Clarification: The Gemara could not have asked the same question in a case of two oxen belonging to two owners ...

Reason: ... because according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira (in Sanhedrin, Daf 78a) in a case where ten men one after the other, beat a person to death, the last one is Chayav; so too, here would the second ox be Chayav.

Reason (cont.): Whereas if they gored him simultaneously, they will both be Patur, due to the ruling that 'the Din of the ox resembles that of its master' (who is Patur under the same circumstances, even according to the Rabanan there).

Reason (concl.): And since they are Patur from Misah, they are also Patur from Kofer' (according to the opinion that holds later (Daf 43a) that 'Wherever the ox is Patur from Sekilah, the owner does not pay Kofer.

Implied Question: Even though in connection with a Chatas the Gemara states in 'ha'Matzni'a' (Shabbos, Daf 92b (DH 'Zeh') in the case of 'Someone who carries into the street' that, if two people carry it they are Chayav - and presumably this means that each one is Chayav to bring a Chatas ...

Answer #1: That is because, seeing as each one is Chayav Kareis (be'Meizid), he is also Chayav a Chatas when he transgresses be'Shogeg.

Answer #2: Moreover, regarding a Chatas, which goes to Hash-m, it doesn't matter if one brings two Chata'os, whereas regarding Kofer, which goes to one's friend, why should he gain simply because the ox happens to belong to Shutfim?

Restriction: Specifically with regard to Kofer ...

Reason: ... since it is an atonement, because presumably, a full atonement is required ...

Reason (concl.): But when it comes to payment (of Mamon), the Gemara says later (in 'Merubeh', Daf 71b) "Chamishah Bakar", 'va'Afilu Chamishah Chatza'ei Bakar'.

Cases that are not Comparable: It would not be appropriate however, to insert here "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh' of Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin, Daf 79b), "Damo", 'va'Afilu Miktzaas Damo' of Kisuy ha'Dam (Ibid., Daf 88a), 'Chatzi Matanos' of 'haZero'a' (Ibid, Daf 132a) or 'B'chor, 'va'Afilu Miktzas B'chor' of the beginning of Bechoros (Daf 3. DH 've'Rebbi').

A Case that is Comparable: ... but it would be more appropriate to insert 'Chomesh", 've'Lo Chatzi Comesh', of Perek Yesh B'chor (Ibid., Daf 48b)

Implied Question #1: And the reason that a Tam pays Chatzi Kofer according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili is ...

Answer: ... because that is its full Kofer ...

Implied Question #2: And likewise an ox that gores a Chatzi Eved and a Chatzi ben-Chorin, of 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, Daf 42b), which pays Chatzi Kofer to the heirs ...

Clarification: The Sh'eilah concerns the heirs of the Nizak himself - whether they are permitted to take a Mashkon from him (See Maharam).

Clarification: Rebbi Yehudah who says 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomo Omedes', does not hold of this Pircha, neither does he hold of the Pircha 'I would have let the ox loose into the meadow!'

Clarification (cont.): However the Pircha 'I would have admitted and been Patur!' does go like R. Yehudah.

Reason: ... because, since it has been warned it is no longer a K'nas.

Question: Had it been a Tam, he would only have paid as much as the ox is worth, whereas now, he must pay the full Chatzi-Nezek out of his pocket, even though the ox is not worth so much.

Answer: Now too, he only pays the value of the ox.

Restricting the Pircha: This Pircha will not apply according to those who hold 'Modeh bi'Kenas ve'achar-kach Ba'u Eidim, Chayav'.

Implied Question: But when the Gemara asks 'even according to those that holds 'Palga Nizka Mamona', it could have asked even according to those that hold 'Palga Nizka K'nasa', according to those that hold 'Modeh bi'Kenas ve'achar-kach Ba'u Eidim, Chayav' - 'Let him say that 'If it would have been a Tam, I would have let it loose in the meadow' ...

Answer: ... only it presents one of two possible cases.

Question: How can the borrower claim that, had it been a Tam, he would have admitted and would have been Patur', or that he would have let it loose in the meadow', when we see that he did neither, even though he believed it to be a Tam?

Answer: It speaks where he was informed that it was a Mu'ad immediately after it gored.

Question: Why does the Gemara then not answer that it speaks where he was not informed until after he appeared in Beis-Din, yet he neither admitted nor let it loose?

