Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he gives him eight.

Clarification: In that case, it is reckoning in a regressing sequence - 'If there are twelve or eleven in eight, he gives him eight; up to ten, he gives him eight' ...

Clarification (cont.): But if there are nine of the first ones in eight of the second ones, he gives him nine in lieu of the first nine, or ten in lieu of ten.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Chananel however, explains 'Up to ten in eight', and he gives him ten ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and according to him, the sequence is progressive.

Clarification: This is La'av Davka, because even if the water is murky, if the diver is able to fetch it, it has the Din of clear water; whereas if he is not (it is considered murky and) he is Chayav ...

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara mentions 'Telulin' and 'Akurin' is ...

Answwer: ... because generally, if the water is clear, the diver is able to fetch it, and if it is murky, he is not.

Inference: It implies here that if he knocks his hand, unless he actually takes it in his own hand, it is not considered Hagba'ah, even though it stopped in the air above three Tefachim before falling to the ground.

Precedent: And so it does in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 59b) in connection with 'A poor man who is banging the top of an olive-tree'.

Question: In the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 9a, Tosfos DH 'Ho'il'), in connection with a Talis the top of which is placed on an Amud and the other end, on the ground', the Gemara states that, if someone picks it up from the ground and jerks the other end off the Amud in order to bring it to him, he acquires it because it is Hagbahah ...

Refuted Answer: ... because, if it was on account of Meshichah ...

Refutation: ... why does it need to mention that one end was on top of the Amud?

Question (cont.): So we see that it is considered Hagbahah due to the fact that he brings it to himself via the air that is higher than three Tefachim?

Answer #1: There it is considered Hagbahah more (than here) since he is holding one end in his hand.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks there where his hand is sufficiently high up that when he jerks it down, it does not fall to the ground, but remains at a height of three Tefachim from the ground.

Question: At the end of Shilu'ach ha'Ken (chulin, Daf 141b) it implies that when one's banging on a nest causes the doves to fly into the air, it is considered Hagbahah to be Koneh, even though he does not take them with his hands?

Answer: Specifically here and in 'ha'Nizakin' it is not considered Hagbahah, since there are two detriments - 1. that he did not take them in his hand, and 2. he did not raise it, but only lowered it, whereas with the doves, which rose into the air, it is considered Hagbahah.

Answer (cont.): ... Indeed, if shaking the nest would cause the doves to simply drop to the ground, he would not acquire them, seeing as he is not holding them at all.

Implied Question:: According to this, the Gemara could have just as well differentiated here by 'Adyeih Aduyei' between a downward stroke and an upward stroke ...

Answer #1: ... only it preferred to differentiate by a downward stroke itself between where he knocked it and where he took it in his hand.

Answer #2: Alternatively, there is no difference between a downward stroke and an upward one, since, even the latter does not acquire by 'Adyeih Adbahah.uyei', since one does not normally perform Hagbahah in this way.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... whereas by the doves, on the other hand, that is the way that one generally acquires them

Precedent: ... like where 'One calls it (The animal) and it comes' and where 'He hit it and it ran in front of him' (Kidushin, Daf 22b), which are considered Meshichah even though the animals went by themselves.

Answer #2 (concl.): However, if the doves were to descend as a result of banging the nest, it would not be considered Hagbahah - only if they flew into the air.

Clarification: Rabah seems to hold that, if the government withdrew the coins, it is not compared to split ...

Reason: ... because if it would be, then how much more so would a defaced coin be compared to split, so why is the defacer then Patur?

Clarification: Why is that, since he did not detract anything from him, seeing as he is not wounded? But since he damaged him, even though there is no visible wound, he is Chayav. That being the case, he ought to be Chayav in the current case, too?

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara replies that Rabah follows his reasoning ... ', and there there is a wound consisting of a drop of blood, and since the damage incorporates a wound, he is Chayav for the entire damage ...

Precedent: .. like where he filed him, in which case he pays him for the entire damage ...

Clarification (concl.): ... because to render him Chayav for the wound alone, Rabah would not need to teach us that he is Chayav.

Question: Why does an Eved go free on account of them, seeing as we need a blemish that is visible, similar to 'a tooth and an eye', and how can deafening be considered visible?

Answer #1: Granted one cannot see anything as long as he is sleeping or standing in one place and remains still, nevertheless since, from his general demeanor it is noticeable that he is a Cheresh, it is considered a visible blemish.

Answer #2: Moreover, it is not the damage that needs to be visible, but the damaged limb.

