Clarification: Rashi explains - Since their Sh'taros are considered as if they were handed over to the Beis-Din -.

Question: What is then the reason for oral loans, on which one also needs to write a P'ruzbul, as is evident in 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, Daf 36a)?

Answer: It is (also) considered as if their debt has been handed over to Beis-Din ...

Implied Question: ... and even if the debtor does not own land ...

Answer: ... one is Makneh to them land in the form of a Takanah on behalf of Yesomim ...

Source: ... since one only writes a P'ruzbul on land.

Clarification: The Yerushalmi explains that because it saw them dressed in their Shabbos finery, he viewed them as strangers and whom it does not recognizw.

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yehudah already taught this ruling in the second Perek (on Daf 23:) ...

Answer #1: ... he needs to repeat it here, because we would otherwise have thought that, since it is only a Mu'ad for Shabbasos, it will not require such an extensive retraction.

Answer #2: Whereas according to Rashi, who explains 'Mu'ad le'Shabbasos' because it does not do work ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... it now comes to teach us that even if it rested from work during the week, it is not considered a retraction.

Inference: But S'tam, it would also be Mu'ad for other species.

Extension: In fact, even from Beheimah to Adam we have also heard him say, later in the Perek (Daf 41a) that S'tam is Mu'ad.

Source: When the Gemara asks 'Since we kill it when it is still a Tam, how does it become a Mu'ad? To which Rav Z'vid replies 'Where it killed three animals'.

Extension (cont.): In that case the Mishnah could have said 'Mu'ad li'Beheimaah ve'Eino Mu'ad le'Adam', to teach us that S'tam it is Mu'ad.

Retraction: It is possible however, that Rav Z'vid retracted from the statement later, following the Kashya the Gemara asks on him there ...

Proof: ... because otherwise, there will be a Kashya on him from (the Beraisa that the Gemara cites at) the beginning of the Masechta (Daf 2b) See Maharam.

Explanation: The Tana inserts the last stage, so that, in the event that it gores again, the owner will be obligated to pay Nezek Shalem immediately.

Question: According to Rav Z'vid, why is it not Mu'ad for all species?

Answer: Because it speaks where the ox saw other animals and did not gore them.

Explanation #1: It must be speaking where it did not see any other species in between.

Reason: ... because if it did, it would not be Mu'ad for all species at intervals.

Question: Seeing as it did not see any other species, even if it is Mu'ad for oxen alone, it would be Mu'ad for all species at intervals, according to Rav Z'vid?

Answer: Rav Z'vid holds that this case teaches us a Chidush, since we would otherwise have thought that it is not a Mu'ad regarding those species that it saw and did not gore ...

Answer (cont.): ... and that 'at intervals' is not the determining factor.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, when it gored these three species, there were other species present, and it gored specifically these three ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... because had it been three oxen that it gored, we would have said that since it always attacks oxen, and leaves other species, it is a Mu'ad to gore oxen exclusively ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... but now that it gored three different species, it (randomly) attacked the one that it did (each time) and did not bother to attack the others.

Clarification: It speaks where the ox saw other animals among the first oxen, and in the second She'eilah, among the last oxen, and did not gore them.

Clarification (cont.): ... in which case the entire Sugya goes according to Rav Z'vid (See Maharam).

Refuted Explanation: Not like Rav Alfas, who explains the Sugya according to Rav Papa.

Clarification: The Ri explains that the second She'eilah is learned 'Im Timtzi Lomar' - in that, if, in the first She'eilah, we go after the oxen ...

Clarification (cont.): Seeing as there two reasons to do so - 1. To go after the first three, and 2. To go after the oxen, which are the same species (as the goring ox) ...

Clarification (concl.): 'What will the Din then be in a case of 'Chamor, ve'Gamal Shor Shor ve'Shor?' whether the first ox goes after the first two animals, or after the oxen, which are the same species?

Clarification: It would seem that if it gores on the fifteenth of three consecutive months it is a Mu'ad, and by Nidah too, it fixes a woman's Veses ...

Implied Question: ... even though there are only two lots of thirty days in between ...

Answer: ... because it is not the thirty-day period that causes the Chazakah but the fifteenth of the month ...

Precedent #1: ... just as three sightings on three consecutive Roshei Chodashim fixes a woman's Veses ...

Source: ... as is implied in 'B'nos Kutim' (Nidah, Daf 39b).

Precedent #2: And like where the ox gores on three consecutive Shabbasos, where three times will suffice, seeing as it is not the end of seven days that causes it, but the actual day of Shabbos.

Clarification (cont.): But there where it is neither the actual day nor the date that causes it - for example, where the woman sees today and again at the end of twenty days and again at the end of another twenty days, everyone agrees that the first sighting is not counted, since it is the end of twenty that causes it.

Proof: And this is also implied in the Mishnah in Perek ha'Ishah (Nidah, Daf 63b), which states that if a woman who was used to seeing every fifteenth day changed to the twentieth day, both days are forbidden, but that if she changed three times to the twentieth day, then the fifteenth day becomes permitted, and the twentieth, forbidden, because a woman's Veses is only fixed after three times'.

Proof (cont.): So we see that she requires to change three times to the twentieth, and that the previous sighting on the fifteenth is not counted.

Refuted distinction #1: Nor does it seem correct to attribute the ruling to the fact that she was used to seeing (because the earlier sighting belonged to the previous Veses).

Proof: Moreover, since the Tana said there 'because a woman's Veses is only fixed ... ', it implies that this ruling applies to all women.

Extrapolated Halachah: According to this, if the ox gored on Sunday but not on Monday, on Tuesday but not on Wednesday, and on Thursday but not on Friday, it will not become a Mu'ad until it skips a third time (and gores on Shabbos), since the first goring is not counted.

Question: But in the case (on Amud Alef) where it saw an ox and gored, an ox and it didn't gore ... ', the first goring is counted?

Answer: We are therefore forced to draw a distinction between 'skipping' regarding days and 'skipping' regarding oxen.