Answer: Such a scenario is not common, and the Gemara therefore prefers to answer that 'Beis-Din seized the animal first'.

Question #1: What sort of claim is this - seeing as it contravenes the Halachah?

Partial Answer: It might be somewhat acceptable according to Rebbi Yishmael, who considers the owner a borrower, since he can say that he would have eaten it there or sold it ...

Reason: ... in which case it would merely be a matter of damaging what is Mushubad to one's friend, for which he would be Patur.

Question #1 (concl.): But according to Rebbi Akiva, who maintains that they are partners, if he would let the animal loose ... , he would be stealing the Nizak's ox?

Question #2: Moreover, Beis-Din will place on him a Niduy in the event that he has money (and subsequently fails to pay).

Answer: What the Gemara therefore seems to mean is that, as a result of the borrower's threats, the Nizak would have come to terms with him for a small amount, and foregone the rest - and it transpires that he caused him qto lose all the rest.

Question: But it was not the borrower who handed over the ox, but Beis-Din who seized it first, and he did not even knows that it was a Mu'ad?

Answer: The moment the ox gored, he should have suspected that it was perhaps a Mu'ad ...

Answer (cont.): ... something that granted, he would not be expected to do before it gored, seeing as the loss is not imminent, because perhaps it will not gore ...

Answer (concl.): But once it had gored, and Beis-Din are ready to seize the animal, he should have made sure that it does not fall into their hands.

Answer to Implied Question: In Perek Kol ha'Asurin (Temurah, Daf 28b & 29a) the Gemara explains that, in connection with Revi'ah (rape), the Torah writes "Beheimah" ("ve'Ish asher Yiten Shechovto bi'Veheimah"), and in connection with 'Ne'evad' (idolatry), a Lashon of Bakar ("Vayamiru es Kevodam be'Tavnis Shor").

Clarification: And it establishes it there by one witness or by the admission of the owner himself ...

Reason: Because if there were two witnesses, he would be subject to the death-penalty..

Machlokes: And this Beraisa argues with the Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah Zarah, Daf 23b), who learns from the Pasuk "ki Mashchasam bahem Mum bam" that, wherever the Torah uses the expression of 'Hashchasah', it is confined to a matter concerning Ervah or Avodah Zarah (See Sugya there - in which case we do not need to learn them from the current Pasuk).

Support: And indeed, the Gemara in Temurah (Daf 28b) specifically states that the two Sugyos argue.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask why it says 'Ne'evad' ...

Answer: ... because it is obvious, since it is the most lenient of all of them ...

Reason: ... bearing in mind that it is not Chayav Misah, and therefore requires an independent Pasuk.

Clarification: One of them will suffice ...

Reason: ... because since the Torah does not specify either of them, we would establish it by that which is the most likely (the smaller Chidush).

Implied Question: Nor can the Gemara say that, since they are equal, let us learn out both of them ...

Answer: ... because the Chumros are not equal.

Comment: And it is only at the beginning of the Masechta (Daf 3a) that we find cases that are equal.

Question: What is the case of 'Rove'a be'Oneis', seeing as there is no such thing as Kishuy (becoming stiff) unintentionally?

Answer: Where it became stiff for its own species and the woman brought it on her.

Clarification: What the Gemara therefore means is: 'Noge'ach Lo Asah bo Oneis ke'Ratzon' - Now too, that it is written, one can only establish the P'sul Korban that pertains to it when it acted deliberately (be'Ratzon), in the manner that would render it Chayav Misah.

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, if it would not be written at all, one could not even learn the Din of be'Ratzon from Rove'a, seeing as one cannot learn it entirely (both be'Oneis and be'Ratzon) from it.

Question: What makes the Gemara think that it is speaking about a Korban, which is a Dochek, as is clear from the Sugya?

Question (cont.): ... and why would it have been problematic had it referred to the death-sentence, since it is possible to learn a Pircha either le'Kula or le'Chumra from the death-sentence on to Korban ...

Support: ... in the same way as it learns a Kal va'Chomer from Kofer on to Korban?

Answer: Since Rebbi Shimon does not specifically state in which context he does or doesn't equate Oneis with Ratzon, it implies that he is referring to the Korban which the Pasuk is talking about ...

Answer (cont.): Because, had he been referring to the death-sentence, he ought to have (inserted the word 'Chayav' and) said 'Lo Chayav bo Oneis ke'Ratzon'.