Clarification: It seems that the Sursi language is synonymous with Arama'ic ...

Proof: ... as the Bereishis Rabah (Perek 75) states 'Don't treat the Sursi language lightly, since the Pasuk honors it in Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim ...

Proof (cont.): ... Torah, as it is written (in Bereishis 31, in connection with Lavan) "Y'gar Sahadusa" ; Nevi'im - as it is written (in Yirmiyah 10) and in Kesuvim - Seifer Dani'el and Seifer Ezra' ...

Proof (concl.): ... and Lavan was from Aram Naharayim. And Daniel too, calls it 'Sursi', even though the Pasuk there writes "And the Kasdim (Babylonians) spoke to the king in Arama'ic".

Question: And the reason that here, in Eretz Yisrael it calls it 'Sursi' and in Bavel, 'Arama'ic' ...

Answer: ... Rabein u Tam explains, is because the dialect changes slightly from place to place, like we find regarding foreign languages which is more pure/authentic in some places than in others.

Example: Hence Unklus ha'Ger translates "Eid ha'Gal ha'Zeh" as 'Sahid de'Gura ha'Dein', whilst Lavan called it 'Y'gar Sahadusa'.

Conclusion: And Rabeinu Tam goes on to explain the dialect spoken by Lavan was Sursi, called by that name because it was spoken in Surya, incorporating Aram Naharayim (Bavel) and Aram Tzovah (Syria) which David ha'Melech captured.

Conclusion (cont.): And it is because it (Syria) are close to Eretz Yisrael that the Arama'ic that is spoken there is not as pure (as the Aama'ic spoken in Bavel) See also Gilyon ha'Shas.

Clarification: The decree was not initially instituted on those who were close to the rulers, and he (Avtulmus) had an ongoing relationship with the rulers ...

Proof: ... as the Gemara states in Me'ilah (Daf 17b), where it recounts how Avtulmus ben Reuven went and shaved 'Kumi', so that they should not be aware that he was a Jew; and he succeeded in tricking them'.

Rejection of Text: We do not have the text 'Sh'nei Alafim Revavos' (two thousand times ten thousand) ...

Reason: ... since in the desert they were only six hundred thousand, yet the Shechinah rested on them.

Implied Question: Nor is there any connection between the Gemara here and the Sugya in Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 39a) that 'The Shechinah rests wherever there is a gathering of ten Jews'?

Answer: ... because here the Gemara is talking about prophets and the Mishkan (which requires a higher degree of Shechinah.

Introduction to Question: Clearly, the Gemara, at this stage, is not aware of the ultimate interpretation of the Beraisa.

Question, Side #1: It implies that a hundred Mil is La'av Davka, because even within a thousand Mil one is forbidden to spread nets, in which case what exactly, is meant by 'Yishuv'?

Question (cont.): If it refers to the town as 'Yishuv', then it will be forbidden to spread nets anywhere, even in the desert, because even if the desert is a thousand Mil away, did we not say that a hundred Mil is La'av Davka ...

Question, Side #2: ... And even if we say that a hundred Mil is Davka ...

Question, Side #2 (cont.): The Reisha and the Seifa clash, since the Reisha permits spreading nets thirty Ris from the Yishuv, whereas the Seifa forbids even a distance of a hundred Mil?

Source: Because so the Beraisa (the Tosefta, Perek 8) states 'One is not permitted to spread nets for doves unless they one distances them from the Yishuv thirty Ris; That speaks in a desert, but in an inhabited area, it is forbidden to spread them even a hundred Mil away?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that the Gemara initially thinks that in a Yishuv of seeds they fly further, whereas the Reisha of the Beraisa is speaking in a Yishuv of the city, which it calls 'Midbar' since it is devoid of seeds ...

Refutation: ... because in that case, what is the Gemara's Kashya?

Answer: The Ritzba therefore explains that the Gemara did indeed think that it is speaking about a Yishuv of seeds, and what it asks is 'Does it only fly thirty Ris and no more - even in a Yishuv of seeds?' ...

Answer (cont.): ... when it is evident from the Seifa that in a Yishuv of seeds, they fly further than that, which is only in order to eat? So we see that it does not fill its stomach in an area of fifty Amos?

