Third Explanation: Rebbi Azriel explains the difference between them as follows: According to Abaye, who Darshens "Lo Yishmerenu" with regard to the fourth goring, he does not pay full damage until the fourth day ...

Reason: Since "Lo Yishmerenu" refers to the fourth day, just "T'mol Shilshom" (refer to the second and the third days) ...

Third Explanation (cont.): Whereas, according to Rava, since the fourth day is not written specifically, he is Chayav even if it gores the fourth goring on the third day (See also Mesores ha'Shas).

Question: According to his explanation however, he ought not to have to pay Nezek Shaleim after the fourth goring, even according to the opinion that requires rendering the ox a Mu'ad, unless they warned the owner after the third goring ...

Source: Since the Gemara asks later in Perek Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah ve'Chamishah (Daf 41a & 41b) 'Since the animal is killed when it is still a Tam, what is the case of Mu'ad?'

Source (cont.): And it answers 'Where the Zomemei Zomemin themselves became Zomemin'. And in answer to the question that 'That is all well and good if one requires to render the ox a Mu'ad, but if it is the owner who needs to be warned, he can claim that he did not know that his ox was a goring ox?'

Question (cont.): Now according to the current explanation, all is not well, even if we say 'Le'yi'udi Tura'?

Answer #2: It speaks where initially, when the three groups became Zomemin, the owner took the ox into is domain, and then, after the Zomemei Zomemin arrived and testified in Beis-Din, before they managed to pronounce the P'sak-Din, it gored a fourth time, whilst he was still in Beis-Din ...

Answer #2 (cont.): According to the opinion that 'One can conclude the Din of an ox even not in its presence ('Gomrin Diyno shel Shor ... ')'.

Implied Question: It could then have asked that this is fine (Hanicha) according to the opinion that holds 'Gomrin' ...

Answer: Only it manages to answer with a another 'Hanicha'.

Alternative to Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that, even after the G'mar-Din, an ox does not become forbidden as long as it is alive, and it remains the owner's property until it is has either been stoned or Shechted.

Alternative to Answer #2 (cont.): In that case, the question is answered even if it gored after the G'mar-Din.

Implied Question: And when the Beraisa says later that 'If the third group is found to be Zomemin, they are all Chayav, even though the owner is not yet Chayav to pay Nezek Shalem ...

Answer: Nevertheless, since they have declared the animal a Mu'ad, thereby automatically rendering him Chayav to pay Nezek Shalem when the animal gores a fourth time following the Hazamah, they have to pay according to the decrease in value that the fourth goring will cause.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in Perek ha'Nechnakin (Sanhedrin, Daf 86:) states that the witnesses of a kidnapping who became Zomemin and those of the first theft of a ben Sorer u'Moreh are not sentenced to death' ...

Answer: They are not let off the hook because it may never come to a Chiyuv (Misah), but rather because they can always claim that they only came to render him Chayav Malkos.

Source: Because the witnesses of a kidnapping who become Zomemin are Chayav Malkos, as Rashi explains there.

Answer (cont.): But here, on the other hand, the witnesses must have come with the intention of rendering the animal a Mu'ad, and of obligating the owner to pay Nezek Shalem when it gores a fourth time, as the Gemara goes on to explain.

Reason: They cannot claim that they came to make him pay Chatzi Nezek, because if so, these groups will only be Chayav for making him a Mu'ad, in which case we would merely assess the depreciation of the ox from its previous value ...

Conclusion: And the fourth goring would be totally irrelevant.

Question: Now that the Pasuk specifically precludes (where the sightings are closer together), how much more so it is feasible to apply 'Tochi'ach'?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that since the Pasuk reveals that 'close' and 'further apart' are not criteria, that the reason there is not due to a Chazakah at having seen ...

Answer (cont.): But that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that in three days she is a Zavah, even if Eliyahu ha'Navi comes and says that she will definitely not see again.

Refuted Question: The Gemara does not want to add 'But not a Zavah from sightings' ...

Refutation #1: Because if it did, then the Pasuk ought to omit "Zos".

Refutation #2: Alternatively, the Makshan relies on the Hekesh (of Zavah to Zav), as the Gemara will ask shortly 'What did you see ... ?'

Question: On the contrary, we ought to say that, 'When the Pasuk is talking about a Zav, it precludes a Zav, and when it speaks about a Zavah, it precludes a Zavah'? ...

Precedent: As the Gemara Darshens in the first Perek of Shechitas Chulin (Daf 24a and 24b) when it says that 'Levi'im are not disqualified through blemishes, seeing as the Torah writes "ve'Zos asher la'Levi'im (i.e. age disqualifies Levi'im)", ' and nothing else disqualifies the Levi'im'.

Answer: There too, we would Darshen "ve"Zos la'Kevi'im", 've'Lo la'Kohanim'

Answer: If not for the fact that we Darshen "asher la'Levi'im").

Implied Question: The reason that Rav Nachman does not specifically state that the Halachah is like Rav Nachman is ...

Answer: Because he prefers to refer to the Tana'im mentioned in our Mishnah.

Refuted Explanation: Not that it becomes a Mu'ad to contravene the warnings ...

Refutation: Because then, the owner would not have to pay Nezek Shalem until the fifth goring.

Authentic Explanation: Only to warn him, that they need to warn him to guard his ox each time it gores.

