Rava therefore establishes our Mishnah as two different cases. The Reisha speaks in a case where the murderer is not known - where one of two people shot an arrow and killed someone, and where everyone agrees that they are both Patur, since the culprit's identity is not known.

And when Rebbi Yossi says 'Afilu Aba Chalafta', he means that - even if one of those two people would be his father, Chalafta, we would have no right to assume that the other person is the murderer.

Rebbi Yehudah ('Konsin osan le'Kipah') argues in a case - where the Shor ha'Niskal got mixed up in a group of innocent oxen. The Tana Kama now holds - that they must be stoned (seeing as they are all anyway Asur be'Hana'ah) ...

... whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains - that Chazal did not require Beis-Din to take the trouble to stone all the oxen (mi'Safek).

Another Beraisa rules that in a case where a Shor ha'Niskal gives birth to a calf ...

... before the G'mar Din - the baby is Mutar be'Hana'ah.

... after the G'mar Din - the baby is Asur be'Hana'ah (because of the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' [a fetus is like part of its mother]).

The Tana Kama rules that, if the ox got mixed up with innocent oxen, and then they got mixed up with a second group of oxen (see Tosfos DH 'va'Acheros'), they are all taken to the Kipah (like Rebbi Yehudah). Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - requires them all to be stoned (like the Rabbanan).

Rava rules that in a case where a pregnant cow gored someone and killed him, when the baby is born, it cannot be brought as a Korban - because it gored together with its mother ('Ubar Yerech Imo Hu'), as we just explained.

Where the cow did not gore someone, but was raped by him - Rava rules that it (the baby) is forbidden too, since, by the same token, it was raped together with its mother.

In either case, the cow is not then sentenced to death - because the Tana is speaking where there was only one witness, who might even have been the owner himself.

The problem this poses on the previous Beraisa is that - the Tana seems to permit the baby as long as it is born before the conclusion of the Din (notwithstanding the fact that the mother was already pregnant at the time of the goring) and Rava will certainly hold that if two witnesses saw the goring, the animal is Asur be'Hana'ah.

We cannot establish the Beraisa speaks when the baby was not brought to Beis-Din at all - because then, why would the Tana need to speak about the baby, since the same would apply to the mother. It must therefore be a question of whether one needs to bring it to Beis-Din or not.

So we amend the Lashon 'Im ad she'Lo Nigmar Diynah Yaldah, V'ladah Mutar' to read 'Im ad she'Lo Nigmar Diynah, Ibrah ve'Yaldah, V'ladah Mutar ... ' (and the baby is permitted only because it did not participate in the goring).

This answer leaves us with a problem on the Seifa however, 'Im mi'she'Nigmar Diynah, Ibrah ve'Yaldah, V'ladah Asurah') - because according to those who hold 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Mutar', why should the baby be Asur, seeing as ...

... the baby's father (who was permitted) was as much responsible for its birth as the mother?

Ravina therefore leaves the Reisha intact ('Im ad she'Lo Nigmar Diynah, Ibrah ve'Yaldah, V'ladah Mutar), but amends the Seifa to read - ve'Im ad she'Lo Nigmar Diynah Ibrah, u'mi'she'Nigmar Diynah, Yaldah, V'ladah Asur' (because 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu').

We try to prove from our Mishnah 'Kol Chayvei Miysos she'Nis'arvu Zeh ba'Zeh, Nidunin be'Kalah' that - a warning for a more stringent punishment incorporates a punishment that is less stringent.

Rebbi Yirmiyah however, counters that the author of our Mishnah is the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who, after ruling that Chayvei Miysos require 'Eidah, Eidim and Hasra'ah', adds that - one only needs to warn the sinner that he will be sentenced to death (but not necessarily, which death).

Rebbi Yehudah, who is more strict than the Tana Kama - requires that the witnesses specify which death he will receive.

The Tana Kama learns his opinion from the Mekoshesh, whose death was not even known at the time (as we explained earlier). Rebbi Yehudah maintains - that the Mekoshesh was a 'Hora'as Sha'ah' (as we also explained there).

Our Mishnah discusses the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon with regard to 'ha'Niskalin be'Nisrafin, Rebbi Shimon Omer "Yadunu bi'S'kilah", she'ha'Sereifah Chamurah'. When Rav Yechezkel quoted it to his son, Rav Yehudah (the Talmid of Rav) however - he switched the order to 'ha'Nisrafin be Niskalin'.

The problem that Rav Yehudah had with his father's statement was - the Lashon 'ha'Nisrafin be'Niskalin', implying that it is a minority of Nisrafin that fell into a majority of Niskalin, in which case, his reason 'she'ha'Sereifah Chamurah' would be superfluous, since we would anyway go after the majority.

In addressing the problem - Rav Yehudah said to his father - 'Father, don't learn like that (learn like this)!'

And he ...

... amended the statement to read - 'ha'Niskalin be'Nisrafin ... ' (as it stands in our Mishnah).

... explains the Seifa, where the Chachamim state 'Yadunu bi'Sereifah, she'Sekilah Chamurah' (which, according to Rav Yehudah's version of the Reisha, leaves us with exactly the same Kashya that he asked there [that the Tana could now have attributed the ruling to the fact that the majority of the animals are 'Nisrafin') - by establishing the Chachamim as coming (not to teach us their personal opinion, but) to dispute that of Rebbi Shimon, that 'S'reifah is not more stringent (like he says), but S'kilah.

Shmuel rebuked his Talmid Rav Yehudah - for telling his father directly that he had erred.

According to the Tana of the Beraisa, one corrects one's father - by just informing him that there is a Pasuk in the Torah (or a Halachah in Shulchan-Aruch), which one reads out word for word, allowing his father to draw his own conclusions.

We reject even the original wording of the Beraisa, that the son says 'Aba, Kach Kasuv ba'Torah' - because that is like telling him that he sinned, and it hurts.