[42a - 29 lines; 42b - 43 lines]
1)[line 12]חייבCHAYAV (ASHAM GEZEILOS)
(a)A person who holds the money of a fellow Jew, swears in Beis Din that he holds no such money, and later admits to his sin must return what he stole, pay a fine of Chomesh (1/4 of the value of the stolen object) and bring a Korban Asham Gezeilos for atonement (Vayikra 5:20-26). The Torah specifies that this Korban must be a ram worth at least two Sela'im. This applies no matter why he was holding the other Jew's money. The Halachah is the same if he stole it, found it, borrowed it, was watching it for the owner, damaged someone's property and did not compensate him, or he owed money for any other reason.
(b)In order to be obligated in the payments and Korban stated above, the oath must deny liability to monetary sums ("Mamon") and not a Kenas since even if the accused admits to the Kenas he does not have to pay (see next entry).
2)[line 12]שאינו משלם קנס ע''פ עצמוSHE'EINO MESHALEM KENAS AL PI ATZMO
(a)There are two types of monetary payments found in the Torah: Mamon (compensation) and Kenas (a penalty). The defining factors of Kenas are: 1. A payment that involves over-compensation for a monetary loss, or 2. A payment where the amount is fixed and is not dependent upon the value of the damage done. (RASHI, Bava Kama 5a DH Edim)
(b)A person does not have to pay Kenas if he admits of his own accord to the actions that brought about the obligation of Kenas. Only if witnesses testify to his actions in court must he pay. Until he is obligated to pay the Kenas in court through the testimony of witnesses, he is fully exempt from payment and does not even have a moral obligation to pay it on his own accord (RASHBA Bava Kama 74b, see also RAMBAN in Milchamos at the end of the third Perek of Kesuvos).
(c)If he admits to his guilt of his own accord and later witnesses testify to his guilt in court, the Amora'im argue as to whether or not he must pay the Kenas (Bava Kama 74b-75a). The Gemara concludes that the lenient opinion only exempts the person from the Kenas if he obligated himself to pay Mamon with his admission, i.e. if he admitted to both Mamon and Kenas at the same time. For example, if a thief admits to his guilt before witnesses testify to the crime, he obligates himself to at least pay for the object that he stole. In such a case he is exempt from Kefel (the Kenas). However, if he had already been found guilty of taking the object that is not his ("Gezeilah") and he later admits to having stolen it surreptitiously ("Geneivah"), he is obligated to pay Kefel if witnesses later testify to the same effect in court. Since his admission did not create an obligation for Mamon, it does not exempt him from the Kenas when witnesses later testify that he stole it.
3)[line 21]קרבן שבועהKORBAN SHEVU'AH- an Asham Gezeilos (see above, entry #1)
4)[line 25]המית שורךHEMIS SHORCHA ES AVDI
If a person's Shor ha'Mu'ad (see Background to Kesuvos 37:15) kills a person, the owner of the ox is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim. He can redeem himself by paying Kofer to the children or heirs of the dead man, as the verse states, "v'Im Kofer Yushas Alav, v'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho" (Shemos 21:30). The amount paid as Kofer is defined as either the owner's value, or the dead man's value, according to the various opinions of the Tana'im (Makos 2b). If the ox kills a slave, the Kofer is 30 Sela'im and it is paid to the slave's owner.
5)[line 26]הפלת את שיני וסימית את עיניHIPALTA ES SHEINI V'SIMISA ES EINI (SHEN V'AYIN)
(a)If the owner of an Eved Kena'ani (a Nochri slave) hits his slave and wounds him by taking out the slave's eye or permanent tooth, the slave becomes entitled to his freedom (Shemos 21:26-27). The owner must intentionally wound him, but need not intend to wound him specifically in the eye or tooth (Kidushin 24b).
(b)The same applies if the master dismembers one of the slave's 24 Roshei Evarim (limb-tips). The 24 Roshei Evarim are the ten fingers, ten toes, nose, ears and the male Ever (RASHI to Gitin 42b DH b'Chulan). The Gemara (Kidushin 24a) adds more limbs for which this Halachah applies.
(c)The requirement to free the slave under such circumstances is considered a Kenas (a penalty or fine), which is imposed upon the master for unjustly wounding his slave (Bava Kama 74b; see Rashi to Gitin, top of 21b). Therefore, if the owner admits that he is guilty of taking out his slave's tooth or eye, he need not free the slave (Bava Kama ibid.; see Background to Gitin 43:1)
6)[line 27]"וכחש בעמיתו""V'CHICHESH BA'AMISO"- "[If a person sins, and commits a trespass against HaSh-m,] and lies to his neighbor [in that which was delivered to him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or has deceived his neighbor;]" (Vayikra 5:21) - All of the cases mentioned in this verse refers to Mamon (compensation), and not Kenas (a fine or penalty).
7)[line 12]ושינויי דחיקי לא משנינן לךV'SHINUYEI DECHIKEI LO MESHANINAN LACH- but I will not answer you with forced answers
8)[line 20]דאחין בעי מיהויD'ACHIN BA'I MEHEVEI!- it should belong to her brothers!
9)[line 21]קשאי בהKESHA'EI BAH- discussed (argued over) this question
10)[line 22]עשרין ותרתין שניןESRIN V'TARTEIN SHENIN- that is, the twenty-two years in which Rabah was the Rosh Yeshiva in Pumbedisa. The Gemara (Beachos 64a) relates that once there was a need to appoint a new Rosh Yeshiva is Pumbedisa. The scholars there sent a question to the scholars in Eretz Yisrael as to which sage should take precedence. Rav Yosef, who was known as "Sinai," had such an encyclopedic knowledge of Torah that it was as if he received it from Mount Sinai. Rabah, on the other hand, was known as "Oker Harim" ("uprooter of mountains") because of his profound method of analysis. The answer they received was that Rav Yosef should take precedence and become the new Rosh Yeshiva, since "everyone needs the Marei Chitaya (owner of the wheat)," i.e. a person who knows many Mishnayos and Beraisos. Even so, Rav Yosef refused the appointment. Twenty-two years later, Rabah died and Rav Yosef took over, serving as Rosh Yeshiva for the next 2 1/2 years.
11)[line 23]ולא איפרקV'LO IFRAK- and it was not answered
12)[line 30]יתן לחוד ונתן לחודYITEN LECHUD V'NASAN LECHUD- the word "Yiten" has a different connotation from the word "Nasan"; "Yiten" is a command for the future while "Nasan," which uses the past tense (and a Vav ha'Hipuch), implies that the money must already belong to the father before his sons can inherit it
13)[last line]דכי קא תבע קנסא קא תבעD'CHI KA TAVA, KENASA KA TAVA- when he takes the rapist/seducer to court, he intends to extract the Kenas payment from him