What is the relationship between the machloket on 33 of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and the machloket of Rabbi Meir and Rav Yehuda on 34?
a) Rashi explains in Rav Akiva's shita that the mazik and nizak are shutfin in the mazik' animal, but in this specific case, since the Mazik's animal is worth the Chatzi Nezek the animal is Huchlat to the nizak. According to Rav Yishamel the nizak gets money, but has no chelek in the mazik's animal.
Rav Yehuda and Rav Meir's machloket is in both the animal of the nizak and the mazik. However, if we focus on the mazik's animal, Rav Yehuda's shita is that the mazik and nizak are shutfim in that animal (which sounds like Rav Akiva) and Rav Meir's shita is that the nizak only gets money from the mazik (which sounds like Rav Yishmael's shita). Now clearly in this machloket, there's the additional facet of the machloket regarding ownership of the nizak's animal. But is it correct to say that the 2 machlokets on 33 and 34 regarding ownership of the Shor Hamazik are connected? or ...
b) Maybe one can say that the machloket between Rav Akiva and Rav Yishmael is before the chaluka. The Gemara on 33A when explaining this machlokes says "Lbais Din Kamizhar Rachmana" and "Lnizak umazik mizhar lehu Rachmana" - ie the baalus of the shor hamazik is based on who has the responsibility to do the chaluka. This sounds to me as if we're talking about baalus of the animal before the actual chaluka. The machlokes between Rav Yehuda and Rav Meir is different. They are arguing about once the bais din is posek on the din (which sounds like Rav Yishmael's shita), how exactly do we do the split - do we split both animals or does the nizak keep his animal and the mazik pays the Chatzi nezek. According to this the nafka mina case of Rav Yehuda and Rav Meir would be limited to the time between Beis Din's decision and the actual chaluka.
The Rishonim on the daf as far as I can tell, do not mention the machlokes Rav Yishmael and Rav Akiva at all after the mishna on 34A. This would lead me to believe that the second option above is correct (ie the 2 machlokes are not related), but this may be too much of a Chidush on my part. Which of the above choices make sense? Is there maybe a third possibility that I've missed?
Thanks You for your help,
Yossi Klein, Beit Shemesh, Israel
As for your suggestion, Rashi writes clearly (in DH Pechas Neveilah) that we are dealing with the difference in price between the Nezek and the Mechirah.
The Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah is a question of how we assess the damage and the payment, and not how we carry it out. The fact that the amount that the Shor ha'Nizak appreciated goes to the Mazik according to Rebbi Meir is not because he owns it, but rather because we assess the Chiyuv at the time of the Mechirah.