1)

(a)Our Mishnah, discussing someone who, of his own volition, admits to having seduced a girl, rules that he is obligated to pay her father Boshes and Pegam, but not Kenas - because, as we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim, Yeshalem Shenayim l'Re'ehu" 'Prat l'Marshi'a es Atzmo' (i.e. only someone whom the judges find guilty, is obligated to pay a Kenas, but not someone who confesses of his own volition).

(b)The equivalent Halachah with regard to someone who confesses that he stole will be - that he is obligated to pay for what he stole, but not Kefel (double), and not four or five times, should he steal a sheep or an ox and Shecht or sell it.

(c)If someone admits that his Mu'ad ox (that has already killed three times) killed a person or another ox, he has to pay. Payment for one's ox killing a person - is classified as 'Kofer' (a ransom, because it spares him from Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim).

(d)Following the pattern of the previous examples, he will be Patur - if he admits that his ox killed an Eved Kena'ani (where the payment would be a Kenas of thirty Shekalim).

2)

(a)The Tana discusses the case of someone who admits to having seduced a girl, not to preclude a case where he admitted to having raped her, but - because it is a bigger Chidush (seeing as he is believed, in spite of also having stigmatized the girl).

(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon indeed rules - that he is not believed, because he stigmatized the girl.

(c)Rav Papa asked Abaye what the Din will be (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon) if the girl forewent her honor in order to receive the money (presumably he is speaking about a girl who in the meantime became a Bogeres). Abaye replied - that she may well be willing to forego her honor, but who says that her father is?!

(d)And even if ...

1. ... her father too, expresses his willingness to forego his honor for the sake of his daughter) - who says that the other members of her family are willing to do so?!

2. ... the other members of her family express their willingness to forego their honor, too - they can only speak on behalf of themselves, but not on behalf of distant cousins who live overseas. In other words, we contend with the honor of every member of the family.

3)

(a)Rav Papa holds that the half damage which the owner of a Shor Tam (an ox that has not yet gored three times) is Mamon. According to Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua - it is Kenas.

(b)The ramifications of their Machlokes are - whether the Mazik becomes Patur from paying through his own confession (Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua) or not (Rav Papa).

(c)Rav ...

1. ... Papa holds 'Palga Nizka Mamona' - because he maintains that if an ox is not guarded, it is liable to cause willful damage.

2. ... Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua holds 'Palga Nizka Kenasa' - because in his opinion, an ox is naturally placid, and will not generally cause willful damage if left alone.

(d)According to ...

1. ... Rav Papa, the owner does not then pay full damages - because the Torah took pity on him (as the responsibility of watching his ox twenty-four hours a day would be overwhelming).

2. ... Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua, the Torah obligates him to pay something - to encourage him to keep an eye on his ox.

4)

(a)The Mishnah in Bava Kama states 'ha'Nizak v'ha'Mazik b'Tashlumin. According to Rav Papa, this is easily understood (seeing as the Nizak loses half his claim). According to Rav Huna B'rei d'Rav Yehoshua however, the statement initially appears difficult to understand - because how can the Tana describe the Nizak as sharing in the payment (the loss of his ox), when he should count himself lucky to receive anything at all (seeing as, strictly speaking, the Mazik is not to blame, as we explained).

(b)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua therefore explains - that the Tana is not referring to the actual claim, but to the damaged ox, which remains in the owner's domain. Consequently, he is the one who will have to bear the losses should the carcass depreciate ('P'chas Neveilah d'Nizak').

(c)When the Tana of the Mishnah in Bava Kama says 'Tashlumei Nezek: Melamed she'ha'Be'alim Metaplin ba'Neveilah' - he means what 'P'chas Neveilah d'Nizak', as we just explained.

(d)We need two Mishnahs to teach us the same thing - one by a Tam and one by a Mu'ad.

5)

(a)Had the Tana taught us the Din of P'chas Neveilah by a ...

1. ... Tam, we would not have been able to extend it to a Mu'ad - because once his animal becomes a Mu'ad, we would have perhaps placed the responsibility to look after the carcass too, on the Mazik's shoulders.

2. ... Mu'ad, we would not have been able to extend it to a Tam - because we would have said that it is only the owner of a Mu'ad, who is already paying the full damage, who is exempt from looking after the carcass, but the owner of a Tam, who only pays for half the damage, will perhaps be Chayav to look after the carcass too.

(b)The Mishnah in Bava Kama states - that a Tam pays half the damage from the body of the ox that caused the damage (exclusively), whereas a Mu'ad pays the full damage out of his own pocket.

(c)The fact that the Tana does not insert the fact that a Tam does not pay on his own admission, whereas a Mu'ad does - suggests that a Tam, like a Mu'ad, pays on his own admission, a Kashya on Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua.

(d)We answer 'Tana v'Shayer' (The Tana omits another case, which justifies omitting this distinction, too). The other distinction that the Tana omits - is 'Chatzi Kofer' (from which a Tam is Patur if it kills a person, whereas a Mu'ad does pay Kofer, as we learned earlier).

