Observation: This Gemara is according to Rebbi Yochanan who says that an unrecognizable damage is not considered damage. According to Chizkiyah, we would have needed this for an exemption. (Note: See the Pnei Yehoshua at length regarding how the Gemara would have used this according to Chizkiyah.)

Observation: In Bava Kama (117a), this give and take in the Gemara is written in the opposite fashion. This is one of the Sugyos that are done in an opposite fashion (elsewhere in the Gemara).

Question: Rabeinu Efraim asks that when the Mishnah says in Bechoros (28b) that if someone judged and ruled that something that was pure was impure what is done is done and he should pay, what is the reasoning of the Mishnah? He is doing so accidentally!

According to the opinion that says this Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir who judges that one is liable for damaging through Garmi (quasi-direct damage), this is understandable. Later, Rebbi Meir fines someone who accidentally makes Terumah impure etc. due to someone who does so on purpose. However, according to the opinion that establishes that this Mishnah is even according to the Rabbanan, and is discussing a case when he (the judge) caused the impurity through touching the Terumah with a Sheretz (in order to show that it is clearly impure), it is difficult to understand according to Rebbi why he is liable.

However, according to Chizkiyah this is understandable, as it is impossible to rule he is exempt in order to tell people (that he made a mistake).

Answer: Rabeinu Efraim answers that there he was negligent, as why would he make it impure in order to reinforce his words? He is therefore like someone who does so on purpose (in our Mishnah).

Question: When he proclaimed that what was actually impure is pure, and reinforced this by mixing what was actually impure with the person's pure fruit, why doesn't Chizkiyah say he is exempt in order to encourage him to tell the person?

Answer: A person does not usually retract his ruling unless he is made to do so by others. Therefore, we do not suspect that this will cause him not to admit. (Note: Tosfos seems to mean, as he states explicitly in Sanhedrin (33b, DH "she'Irvan"), that a Chacham will normally admit his mistake. If he is not inclined to do so, whether or not he will be held liable is of no consequence to him.)

Text: In most Sefarim the following text appears in the Mishnah. Kohanim who made a Korban into Pigul in the Beis Hamikdash are exempt if they do so accidentally, and are liable if they do so on purpose. The Gemara asks a question on this, because it understands that the Tosefta's statement that this is because of Tikun ha'Olam is referring to the later law that if they do so on purpose they are liable.

The Tosefta (ch.3) states the following. Originally they said that one who makes things (i.e. Terumah) impure and one who pours wine (is liable). They then stated that this is even regarding one who mixes Terumah with Chulin. If he does so accidentally, he is exempt. If he does so on purpose, he is liable, due to Tikun ha'Olam. Kohanim who made a Korban into Pigul in the Beis Hamikdash are exempt if they did so accidentally, and are liable if they did so on purpose, due to Tikun ha'Olam.

Question: This text is difficult, as (if the entire question is really from the Tosefta) it should have asked its question from the first part that we are currently discussing in the Gemara, namely making things impure, mixing, and pouring. (Note: There, too, the Tosefta says the reason is because of Tikun ha'Olam.)

Answer: It therefore seems that we do not have the text in the Mishnah that if people do so by accident, they are exempt. The Beraisa being quoted here must not be the Tosefta quoted earlier (but rather a Beraisa giving the reason for our Mishnah that only discusses people who do so on purpose). The Gemara's answer is that the statement, "Due to Tikun ha'Olam" is referring to the implication (that people who do so accidentally are exempt due to Tikun ha'Olam). (Note: For more on the simple explanation of Tosfos, see the Maharam.)

We find a similar answer later (55b) regarding a stolen Chatas that was not known to the public.

Explanation: This is derived from the Pasuk "Ubad" (Devarim 21:3 regarding an Eglah Arufah, and which the Gemara in Bava Metzia 30a says also applies to a Parah Adumah). The way it is pronounced, which is "Ubad" (normally written with a Vav), is compared to the way it is written, which is "Avad." We derive from here that if a male went on it to have relations, it makes it invalid as a Parah Adumah. This is despite the fact that the owner would normally want this to happen (if it was a regular female cow).

Similarly, if his friend made these animals be together and his friend wants this to happen, it is included in the definition of "Ubad" (which implies that anyway that it happens is considered enough to make it invalid). (Note: See the Gemara in Bava Metzia 30a at length.)

Question: If someone nicks the ear of his friend's cow he is exempt, as stated in Zevachim (25b) and Bava Kama (98a). This is because not all oxen are meant to be slaughtered as a Korban. The Gemara there asks a question from our Beraisa regarding someone who does work with Chatas water etc. This implies that only work, which is not a recognizable type of damage, makes one exempt from being made to pay by Beis Din. The Gemara answers that work is stated to include, that even though it is not recognizable he is liable in heaven. (Note: Accordingly, why don't we answer in our Gemara that even though unrecognizable damage is indeed called damage, the fact that oxen generally are not meant to be brought as a Korban does not qualify this as damage (Maharam)?)

Answer: It seems that when we say that oxen in general are not meant to be brought as Korbanos, this only makes the damage equivalent to unrecognizable damage (not that it is not damage at all).

Implied Question: The Beraisa states work. (Note: If the reason it is invalid is actually because he took his mind off it, why would the Beraisa imply that it is invalid due to the work?)

Answer#1: Work was only stated for the case of the Parah Adumah.

Answer#2: Alternatively, even though he was negligent by taking his mind off of it due to the work, even so he is exempt in Beis Din.

Question: This is difficult. How can we compare this case of damage that happens by itself to a case where someone is making something impure with his hands? It is understandable that someone who makes something impure with his hands is liable. However, where it became impure on its own he can say, "Here is what is your before you."

