Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Exodo 21:25

והמתבייש – according to his importance is his shame [greater]. And each of these five things are derived from Biblical verses. Damages/נזק, as it is written (Exodus 21:24): “eye for eye” – and that does not mean to say an actual eye, as it is written (Numbers 35:31): “You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer.” For the life of a murderer you don’t take a ransom, but you do take a ransom for the heads of his limbs, for if he blinded he eye of his fellow, we give him the value of the eye, and that is “eye for an eye.” Pain/צער – we derive from (Exodus 21:25): “wound for wound.”. For it is an additional verse making him liable for the pain and even in the place of damage. And you should not say, behold he acquired his hand, and he now must cut it off. But we say that he should have cut it off with a drug, and this one severed it with iron and caused him pain. Therefore, he pays for the pain [that he caused]. ריפוי ושבת /healing and idleness/sitting. (Exodus 21:19): “Except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure,” and specifically if the illness comes on account of the wound. But if the hill person was negligent regarding himself and transgressed the words of the physician, the one who did damage is not liable for idleness and healing for we require on account of negligence. בשת/insult or indignity – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:12): “You shall cut off her hand; [show no pity] – it is money. And the law of the Torah is that one cannot judge aa single law in the world other than judges who are ordained in the Land of Israel, as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “the case of both parties shall come before God.” And they [who judge] are not called "אלהים"/God, other than those who are ordained in the Land of Israel. But loans, business transactions, agreements by which one’s landed estate is mortgaged in the form of a sale from date (independent of he loan to consummated afterwards so that at a certain date the creditor can claim the property, even if sold in the meantime, by referring to the priority of his purchase (i.e., deeds of transfer), admissions and denials, we adjudicate them outside the Land [of Israel] as if they (i.e., the judges) are representatives of the Jewish court of the Land of Israel and their agency we make use of. And this alone in a found matter where there is a [potential] loss of money [and similarly] an animal that damaged with the tooth or the foot and they are forewarned, or if a man caused damage to an animal. But an animal that caused damage to a person, or a person to another person, we don’t judge hem outside the Land [of Israel] at all. Rather, we excommunicate the person who wounds or the one who causes damage, until he go up with his fellow litigant to the Land of Israel or that he will provide, through the path of compromise, something close to what appears in the eyes of the judge. But a limited matter, they don’t render a decision upon. And the same law applies to fines that written in the Torah and in all of them is Talmudic learning: We don’t collect them – the judges of the Diaspora, but rather we excommunicate whomever is liable for them as we have explained.

“And it killed a man or a woman.” In Shemot 21, 25, the Torah says: “and if an ox gores a man or a woman”. In the very next verse Shemot 21, 26, the Torah says: “and it will kill a man or a woman”. Our Gemara is clearly referring to verse 26. Tosafot wonders: why doesn't the Gemara quote the earlier verse 25?
This is bewildering! For the previous verse “if an ox will gore a man or a woman” should have been cited here as proof that women are equated to men when they are victims of a goring.
The second verse is used to derive another ruling:
For from verse 26, “and he will kill a man or a woman”, the Gemara expounds in Shor Shenogach Arbo’oh va’Chameeshoh (below 42b): just as the payment for a man’s damages passes to his heirs etc. so too the damages payment of a woman passes to her heirs and not to her husband.
Tosafot quotes the Gemara there on 42b:
And this is what the Gemara says there: “and he, the ox, will kill a man or a woman”, R’ Akiva says: what does this come to teach us? Perhaps that one is liable for the death of a woman as he is for the death of a man? The verse already says “if an ox will gore etc. a man or a woman. We already know that one is liable when his ox kills a woman.
Rather, the verse is needed to compare a woman to a man in regard to the recipient of the post death payment, just as a man’s damages are paid to his heirs etc., so too, a woman’s damages are paid to her heirs.

המשקוף THE LINTEL — This is the upper post upon which the door beats (שוקף) when it is being closed; old French lintel. The expression שקף (from which משקוף lintel is derived) denotes beating, as may be seen from the Targum on, (Leviticus 26:36) “the sound of a leaf that is beaten (by another)”, which Onkelos renders by דשקיף; and from the Targum on, (Exodus 21:25) חַבּוּרָה “wheal” (a beaten spot), where משקופי is the rendering.

עלה נדף A RUSTLING LEAF — i. e. a leaf which the wind pushes along and beats it against another leaf, so that, in tapping it, it produces a sound. This, too, is its translation in the Targum: the sound of a leaf דשקיף — a term that signifies beating. The words (Genesis 41:6): שדופות קדים are rendered in the Targum by שקיפן קידום, beaten by the east wind, the first word being of the same meaning as משקוף, a lintel, that being the place against which the door beats. Similarly the Targum translation of חבורה, a wound, (Exodus 21:25), is משקופי (a spot that has been beaten).