Support: This is also implied in the Mishnah later (on Daf 9:), when it says 'Property which is not subject to Me'ilah', with reference to all the Avos, even to Nizkei Adam, according to the opinion that 'Mav'eh' means Adam (above, Daf 3:).

Implied Question: And when Shmuel says in Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 99:) "Ki Yochal", 'to preclude someone who damages (Kodshim)', from payment o the extra fifth, implying that he is obligated to pay the principle?

Answer: ... that speaks mi'de'Rabbanan.

Conclusion: Presumably, we learn the P'tur of all other Nezikin from Keren, Adam and Bor, which the Torah exempts from Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, how much more so Hekdesh.

Question: How can one learn 'Shein' from all of them, seeing as 'Shein' derives pleasure from the damage it does?

Answer: There is more reason to hold liable Adam who damages with his hands than one who damages via his animal (pleasure notwithstanding).

Question: Why does the Torah need to write "Re'eihu"?

Question (cont.): ... seeing as we already learn it from "Ki Yochal", as we learned in Maseches Me'ilah (Daf 19.), where the Gemara compares Hekdesh to Terumah, in that just as by Terumah, the Torah writes "Ki Yochal" to preclude someone who damages it, so too, by Hekdesh, does it preclude whatever is edible, from damages ...

Question (concl.): ... and 'edible goods' is La'av Davka, as the Gemara explains there.

Answer: If we did not have a specific Limud to preclude Hekdesh from damages, we would only learn "Ki Yochal", 'to preclude someone who damages it' with regard to paying the extra fifth (but not the principal).

Implied Question: ... And even though "Ki Yochal" is written by Terumah, where the Mazik is liable to pay Keren, since it is the property of the Kohen?

Implied Question (cont.): ... we nevertheless learn it, not from the Pasuk of :Ki Yochal", but from a different Pasuk, that it is comparable to someone who steals an object from his friend and damages it.

Implied Question: According to the opinion later (on Daf 26.) however, that Regel is subject to Kofer, we cannot learn Regel from the above cases ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... because whereas Bor, Keren and Adam do not pay Kofer the first time ... '

Answer: But according 'to Rebbi Tarfon, who holds that (in the case of Keren) Tam pays Kofer, it is in order.

Question: When the Gemara earlier (on Daf 5.) establishes 'Eidim Zom'min' like Rebbi Akiva, why did it not ask 'In that case, let it mention two kinds of Shor, a Shor that damages Hedyot and a Shor that damages Hekdesh?'?

Answer: Because the Beraisa does not contend with Hekdesh.

Question: Even if he does hold like Rebbi Shimon (ben Menasyah), why does it not ask 'Whereas Hedyot is superior in the case of Nizkei Adam ... '?'

Answer: According to Tosfos' explanation (in the previous Dibur) that we only Darshen "Ki Yochal", to preclude a Mazik from paying anything because the Torah writes "Re'eihu", the question is answered.

Question: But why does it not ask that it is superior with regard to Nizkei Bor?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - since 'u'min ha'Idis' that Rebbi Akiva mentions, refers to the Nizak and comes to be lenient, since it allows the Mazik to pay from his Ziburis, what does 'Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh' mean - it is a disadvantage?

Question #1: This is not a disadvantage, but a Chumra, seeing as Rebbi Yishmael exempts someone who damages Hekdesh completely, and Rebbi Akiva obligates him to pay full damages?

Question #2: And it is also a Chumra as regards Meitav, since he pays from the Idis of the Nizak and not from his own Ziburis?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains 'Mai Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh to mean that with regard to the Chiyuv of the person who damages Hekdesh, the he is not speaking only with regard to Meitav, since he learns Hekdesh from the Pasuk of Rebbi Shimon?

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and Rebbi Akiva should not have answered Rebbi Yishmael with 'Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh', seeing as Rebbi Yishmael would agree with this had he not exempted Hekdesh completely?

