What is R. Yehudah's reason? It is due to the venom in the holes [in his teeth. The one who brought the snake to bite him, it is as if he injected the venom in the victim.]

What is Rabanan's reason? [They hold that] the venom is not in the holes until [the snake] vomits it to there. (The person merely caused the snake to poison the victim.)

(Mishnah): If Reuven hit Shimon with his fist or a rock, and they assessed that Shimon will (probably) die, and Shimon improved, but then worsened and died, Reuven is liable;

R. Nechemyah exempts, due to Raglayim l'Davar (grounds to say so).

(Gemara) Explanation: Our Mishnah means that R. Nechemyah exempts, and Chachamim obligate, due to Raglayim l'Davar (that he hit him hard enough to kill him);

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.

R. Nechemyah 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 Reuven (who struck him) is killed?! Rather, even if he 'died' according to the first assessment, (if he improved and later died, Reuven) is exempt.

Rabanan 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, does 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 do they argue about?

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]?

Answer: 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.)

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 Anashim'', "v'Chi Yerivun Anashim'' - Merivah is the same as Matzos (fighting)! Why does it Torah say Ki Yinatzu? [This is the same as] Ki Yerivun! [Why does it say] Ki Yerivun? [This is the same as] Ki Yinatzu! (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: Granted, [the law of] one who intends to one who does not intend (teaches that we kill the murderer, even though he intended to kill someone other than the victim). However, [the law of] one who does not intend to one who intends - 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.

(R. Yitzchak): If they estimated that he will live, and he died, since it is the way of the living to die, since it says "Rak Shivto Yiten v'Rapo Yerapei'', he pays Sheves and Ripuy (even though he died, since the Torah said to pay even though everyone eventually dies).

Question (R. Yitzchak): If they estimated that he will die, and he lived, it is not the way of the dead to live again [why should he pay Sheves and Ripuy? The estimation was that he does not pay money!]

Answer: Since it says "Rak Shivto Yiten v'Rapo Yerapei'', he pays Sheves and Ripuy (even in this case. We explained Rav Yitzchak like ZAHAV HA'ARETZ).