ... Rav Chisda, when walking through brambles used to raise the hem of his cloak, because, he argued, the scratches on his body would heal, whereas his torn clothes would not.

(b)We finally establish our Mishnah (which quotes Rebbi Akiva as saying that one is forbidden to wound oneself) like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who explains the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with a Nazir who became Tamei Meis) "ve'Chiper Alav me'Asher Chata al ha'Nefesh" to mean that the Nazir requires an atonement for having abstained from wine ...

(c)... how much more so does someone who wounds oneself or even fasts.

12)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav. The Tana there states that if Shimon admits to having killed his ox or cut down Reuven's trees, but claims that Reuven instructed him to do so he is believed.

(b)This ruling cannot apply across the board because how can one believe such a preposterous claim.

(c)The Tana must therefore be speaking about an ox that was anyway destined to be killed (i.e. it had gored a person to death) and a tree that was destined to be cut down (because it had either been worshipped, or it was overhanging into the street and was threatening to fall and cause serious damage).

(d)Reuven's claim against Shimon is that he wanted to be the one to perform the Mitzvah of cutting it down.

(e)Shimon is nevertheless believed because people are not normally fussy about such minor benefits. Consequently, it seems likely that Shimon is telling the truth, and that Reuven simply forgot that he asked Shimon to do it.

13)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'Shafach ve'Chisah" that the person who Shechts a bird or a deer is obligated to perform the Mitzvah of covering the blood.

(b)When Reuven Shechted a bird or a deer, and Shimon promptly covered the blood without Reuven's consent Rebbi obligated Shimon to pay Reuven ten golden Zuzim (for the lost B'rachah [see Tosfos DH 've'Chiyvo').

(c)Rav said that once a date-palm produces a Kav (a hundred and forty four egg-volumes) of dates annually it is forbidden to cut it down (because of bal Tashchis).

(d)For an olive-tree to be subject to the Isur of bal Tashchis it needs to produce only a quarter of a Kav ...

(e)... because in the time of Chazal, olives were more valuable than dates.

14)

(a)Rebbi Chanina's son Shichvas, died young because he cut down a fruit-producing tree.

(b)Ravina permits cutting down a fruit-tree as long as the value of the wood (for building, for example) exceeds that of the fruit.

(c)And we support his ruling from a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk in Shoftim ...

1. ... "Rak Eitz asher Teida ... " that if the nearest tree to the besieged city is a fruit-tree, then one may cut it down.

2. ... " ... ki Lo Eitz Ma'achal Hu" that if the nearest tree is a non-fruit-bearing tree, then one may cut it down.

(d)Even though the Torah has permitted cutting down even a fruit-tree, it nevertheless needs to include a non-fruit-bearing tree to teach us that if it is a question of choosing between one of the two, one must first cut down the non-fruit-bearing tree.

15)

(a)The Tana learns from the word "Rak Eitz Asher Teida ... " that if the non-fruit-bearing tree is more valuable for its wood than the fruit-tree, then one cuts down the fruit-tree.

(b)Shmuel ordered his resident-gardener to cut down date-palms because, the dates tasted of wine, and when the gardener informed him that they were growing among the vines, he realized that they were sapping the strength from the vines (and had to go).

(c)When he said to him 'Aysi Li Mekorayhu', he was instructing him to bring him either the roots or the soft part of the vine that grows around its roots and is edible (though either way, he meant that he should remove the palms with the roots).

(d)When Rav Chisda noticed small date-palms growing among the vines, he instructed his resident-gardener to cut them down, rather than the vines because one could sell the wine, and purchase date-palms with the proceeds, but not vice-versa (since dates are very cheap).