Implied Question: When the Mishnah said earlier (Daf 96b) 'If someone steals an animal with which a sin was performed or which becomes disqualified from the Mizbe'ach, he can say to the owner "Here is yours before you!" ' ...

Implied Question (cont.): And 'disqualified' means that it obtained a blemish, because if it meant that it was raped, that is the same as 'a sin was performed with it'.

Implied Question (concl.): And it is implied that the blemish came specifically externally, but that if he did it, then he is Chayav?

Answer: That Mishnah speaks about an animal that was declared Hekdesh, in which case it definitely stands to go on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: In Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 53a, See Tosfos DH 'be'Dinei') the Gemara asks from here on the opinion that holds 'Hezek she'Ein Nikar, Sh'meih Hezek', when he says that 'Someone who works with Mei Chatas is Patur', and if we would hold 'Sh'meih Hezek', why is he Patur? ...

Question (cont.): What is the problem, seeing as even if he were to nick its ear, he would be Patur, since S'tam Shevarim La'av le'Gabei Mizbe'ach Kaymi'?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that the Gemara there, asks from Paras Chatas, because, due to a Parah Adumah's high price, it is obvious that it stands to go on the Mizbe'ach, whereas in our Sugya, it queries Rabah from the Mei Chatas, as S'tam water does not stand to be used for Mei Chatas ...

Source #1: ... that is because Melachah only invalidates it before it has been mixed, as we learned in the Mishnah in Parah (4:4) 'Melachah invalidates the water only before one has placed the ashes into it'.

Source #2: And a Beraisa in the Sifri too, states 'One may have thought that it renders it Pasul even after it has been sanctified in a K'li; therefore the Torah writes "le'Mei Nidah", referring to it at that stage as 'Mei Nidah'.

Refutation: Because the Gemara in Gitin (Daf 53a & 53b) definitely asks from Mei Chatas too (and not just from Paras Chatas), since the Gemara answers there from 'Mei Chatas that one used as weights'.

Answer #1: Since the Tana mentions Melachah as a Chidush, as the Gemara says here - to teach us that even Melachah, where the damage is not discernable, one is Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim, in which case the Gemara justifiably extrapolates that Hezek she'Ein Nikar, Lo Sh'meih Hezek' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... because if it was, mentioning Melachah would not teach us any Chidush, seeing as in any event, Eino Nikar is no different than Nikar.

Answer #2: Rabah holds 'Hezek she'Ein Nikar, Lo Sh'meih Hezek', but according to the one who holds 'Sh'meih Hezek', he would certainly be Chayav by 'Tzorem' (where he nicked the ear), since it is more discernable ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... whereas Rava, who queries Rabah, maintains that 'Tzorem' is considered 'Minkar Hezeika', and he will be Chayav even according to the opinion that holds 'Hezek she'Ein Nikar, Lo Sh'meih Hezek' ...

Proof: ... as he says 'Melachah de'Lo Minkar Hezeiko, Aval Tzorem de'Minkar Hezeiko, Hachi Nami de'Mechayev'.

Question: How can somebody render Pasul his friend's cow, seeing as we need 'Ubad' (where it is worked similar to where the owner himself worked with it [Bava Metzi'a, Daf 30a]), where he is pleased?

Answer: That speaks where the Melachah was done by itself (where nobody actually worked with it), but where someone actually worked with it, it only needs to be pleasing to the one who performs the work (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Conclusion: And the same (distinction) applies to Hechsher (Tum'ah [Bava Metzi'a, 22b]), where 'Yutan' similar to 'Yiten' is required.

Clarification #1: The D'rashah (in Gitin, Daf 71a) "mi'Pihem", 've'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam' applies neither here ...

Clarification #2: Nor to the case cited in the Mishnah in 'Get Pashut' (Bava Basra, Daf 168a) 'Someone whose Sh'tar became erased ... ' ...

Reason: Because 'When witnesses that sign on a Sh'tar, it is as if their testimony has been examined in Beis-Din', and it is therefore as if the second witnesses testify that they saw the testimony of the first ones being examined in Beis-Din.

Source of Information: Tosfos elaborated in Kesuvos (Daf 20a, DH 've'Ri' [See Mesores ha'Shas]).

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask 'If so, why does the Tana repeat the word 'Chayavin'? ...

Precedent: ... like it does in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 3a, Tosfos DH 've'Od').

Answer: There are many places where the Gemara asks why, and many where it doesn't.