Implied question (R. Bun bar Chiyah citing R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): Had the Torah not said Shor, I would have learned Shor from a pit. A pit does not go and damage, and one is liable to pay [for its damage]. An ox, which goes and damages, all the more so!

Answer: Just like a pit pays full damage, an ox should pay full damage! (Therefore, we could not learn Shor from a pit.) Or, [if you will ask that we could have learned a pit from Shor - a Shor is not prone to damage from its creation, but a pit is - we cannot learn this, for if so,] we should say that just like an ox pays half damage, a pit should pay half damage!

Question: Had the Torah not said Shor, would I have learned Shor from a pit?! Had the Torah not said a pit, I would have learned a pit from Shor?! (Surely we could not learn from half damage from full damage, or vice-versa.) Why did the Mishnah teach here [Harei of an ox is unlike that of Mav'eh...? For the same reason, we cannot learn from Shen and Regel from Shor, or vice-versa!]

Answer: It is because there are many matters (Avos, and we need to learn from Tzad ha'Shavah. If we did not find stringencies of each over the others, we could not learn, for they would be Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad.)

We similarly find [a Beraisa] Harei of Moshav is unlike Harei of Mishkav, and Harei of Mishkav is unlike Harei of Moshav;

Question: Is this fine?! [Why must it say] Harei of Moshav is unlike Harei of Mishkav [and vice-versa]? If a Moshav that is a Tefach is Metamei, [would we know that] Mishkav is Metamei [only if it is] four Tefachim?! Because Mishkav is Metamei if it is four Tefachim, [would we know that] Moshav that is a Tefach is Metamei?!

Had [the Torah] not said Mishkav, would I have learned from Mishkav from Moshav?! Had it not said Moshav, would I have learned from Moshav from Mishkav?! Why did [the Tana] teach here [Harei of Moshav is unlike Harei of Mishkav...]?

Answer: It is because there are many matters (that we need to learn from Tzad ha'Shavah. We must find stringencies of each over the others to show why they are not Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad.)

We similarly find [a Beraisa] the Parshah of Neros is unlike Harei of the Parshah of expelling Temei'im. The Parshah of expelling Temei'im is unlike Harei of Parshas Neros;

Question: Had [the Torah] not said the Parshah of expelling Temei'im, would I have learned from the Parshah of expelling Temei'im from Parshas Neros [or vice-versa]?!

Why did [the Tana] teach here [that each Parshah is unlike Harei of the other Parshah]?

Answer: It is to teach [that they are not Shnei Kesuvim, so we can learn] many matters. The Tzad ha'Shavah of them is that they apply immediately and for all generations. Also everywhere that it says "Tzav'', it is immediately and for all generations. (We explained this Sugya based on RIDVAZ.)

(R. La): The Torah needed to write each [Av Nezek];

Shor teaches that the owner [of the victim] deals with the carcass (the damager pays only the difference between the live animal and the carcass). It says "veha'Mes Yihyeh Lo'' [and we learn to all Avos Nezikin].

Question: Why does it say about a pit "veha'Mes Yihyeh Lo''? (We should learn from Shor!)

Answer (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): This excludes land, which are not Metaltelim. It excludes man, :for one may not benefit from a dead person.

Fire teaches about all of them, that one is liable for Ones [when he himself damaged. This is like the opinion that one is liable for fire like for arrows that one shoots - MAR'EH HA'PANIM.]