Precedent: In the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 16.) the Gemara makes the equivalent D'rashah with regard to an Eved Ivri.

Clarification: There must be some reason as to why we need both D'rashos (See there, Daf 2. Tosfos DH 'bi'Perutah').

Question: In Perek ha'Zero'a (Chulin, Daf 130: & 131. [See there Tosfos DH ' Tana']) it implies that 'Yeshalem' means against one's will, when it asks there 'Rebbi Eliezer says "Yeshalem" and you say that it is Midas Chasidus?'?

Answer #1: The Gemara only says there that it is not Midas Chasidus, but that he pays according to the Din.

Answer #2: Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam explains that what it means is that 'Rebbi Eliezer says "Yeshalem" (implying that the Rabbanan argue with him), and you say that it Midas Chasidus?'? Because if it was merely Midas Chasidus, the Rabbanan would not argue.

Conclusion: In any event, this is how one must explains the Gemara there.

Clarification: It is not be speaking about houses in which he resides ...

Source: ... since we learned in Maseches Pe'ah (Perek 8, Mishnah 8) that 'Beis-Din do not obligate him to sell his house and his household utensils'.

Explanation #1: Even though he cannot find anyone to purchase them for two hundred Zuz, he may not take anything ...

Reason: ... seeing as he caused this himself with his carelessness, since he ought not to have run around looking for money.

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... whereas if he would not have been careless, even if they were currently worth more than two hundred Zuz, he would have been permitted to take, rather than to sell them below their market value.

Explanation (Text) #2: Rav Alfas however, explains it in connection with a rich man, and 'ad Mechtzah' means until he is able to find someone to purchase the property for at least half its value.

Text #2 (cont.): And the text then reads 'If everyone else's land depreciated and so did his, then one should not give him even a little' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): This means that even if his fields dropped in price to the extent that they will not pay him even half, they should not give him anything, seeing as everybody else's land also depreciated, and his is still worth two hundred Zuz even according to the new prices ...

Text #2 (cont.): ... and if it is speaking where all the other fields retained their initial value, then one should give him even more - meaning that even if he finds someone to purchase them for more than half its market value, one should also give him until he is able to sell them for their full price ...

Reason: ... This is because, due to the fact that people see him financially hard-pressed, he cannot obtain their full value.

Text #3: And there are some who have the text 'I de'Zoli ... Afilu Tuva Nami Lo Lisfi leih' - meaning that, even if his property depreciated sharply, they ought not to give him anything ...

Reason: ... seeing as a. they are worth two hundred Zuz, and b. everybody else's fields also depreciated.

Text #3 and Explanation (concl.): 'Whereas if their (everyone else's) price remained the same, then one should give him even a little' - meaning that even if it depreciated only a little ... '.

Question: This is fine regarding fields, as Rashi explains, since he plowed in the summer and reaped in Mar-Cheshvan; But what is the difference regarding houses between Nisan and Marcheshvan?

Answer: The price of houses tends to rise when people normally rent, and to go down later.

Refuted Query: One cannot ask 'If so you have weakened his strength?'

Refutation: Since the Torah has not increased the power of the creditor, but decreased it, seeing as min ha'Torah, he may only claim Ziburis.

Refuted Text: We do not have the text 'Or a little less Idis' ...

Refutation: Because if we did, how can the Gemara then ask 'If so, you closed the door before potential borrowers?, seeing as the creditor has no claim on Idis whatsoever ...

Source: Since we rule that he claims Beinonis.

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have established it by a creditor - about which it is actually speaking, and where he asks for a a little less Idis ...

Answer: Only because it began by establishing it by Nezikin, and then by a creditor, it prefers to finally establish it by Kesubas Ishah.

Clarification: Since he learns from the Gezeirah Shavah "Sadeh" "Sadeh" from "u'Bi'er bi'Sedei Acher", that it belongs to the Nizak.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, it may well be that when he says 'He'ach de'ka'Meshalem', he only comes to preclude that of the Nizak.