(Mishnah): If David hit Levi, and they assessed that Levi will die, and he improved, and afterwards got worse and died, David is liable [for murder];

R. Nechemyah exempts him, for there are Raglayim l'Davar [that he did not die due to the blow, for he improved].

(Gemara) Correction: Our Mishnah should say 'R. Nechemyah exempts, and Chachamim obligate, for there are Raglayim l'Davar (they initially assessed that Levi will die).

Rabanan hold that two assessments (the first, and now we say that he died) outweigh one assessment. R. Nechemyah holds that the middle assessment outweighs both of them.

What is the reason of R. Nechemyah? He learns from "Im Yakum v'His'halech ba'Chutz Al Mish'anto v'Nikah ha'Makeh" - would we think that the victim walks in the market, and this one (who struck him) is killed?! Rather, even if he 'died' according to the first assessment, (if he improved and later died, the murderer) is exempt.

What is the reason of Rabanan? They learn from "v'Lo Yamus v'Nafal l'Mishkav" - do we not know that if he did not die, he was bedridden (why did the Torah need to write both)? Rather, this is when they did not evaluate him for death.

If they did not evaluate him for death, would it say about this "Im Yakum v'His'halech ba'Chutz Al Mish'anto v'Nikah ha'Makeh", which implies that if he did not recover, he is liable?! Rather, they evaluated him for death.

Question: If they evaluated him for death, would it say "Rak Shivto Yiten [v'Rapo Yerapei]"? (There was no estimation for money!)

Answer #1 (R. Heila citing Reish Lakish): The Torah was Mechadesh that he pays.

Answer #2 (R. Avahu citing R. Yosi ben Chaninah): The evaluation was mistaken.

Question: What is the difference between them?

Answer #1: He improved from how he was, and afterwards got worse and died;

The one who says that it is a Chidush of the verse that [if he improved,] he pays - if he paid, he paid (he does not get back his money when the victim died. It is not clear according to the opinion that the evaluation was mistaken.)

Answer #2: If he did not pay, must he pay?

According to the opinion that the evaluation was mistaken, if he did not pay, we do not tell him to pay (for now we say that the first evaluation was correct. According to the opinion that it is a Chidush, it is not clear.)

Question: If he paid (after he recovered, and afterwards he died), does he take back [what he paid from the heirs]?

A Beraisa supports this opinion, and a Beraisa supports this opinion;

Support (for R. Yosi bar Chanina - Beraisa #1): If they estimated that he will die, and he lived, from when do we count for him [days that he cannot work while ill, to calculate Sheves]? It is from the beginning (when he hit him);

Inference: The evaluation was mistaken. If you will say that it is a Chidush of the verse, he should pay [Sheves] from when he recovered!

Support (for Reish Lakish - Beraisa #2): If they estimated that he will live, and he died, from when do we count for him [to stop giving Sheves]? It is from when he got sicker [and we expect him to die]. However, before this he gives;

Inference: It is a Chidush of the verse that he pays. If you will say that the evaluation was mistaken, also before [he worsened] he should not pay, for it is revealed retroactively that the evaluation was mistaken (from the beginning he was destined to die from the blow! We explained according to HAGAHOS R. DINAR, Sanhedrin 9:3.)

Question: If he hit him on his hand and it swelled, and the doctor said that if he cuts off his hand, he will live, does he pay the value of his hand?

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. "Ki Yinatzu", "v'Chi Yerivun" - Matzos is the same as Merivah (fighting), and Merivah is the same as Matzos! Why does the Torah say Ki Yinatzu and Ki Yerivun?! (Both verses teach that if the victim died, he does not pay.)

Rather, it gives [the law of Ki Yerivun, i.e.] one who intends, to [Ki Yinatzu, i.e.] one who does not intend (to kill the victim, rather, someone else) and the law of one who does not intend, to one who intends.

Question: If one who does not intend is liable, all the more so one who intends! (Why did this need to be taught?)

Answer: Rather, he hit him on his hand and it swelled, and the doctor said that if he cuts off his hand, he will live. Does he pay the value of his hand? Just like you say there, that the Torah was Mechadesh that he pays the value of the fetus, so the Torah was Mechadesh here that he pays the value of the hand.

(Mishnah): Shmuel was a Nazir. R. Nehorai says so;

It says [about him] "u'Morah (a Ta'ar) will not pass over his head". It says "Morah" about Shimshon, and Morah about Shmuel. Just like Morah about Shimshon refers to Nazir, also Morah about Shmuel is Nazir.

R. Yosi: "Morah" refers to [Mora, i.e. fear] of people (Shmuel will not fear anyone).

Objection (R. Nehorai): "Shmuel said 'how can I go? Sha'ul will hear and kill me'". This shows that he feared people!

(Gemara - R. Yanai): It says "v'Chol he'Harim Asher ba'Mader Ye'aderun Lo Savo Shamah Yir'as Shamir va'Shayis" - just like thorns fear only the iron [sickle], so hair fears only iron (a razor. This supports R. Nehorai, that Morah is a razor - R. MEIR SIMCHAH.)