Answer (concl.): And it answers that it is speaking specifically about a Yihuv of vineyards or one of dove-cots, and it refers to it as 'Midbar', there where there are no vineyards or dovecots.

Rejection of Text: It seems to the Ri that one should omit the text 've'Samich leih' ...

Reason: ... seeing as the Gemara learns this, not from 'Semuchim' but from a Gezeirah Shavah ...

Proof #1: ... as the Gemara statess later 'We meant to say "Haka'ah Haka'ah".

Proof #2: It also states later 'And since the Torah writes "Do not take ransom money from a murderer", why do we need 'Makeh' 'Makeh'?, implying that it is a Gezeirah Shavah and not Semuchim?

Proof #3: Furthermore, when the Gemara will ask shortly 'What do you see to learn from "Makeh Beheimah"? Why not learn it from "Makeh Adam"? ...

Proof #3 (cont.): ... if it is learned from Semuchim, what is the Kashya, seeing as "Makeh Adam" is not juxtaposed to "Ish ki Yiten Mum"?

Question: Now that we learn it from a Gezeirah Shavah, why does the Gemara need to cite the Pasuk "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah", and to ignore that of "Makeh Beheimah" which it cited earlier?

Answer #1: It needs the Pasuk "Makeh Beheimah" for Tana de'bei Chizkiyah; and as for those who don't concur with him, the Gemara at the beginning of 'ha'Nechnakin' (Sanhedrin, Daf 84b) Darshens from it 'Just as someone who strikes an animal in order to heal it is Patur ... '.

Answer #2: Alternatively, once the Gemara retracts from "Makeh Adam" which speaks about Misah, it retracts from it completely, and cites the Pasuk "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah" which is next to "Ish ki Yiten Mum".

Conclusion: According to this, one can reinstate the text 've'Samich leih', since, it is because it is next to it that it opts to cite that Pasuk, though not because of 'Semuchin'.

Alternative Text: Some texts read after this 'Is it not written "Ish ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam, Mos Yumas"? ...

Explanation: ... meaning that one should 'destroy his limb' in payment of the limb of his friend?' And it answers ' "Yumas" be'Mamon'. How do we know that it means Mamon, Perhaps it means literally to destroy?

Explanation (cont.): ... this cannot be correct; firstly, because it is compared to "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah"; Secondly, because the Torah writes there "Ka'asher Yiten Mum ba'Adam, kein Yinasen bo" - a proof that it means Mamon.

Rejection of Text: The Ri completely rejects this text however ...

Refutation #1: Firstly, because the Gemara in ha'Nisrafin (Sanhedrin, Daf 78a) establishes the Pasuk "Ish ki Yakeh kol Nefesh Adam" by Misah - in connection with the Machlokes betwen Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabanan, in the case of 'Ten men who smite someone with ten sticks'.

Refutation #2: Secondly, because we don't need a Pasuk for Mamon?

Refutation #3: Thirdly, what is the Gemara's initial Kashya 'Is it not written "Ish ki Yakeh kol Nefesh Adam" - Why is this Pasuk any better than that of :Ayin Tachas Ayin", which we establish by Mamon, from the Gezeirah Shavah 'Haka'ah' 'Haka'ah'?

Refutation #4: And fourthly, Since the Torah writes "Ka'asher Yiten Mum ba'Adam kein Yinasen bo", why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah 'Haka'ah' 'Haka'ah'?

Conclusion: It therefore seems clear that we do not have that text at all.

Reference: Tosfos explained it already at the end of the second Perek (Daf 26a, DH 'Alav.)

Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk is not really needed for this, since we would automatically interpret "Ayin Tachas Ayin" literally ...

Answer: ... it is nevertheless necessary to insert it, so as not to learn otherwise from "Makeh Beheimah".

Question: Rava in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 35a) Darshens that the Torah is coming to obligate Chayvei Malkiyos to pay just like Chayvei Misah, via the Gezeirah-Shavah "Makeh" "Makeh"?

Answer: Rava is simply following his own opinion, inasmuch as he learns later (on Daf 84a) that "Ayin Tachas Ayin" means money from a different Pasuk.