Clarification: La'av Davka, since the same will apply if they are one group.

Question: The Ri asks that in any event it is not a K'nas, even according to the opinion (above, on Daf 15a) that 'half Nezek is a K'nas' ...

Reason: Because having gored three times, it no longer has a Chazakah of b being guarded?

Answer: The obligation to pay Chatzi Nezek cannot be split up; since it is a K'nas in one case, it is a K'nas in all cases.

Precedent: Like we find in connection with the thirty Shekalim of an Eved, which is considered a K'nas so that if the owner (of the ox) admits, he is Patur, even if the Eved is worth exactly thirty Shekalim, not a cent less and not a cent more.

Source: This is a S'vara, because who will accept the testimony of the witnesses unless it is in front of Beis-Din?

Clarifying Context: In connection with three brothers, with whom one person from the street combines (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have asked from the last witnesses, who did not know about the first ones, seeing as they came only three days later.

Answer: But it prefers to ask from the first pair, since it is more obvious.

Implied Question: It could not have asked from the first pair of witnesses ...

Answer: Who clearly came to render the animal a Mu'ad, seeing as they waited until the third goring (before testifying).

Question: Why does the Gemara say 'How should we know that whoever is standing in Beis-Din ... ?' Why does it not establish the case where they were present when the first two pairs testified?

Answer: It must be speaking where the third pair testified first ...

Proof: Because if they testified last, how do we know that the first pair did not come to obligate the owner to pay Chatzi Nezek?

Proof (cont.): Because the fact that they waited until the third goring is no proof, since that may be because they did not have time to go to Beis-Din earlier.

Proof (concl.): Whereas if they waited until the third pair testified, then it is clear that they came to declare the ox a Mu'ad.

Clarifying Text: According to the text 'Ela', it implies that it is coming to establish this case too that they hinted to one another, and this will go even if they are coming to render the owner a Mu'ad, and it speaks where all three days all the pairs came and hinted to one another ...

Explanation: Not like the hint in the Gemara in 'ha'Nechenakin (Daf 86:) ...

Reason 1: Which speaks about an inferior hinting, with which we do not contend.

Reason 2: Alternatively, Dinei Nefashos are different.

Conclusion: And all the current answers go even according to the opinion that the witnesses are coming to render the owner a Mu'ad.

Question: They can still claim that they are coming to make him pay Chatzi Nezek for the smallest of his oxen?

Source: As we learned in 'ha'Meni'ach (Daf 35b) in the case where 'One claims that the small ox damaged ... '.

Answer #1: He can always reply that one of them got lost.

Answer #2: Or that one of them got lost after all the gorings.

Question: Since they do not recognize the ox, it is possible that the ox that gored the first time is not the same one that gored the second and third times?

Answer: It speaks where after they had all testified, they looked again and realized that it was the same ox that performed all the acts of goring.

Question: In order to warn the owner, the witnesses who testified on the first day can only claim that they suspect that it might gore again a second and third time, in which case they can just as well claim that they are coming to make him pay Chatzi Nezek when they recognize it?

Extension of Question: And even if we say 'le'Yi'udi Tura' ...

Extension of Question (cont.): Where it may well speak where they recognized it before it had gored three times, only after three days when they came to testify, it had become mixed up with other oxen that resembled it, or they forgot which ox it was, and at the time of testimony they cannot identify it ...

Extension of Question (cont.): In which case they are definitely coming to render the ox a Mu'ad ...

Extension of Question (cont.): Since even if they do not recognize it, the owner will have to pay full damages when it gores a fourth time, like Rav Acha says at the beginning of 'ha'Mocher Peiros' (Bava Basra, Daf 93a and 93b) ...

Extension of Question (cont.): Nevertheless, the witnesses who recognized it first can claim that they are coming to obligate the owner to pay Chatzi Nezek when they recognize it ...

Extension of Question (cont.): Because even if we were to say 'le'Yi'udi Gavra', they can only claim that they suspect that it may gore a second and third time and that they will recognize it (as Tosfos just explained)?

Answer: If they were coming to obligate the owner to pay Chatzi Nezek, they should not have testified at all until they recognized the ox

Answer (cont.): It is therefore clear that they came to render Mu'ad, since, irrespective of whether it is the owner or the ox, they need to testify before the fourth goring, since the owner will not be Chayav to pay unless they warn him first.

Answer (concl.): Which is why they must hurry to testify before they recognize it.

Support: Rabeinu Chananel too, explains that the Mishnah can be speaking either 'le'Yi'udi Tora' or 'le'Yi'udi Gavra', and the Gemara's She'eilah remains unresolved.

Question #1: Why does the Gemara not answer that they do not recognize the gored ox ...

Question #2: Or that the it gored an ox of Hefker or that belonged to a Nochri or to the owner himself?

Answer: The Ri answers that perhaps rendering a Mu'ad is only possible by an ox that renders the owner liable to pay.

Conclusion: And it is for the same reason that the Gemara cannot answer that they cannot identify the ox that was gored; because if they do not recognize it, how do they know that it does not belong to a Nochri or that it was Hefker?

Implied Question: This case is not comparable to that of s bull that is trained to fight (where the owner is Patur) ...

Answer: Where a man fights with it to try and kill it (See also Ran).