Question: Let the Nizak claim the ox completely, in which case it will no longer be called the Aliyah (best property) of the owner?

Answer: Were he to claim it completely, we would not wait until he has been fully compensated from the plowing ...

Precedent: ... just as we would not wait for the owner, if he were to request to wait until he has plowed with the animal before stoning it.

Question #1: Then why does the Tana say 'on his eye' and 'on his ear', seeing as, if he seized him, he is Chayav even next to his next to his eye and his ear?

Question #2: Moreover, we learned in the Tosefta (Perek 9) that if he struck next to his ear and his eye, he does not go free, as the Torah says "ve'Chi Yakeh", 'until he performs an act on the Nizak' ...

Question #2 (cont.): ... implying that it is because of a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, and not because 'he scared himself'.

Corroborating the Text: This is the correct text ...

The Chidush: It teaches us that one assesses the cost of the Sheves and the Ripuy up to the time that he is cured, which he must pay immediately.

The Chidush (cont.): And the same applies to the five things, as Rashi explains.

Support: And this is evident in the Tosefta (Perek 9 [See also Mesores ha'Sgas]) which states 'If they assessed him and he was steadily deteriorating' ...

Conclusion: ... from which we see that Ripuy is subject to assessment.

Question: How is Chiyuv is applicable here?

Refuted Answer: If he means Patur from Malkos (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Refutation: ... in the case of 'ha'Kotzetz Neti'osav, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Rashai, Patur' - 'Patur' cannot possibly mean Patur from Malkos ...

Reason: ... since he is Chayav for cutting down fruit-trees ...

Source (Pasuk): ... which we learn from "ve'Oso Lo Sichros" ...

Source (Shas): ... as the Gemara states in the last Perek of Makos (Daf 22a).

Answer: We will therefore need to push and to say that 'Patur' means - even though there is no aspect of Chiyuv for someone who does not care about his body, nevertheless, others who wound him are Chayav.

Explanation #1: ... and the case of 'others who cut down his sapling are Chayav', we will have to establish like Rebbi Meir - who says (in Kesuvos, Daf 32b) that 'Lokeh u'Meshalem', since he receives Malkos on account of "Lo Sichros".

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it speaks where they did not warn him (in which case Malkos is not applicable).

Clarification: This means that Rebbi Akiva in the Mishnah and Rebbi Akiva in the Beraisa argue, and that the answers that the Gemara gave earlier do not stand.

Clarification (cont.): According to that, it fits nicely, since, because it said 'Two Tana'im according to Rebbi Akiva', the Gemara asks who is the author of the Mishnah which says that according to Rebbi Akiva a person is not permitted to wound oneself?

Question: What does the Gemara currently think? Does one need to prove that someone who tears clothes transgresses the La'av of 'Bal Tashchis'?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that the Gemara is merely coming to prove that one is forbidden to wound oneself even where there is a need to do so ...

Example #1: Such as the case (in our Mishnah) of Ishah she'Tafchah al Roshah' ...

Example #2: ... and the case of "Ach es Dimchem" - a person who commits suicide out of fear ...

Example #3: ... and also that of someone who rents a garment over a dead relative - all of these are considered 'for a need'.

Question: And when the Gemara relates in Mo'ed Katan (Daf 24a) how Shmuel rent over Rav thirteen (See Mesores ha'Shas) fine woollen garments?

Answer: ... a Talmid Chacham is different; nor was that even considered excessive.

Inference: This seems to imply that even a Nazir Tahor is branded 'a sinner'.

Support: In Perek Mi sha'Amar Hareini Nazir Megale'ach (Nazir, Daf 19a) too, Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar holds that 'A Tahor Nazir is a sinner'.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Torah writes it in connection with a Tamei Nazir ...

Answer: ... is because he sinned twice.

Support: And so it says in Nedarim (Daf 10a).

Question: In the first Perek of Nazir (Daf 3a) the Gemara asks that 'Since Nezirus is a sinful act, how can we refer to him as 'nice'?

Question (cont.): And it answers that, even according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who calls a Nazir a sinner, that is only one who is Tamei ...

Question (concl.): ... who is likely to transgress his Nezirus, but a Tahor Nazir is not branded a sinner?

Answer: When the Gemara says that he is not a sinner, answers Rabeinu Tam, it means that the Mitzvah is greater than the sin, since it is a Mitzvah to take on Nezirus ...

Proof: ... as the Gemara states (at the beginning of Sotah) 'Whoever sees a Sotah in disgrace should abstain from wine'.

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless a slight sin there is ...

Precedent: And it is comparable to someone who fasts a Ta'anis Chalom on Shabbos, whose evil decree is torn up on the one hand, but who is punished for fasting on Shabbos, on the other.

Precedent (cont.): What should he do? He should atone for having fasted by fasting!' - But the Mitzvah is greater than the Aveirah.

Conclusion: And what the Gemara means with regard to Nazir is that even Rebi Elazar ha'Kapar who calls a Nazir 'a sinner', that refers specifically to a Tamei Nazir, who is the main sinner ...

Conclusion (cont.): But not to a Tahor one, whom he does not consider so much of a sinner.

Implied Question: When the Gemara in 'Chezkas ha'Batim' (Bava Basra, Daf 36a) rules, in the case of a man who takes a scythe and a rope and announces that he intends to cut down the date-palm that so-and-so sold him ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... that he is believed - because a person would not have the Chutzpah to cut down someone else's date-palm?

Answer: It speaks there with regard to picking the fruit ...

Proof: Since he uses the term 'Gedirah' (to pick dates) and talks about 'a scythe and a rope', which are tools that are used by people who pick dates, and also one tends to sell dates, but not date-palms to fell.

Proof (cont.): And if it was talking about cutting down the date-palm, he ought to have used the term 'Narga' (an ax), and he should also have said 'va'Akatleih' (and I will cut it down) ...

Source: ... as Rav Nachman states in Perek Kol ha'Nishba'in (Shevu'os, Daf 46b [See Tosfos there, DH 'Avid']) 'Someone who takes an ax and declares that he will go and cut down so-and-so's date-palm, which is subsequently found felled, we do not assume that he felled it ...

Reason: ... because people tend to make rash statements, and not carry them out.

Clarificcation: In Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin, 87a & 87b) it is evident that this refers to payment for the B'rachah.

Question: What happened to the Mitzvah itself? (Why does he not pay for that)?

Answer: The Mitzvah and the B'rachah are in fact one and the same.

Implied Question: Even though in the case of an ox that stands to be killed and of a tree that stands to be cut down', one pays for the Mitzvah despite the fact that there is no B'rachah to recite?

Answer: ... nevertheless, the combined payment for the Mitzvah of Kisuy plus that of the B'rachah is only ten gold pieces.

Rabeinu Tam's Ruling: It happened once that the Shatz (the Gabai) called up Reuven to the Torah and Shimon came and Leined; and when they asked Rabeinu Tam what to do, he ordered Shimon to give Reuven a chicken to Shecht in payment for the two B'rachos.

Refutation: The Ri however, disagrees with that reasoning, because if so, why did Raban Gamliel order the man to pay ten gold coins?

Rabeinu Tam's Reasoning #1: Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam exempted him from paying, since he was able to answer 'Amen', and someone who answers 'Amen' is greater than the one who recites the B'rachah.

Rabeinu Tam's Reasoning #2: Moreover, said Rabeinu Tam, in Bavel one cannot litigate on any case where there is no loss of pocket, as the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 84b).