6)

(a)We conclude that the distinction of 'Chatzi Kofer' is not considered an omission - because the author of the Mishnah in Bava Kama is Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili, who holds 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'.

(b)This retraction is necessary - because otherwise, the Mishnah would now present Rav Papa with a Kashya. How would he justify the omission of 'Chatzi Kofer', unless the Tana also omitted the distinction between a Tam and a Mu'ad who admit?! It now transpires that, according to Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua, the Tana omits both cases, whereas according to Rav Papa, he omits neither.

7)

(a)We ask from the Beraisa 'Hemis Shori es Ploni O Shoro shel Ploni, Harei Zeh Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'. Presuming that this Beraisa is speaking about a Tam - it will present a Kashya on Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who holds 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'.

(b)What prompts us to presume that the Tana is talking about a Tam is the Seifa, which states ' ... Avdo shel Ploni, Eino Meshalem Al Pi Atzmo'. According to Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua - if we were to establish the Beraisa by a Mu'ad, the problem would be why the Tana finds it necessary to jump from a ben Chorin (in the Reisha) to an Eved (when he could just as well have remained with a ben Chorin, and learned the Seifa by a Tam).

(c)The Beraisa, which incorporates a case of Chiyuv Kofer, could however, be speaking about a Tam - according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili, who holds that a Tam does pay (Chatzi) Kofer (in the same way as Rav Papa [the author of the current opinion] established the previous Beraisa).

(d)We resolve the former problem (of establishing the Beraisa by a Mu'ad according to Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua) - by pointing out that the Tana prefers to remain with a Mu'ad all the way through (rather than switch to a Tam in the Seifa).

8)

(a)Our Mishnah concludes 'Zeh ha'Klal, Kol ha'Meshalem Yeser al Mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem Al Pi Atzmo'. Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua ignores the obvious inference 'Ha Pachos mi'Mah she'Hizik, Meshalem al-pi Atzmo' - because he prefers to make the inference 'Ha K'mah she'Hizik, Meshalem Al Pi Atzmo' (as we shall soon see).

(b)In that case, the Tana could simply have written 'Zeh ha'Klal, Kol she'Eino Meshalem K'mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo', which seems to go against Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua. We nevertheless rule like him, giving the reason that the Tana did not want to write that - because of the exceptional of 'Chatzi Nezek Tzeroros', which would not fit into the rule.

(c)'Chatzi Nezek Tzeroros' - is when an animal kicks up pebbles as it walks, which, in turn, cause damage. This damage falls under the heading of 'Regel'.

(d)Nevertheless, the owner pays only half damages - because it is a 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

9)

(a)Due to the ruling 'Palga Nizka Kenasa', if a dog kills a sheep or a cat kills (specifically) a large chicken, and eats it in Bavel, it is considered 'Meshuneh' (unusual), and cannot be claimed in Bavel. (It appears that, for a cat to kill and eat small chickens is natural, in which case it would fall under the category of Shen [tooth]).

(b)'Keren Tam' - is the name of a category of damage that incorporates any deliberate damage performed by an animal. The criterion for this category (according to Rav Huna B'rei d'Rav Yehoshua) is the fact that it is unusual.

(c)The Din in Bavel is different than in Eretz Yisrael - because in Bavel there are no Semuchim (people who had Semichah, without which Beis-Din does not have the authority to impose fines. (Note, that Semichah can only be given in Eretz Yisrael, from someone who received Semichah, Ish mi'Pi Ish, from Moshe Rabeinu.)

(d)Kenas will apply even in Bavel - there where the Nizak grabbed something of the Mazik's (see also Tosfos DH 've'I'), in which case he will be permitted to hold it against the damages (which, as we just saw, he would otherwise be unable to claim).

10)

(a)If the Mazik requests a court-hearing in Eretz Yisrael, Beis-Din will grant it to him. In the event of the Nizak's refusing to go - they will place him in Cherem.

(b)Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "v'Lo Sasim Damim b'Veisecha" - that one is forbidden to retain a dangerous dog or to put up a rickety ladder in one's house.

(c)Someone who fails to comply with this - is also placed in Cherem.

11)

(a)If, after a man who raped or seduced a girl has been sentenced by Beis-Din to pay, the girl's father dies, his heirs receive the money.

(b)The girl herself receives it - if her father died before the sentence.

(c)If the girl became a Bogeres after Beis Din's sentence - then her father still receives the money; before it, then she receives the money.

(d)According to Rebbi Shimon, the criterion is not the sentence - but the actual claiming. Consequently, if her father died or she became a Bogeres before she managed to claim the money, the money belongs to her.

12)

(a)Whatever a Na'arah produces or finds also belongs to her father. The criterion with regard to these however - is the moment she produces or finds them. In other words, whatever she produces or finds belongs to her father immediately.

(b)The criterion in this case is different than that of rape or seduction - because the latter are Kenas, and Kenas only belongs to the claimant from the time that Beis-Din obligates the guilty party to pay. (Note: with regard to Boshes and Pegam (which is Mamon), see Tosfos DH 'Na'arah').