Someone who weakens his friend's animal with stones or work is liable for the damage. However, if the weakening happens by itself or his friend's fruit partially becomes rotten, he can say to him, "Here is what is yours before you." He can say this because they are still in their original form and he did not acquire them by doing a Shinui (making a change in the object).

Answer: Being that damage that is not recognizable is called damage, this damage is considered recognizable. If so, there is no greater Shinui than this, and he is therefore considered as having acquired the object with a Shinui. He has to pay money based on the evaluation of what he stole, and cannot say "Here is what is yours before you."

Question: The Gemara in Bava Kama (98b) suggests that this Mishnah regarding someone who stole a coin and it became invalid etc. is according to Rebbi Yakov who says that if the guardian returned it (an ox that was sentenced to death because it gored while he was watching it) after its judgement, it is considered returned.

Rabah pushed aside (this suggestion by saying) that everyone agrees regarding things prohibited from benefit that one can say, "Here is what is yours before you." Otherwise, they could argue regarding Chametz that was left over Pesach.

Rather, here the case is where the verdict regarding the ox is finished when the ox was not present. The Rabbanan holds that we cannot do this, as the owner can say (to the guardian), "If you would have given it to me, I would have taken it to the swamp. Now, my ox is in the hands of someone that I cannot deal with." This implies that the guardian is liable because he grabbed the ox. This is how Rashi explains the Gemara (Bava Kama 45a).

If it is considered unrecognizable damage, even if the guardian did take the animal he should be exempt, as is apparent here. If it is considered recognizable damage, even if Beis Din grabbed the ox themselves and he did not grab it, why should the guardian be exempt? Shouldn't he have ensured that this (goring) did not happen in the first place?

Additionally, if it would be true that if Beis Din seized the ox on their own the guardian would be exempt, even if he were to seize the animal he should be exempt. Even if he would not seize it, Beis Din would seize it! He therefore did not cause the owners to lose anything by seizing the animal!

Answer: It seems that the claim that the guardian seized the ox is even if he did not physically seize it. Rather, it is as if to say, "You caused it to be seized because you did not watch it in a way where Beis Din would have no reason to seize it."

According to the Rabbanan, being that they do not finish the verdict of the ox unless the ox is present, the fact that the animal falls into the hands of Beis Din is considered recognizable damage. Being that the recognizable damage is because of the negligence of the guardian, he is liable, and cannot claim, "Here is what is yours before you."

However, according to Rebbi Yakov, the fact that it falls into the hands of Beis Din is not considered recognizable damage, being that it is not made unfit because it fell into their hands. Even if would not have fallen into their hands they could finish its judgement without it being present. Being that this is considered unrecognizable judgement, he can say to him, "Here is what is yours before you," like regarding Chametz that was in his possession over Pesach.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that the Gemara proceeds to quote a Tannaic argument about this, it still says that this question is a Tiyuvta. (Note: Why doesn't it answer that he has a Tanna who holds like him?)

Answer: It says this because the law indeed is that it is considered unrecognizable damage.

Explanation: This even applies to himself, and even on that day. This is the proof that he does not give a fine to an accidental transgression due to the possibility of a transgression on purpose.

This is also implied in Shabbos (38a). They asked Rebbi Chiya bar Abba there, what is the law if he forgot a pot on the fire on Shabbos and it cooked on Shabbos? He answered that if it was done on purpose, it cannot be eaten. This means that it cannot be eaten on Shabbos by anyone, but after Shabbos it can even be eaten by him.

Explanation: This is also the explanation of the accidental case according to Rebbi Yehudah. (Note: This means that Rebbi Yehudah holds that anyone, including the sinner, can eat from it after Shabbos.)

The Mishnah in Chulin (14a) states that if someone slaughters on Shabbos and Yom Kippur, even if he is liable to be killed his slaughtering is valid. This is established to be according to Rebbi Yehudah. The Gemara asks, why don't we say it is talking about doing so on purpose according to Rebbi Meir? The Gemara there means Shabbos is like Yom Kippur in that it would be forbidden on Shabbos, whether to him or to other. The Beraisa states that the slaughtering is kosher, whether for him or others, as is stated there regarding the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

When Rebbi Yehudah says that if someone cooks on purpose it should not be eaten forever, he is only referring to him. However, others can eat from it after Shabbos.

If he means that nobody can eat from it like the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar, this is difficult. In Bava Kama (71a) and Kesuvos (34a), the Rabbanan exclude a person who (steals and) butchers someone else's animal on Shabbos from paying four or five times its value. The Gemara says that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar who holds that benefiting from a transgression of Shabbos is forbidden, and this is therefore a slaughtering that is not fit to permit the animal.

Why does the Gemara establish that this is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar anymore than according to Rebbi Yehudah? According to Rebbi Yehudah it is also forbidden to benefit from a forbidden act done on Shabbos!

Additionally, the Gemara inquires into the reasoning of Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar, and does not inquire into the reasoning of Rebbi Yehudah.

Explanation: In conclusion, we can say that transgressing on purpose according to Rebbi Meir has the same consequences (as far as benefit) as accidental transgression according to Rebbi Yehudah. We can also say that transgressing on purpose according to Rebbi Yehudah has the same consequences (as far as benefit) as accidental transgression according to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

Question: Isn't the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yehudah? The Mishnah states that Kohanim who accidentally made Korbanos into Pigul are exempt! (Note: According toour Gemara's logic, a fine should be applied.)

Answer: If we would give the Kohanim a fine, they would refrain and not do the Avodah (service of the Beis Hamikdash).