Question #1: Why is Re'uven, who rendered him a Goseis, Patur, bearing in mind the principle that 'The majority of Gos'sim are destined to die', and the Gemara states at the beginning of 'ben Sorer u'Moreh', 69a, that in matters of Nefashos, we go after the majority?

Question #2: If someone strikes his fellow-Jew and they assess tht he will die, will he not be Chayav? So is this case not also an assessment tat e will die?

Answer: Since the Torah is lenient with him, by incarcerating him (in the interim), as the Gemara will explain shortly, and he is not sentenced to death even if the victim is assessed to die; and what's more, sometimes, (despite the majority) he survives, in spite of the assessment - consequently, since in the end, Shimon came and killed him, Reuven is Patur.

Proof (Part 1): From a Goseis bi'Yedei Shamayim, who is also considered alive to implicate the one who subsequently kills him, even though the majority of Gos'sin are destined to die.

Proof (Part 2): Therefore one should not be surprised if a Goseis bi'Yerdei Adam is considered alive to exempt the person who rendered him a Goseis.

Clarification: These reasons are necessary, even though the Gemara has Darshened it from Pesukim.

Clarification: Even according to those who hold that 'T'reifah Chayah' (a T'reifah can survive [a year]), since in the end, this wound will cause his death.

Proof: From the fact that Rava holds 'T'reifah Chayah' in the first Perek of Temurah, Daf 11a & 11b).

Refutation #1: It seems however, that the correct text there is 'Rabah', who is the disputant of Rav Chisda.

refutation #2: Moreover, Rava holds the opposite in the first Perek of Bechoros, Daf 3a & 3b.

Clarification (Part 1): It speaks where they saw it by day, in which case they are authorized to judge by virtue of what they saw.

Clarification (Part 2): But had they seen it at night-time, it would require testimony, as the Gemara clearly states in 'ha'Chovel' (Bava Kama, 90b & 91a), in which case one would need testimony that is subject to Hazamah.

Implied Question: Even though in Perek Arba va'Chamishah (ibid., 44b), the Gemara rules that according to Rebbi Shimon, we exempt an ox that intended to kill Reuven, but which killed Shimon instead, based on the principle 'The death of the ox follows the same pattern as the death of its owner' ...

Answer: ... the cases are not comparable, since there, the same reason applies to both of them (the ox and its master); whereas here, exempting the owner based on 'Eidus which is not subject to Hazamah' is feasible, exempting the ox for that reason is not.

Statement: There is an opinion - later, on Daf 80b, which holds that the Mekoshesh too, was a Hora'as Sha'ah.

Implied Question: Even though S'tam Misah is Chenek ...

Answer: ... it is logical to say tat Moshe compared it to someone who worships Avodah-Zarah, who is Chayav Sekilah, since someone who desecrates Shabbos publicly is akin to one who denies Hash-m, seeing as he denies the Creation.

Clarification (Part 1): We do not require a Pasuk to exempt him from Misah, as we said earlier 'Would you think that the victim walks around and the one who struck him is sentenced to death?' ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... only we need the Pasuk to teach us that he is obligated to pay Ripuy (doctor's fees) and Sheves (work-loss).

Implied Question: And even though with regard to Dinei Mamonos, one goes back (for re-judgement) both for Z'chus and for Chov ...

Answer: We would have thought that, since they assessed him (the victim) for Misah, he (the defendant) ought to be Patur on the grounds that Heaven had mercy on him.

Question (Part 1): On what the Gemara asked earlier as to what the Rabbanan learn from "ve'Nikah ha'Makeh" ...

Question (Part 2): ... bearing in mind that both Rebbi Nechemyah and the Rabbanan require two Umd'nos; So just as Rebbi Nechemyah requires them for his two cases, so too, do the Rabbanan require them for their two cases - for where they assessed him for life and he died, since it implies here that the Rabbanan require a Pasuk for that?

Answer: The Gemara's Kashya is based on the fact that "ve'Nikah ha'Makeh" refers to "Im Yakum" (where the victim recovered), which speaks where they assessed him for death and he lived.

Clarification: Rashi explains that in both cases, he is obligated to pay.

Question: There where they assessed him for life and he died, why is it not like 'Chayvei Misos Shog'gin, which are Patur from Misah, seeing as the reason that he is Patur from Misah is not min ha'Din, but because he went out of Beis-Din Patur.