Previous daf

1)

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki", 'Naki mi'D'mei V'lados'.
To which case is he referring?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva ask on Rebbi Yossi Hagelili from the Pasuk "Ki Yinatzu Anashim, ve'Nagfu Ishah Harah"?

(c) To answer this Kashya, Rav Ula B'rei de'Rav Idi interprets "Anashim" differently.
What distinction does he make between a Tam and a Mu'ad, based on his D'rashah "Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim Dumya la'Anashim'?

(d) On what grounds does Rava object to this D'rashah?

(a) What is Rabah's version of Rav Ula B'rei de'Rav Idi's D'rashah ("Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim Dumya la'Anashim')?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Bo'shes) from the same D'rashah "ve'Chi Yinatzu Anashim", "Anashim", ve'Lo Sh'varim'?

(c) Abaye asks on Rabah why we do not say by Bo'shes too, that only a Tam is Patur, but a Mu'ad is Chayav.
From where do we know that this is not the case?

4)

(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah queries Abaye and Rava's answer. According to him, even a person would be Chayav in the case of "Ki Yinatzu Anashim", even if he killed the woman with the same stroke, because he holds like Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say about someone who meant to kill Reuven and he struck Shimon by mistake (the case discussed by the Torah)?

(b) Why is he not Patur from paying anyway, due to Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah (who exempts even someone who killed be'Shogeg from paying for the damage)?

(c) So how does Rav Ada bar Ahavah finally establish "Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim Dumya la'Anashim'?

(d) What did Rav Chagai bring with him when he came from the south?

5)

(a) In yet another Beraisa, Rebbi Akiva says "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki", 'Naki mi'D'mei Eved'.
To which case is he referring, bearing in mind the Din of thirty Shekalim that one has to pay if one's ox gored an Eved?

(b) We ask why Rebbi Akiva does not ask on himself the same Kashya that he asked earlier on Rebbi Eliezer (when he Darshened 'Naki me'Chatzi Kofer'). How does Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak establish the case to resolve this problem?

(c) Then why did Rebbi Akiva ask this Kashya on Rebbi Eliezer? Why did it not occur to him that if this answer was good enough for him, then it is good enough for Rebbi Eliezer too?

(a) Why, on the other hand, did Rebbi Eliezer not establish the case when the owner Shechted it first, like Rebbi Akiva?

(b) What problem does that pose on Rebbi Akiva?

(c) Rav Asi quoted a great man who explained Rebbi Akiva.
What was his name?

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina based his answer on another statement of Rebbi Akiva.
What did Rebbi Akiva say about a Shor Tam that injured a person?

(b) How would this answer the Kashya that we asked on Rebbi Akiva ('Naki mi'Demei Eved')?

(c) Rebbi Zeira refutes this however, on the basis of a Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk (in connection with an ox that killed a child) "ka'Mishpat ha'Zeh Ya'aseh Lo"?

(d) What did Rebbi Zeira mean when he said 'Tavra Rebbi Akiva li'Gezizeih'?

(a) How does Rava finally explain Rebbi Akiva? What makes us think that the owner of the Tam would have to pay min ha'Aliyah by Eved more than by any other case of Nezek?

(b) How do we know for sure that Rava's explanation is the right one?

(c) Before concluding that Eved by Tam is even more stringent than Mu'ad (as we just explained), the Tana gives two reasons why we really should not require a Pasuk to exempt him. One of them is because an Eved should not be any different than a ben Chorin (where a Tam pays mi'Gufo).
What is the second reason?

(a) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Akiva discusses the Hekesh "ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah".
Why can the Pasuk not be coming to obligate a Mu'ad that killed a woman just like when it killed a man?

(b) Then in which connection *is* the Pasuk comparing a woman to a man?

(c) What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Yarash Osah"?

(d) We actually derive this from the word "li'She'eiro" mentioned in the Pasuk, and 'She'eiro' means his wife.
How do we know that the Torah is not saying that it is the man's property that goes to his wife, as is implied by the Pasuk?

(a) How does Resh Lakish reconcile the two D'rashos of Rebbi Akiva (that, on the one hand, her property goes to her husband, and on the other, her Kofer goes to her heirs)? In what way is Kofer different than the rest of her property?

(b) What do we learn from the sequence of the Pasuk "ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah ha'Shor Yisakel ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas. Im Kofer Yushas Alav"?

(c) If not for this Pasuk, what would we have thought?

(d) The Tana of the Beraisa rules that someone who strikes a pregnant woman and kills her babies, must pay the woman her Nezek and Tza'ar, and the value of the babies to her husband.
In the event that ...

1. ... her husband has died, who receives the D'mei V'lados?
2. ... the woman has died, who receives her Nezek and Tza'ar?

(a) Who receives the Nezek, the Tza'ar and the D'mei V'lados, in the event that the woman was a Shifchah Meshuchreres or a Giyores, and neither she or her husband are still alive?

(b) How do Rabah and Rav Nachman reconcile this Beraisa (where we see that the woman's Yorshin inherit her and not her husband) with Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah from "ve'Yarash Osah" (from which he learns that it is the husband who inherits his wife)?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Yashis Alav *Ba'al ha'Ishah*"?

Next daf