Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Shoshana Rosa bat Shmuel and Minda Lea. "A self-made woman who at the age of 60 graduated high school with honors. She found fulfillment in the sanctuary of Torah learning which she bequeathed to her children and grandchildren.  She was known for the trait of hakarat hatov. She was always the first to thank a lecturer and to express appreciation. We had the zechut to bring her on Aliyah at the age of  90. We miss her every day. Yehi zichra baruch." If a shor muad kills someone and then injures, the court rules first on the injury for payment, then on the killing, and the ox will get killed. If first they rule on the killing, they can no longer judge the owner for the injury. This accords with Rabbi Shimon haTimni who ruled that the implement used for injuring needs to be brought before the court, as once the ox is subject to death, he is killed immediately and therefore cannot be brought to court. Another explanation is that the ruling is according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon haTimni, and the case is where the owner ran away, which is why we cannot judge the owner for the damages. Does the court need to evaluate whether the act of damage was sufficient to cause the damage that was on the one who was injured? Four sources are brought to answer this question. The first three are rejected but the last one proves that the court does need to do an evaluation. If the court assesses how much the doctor bills should be and it comes out to too much or too little, the court does not change the amount - why? The Mishna mentioned a case where the accused asked for time to delay the payment. In what cases is this permitted? Is it forbidden to cause personal injury to oneself? There seem to be contradictory sources on this topic. After trying unsuccessfully to reconcile these sources, they explain it as a tanaitic debate and attribute the opinion that it is forbidden to Rabbi Elazar haKapar who explains the sin offering of the nazir since the nazir causes him/herself to suffer by not drinking wine. Rabba bar bar Hanna brought a braita saying that if one accuses another of killing his ox or cutting his sapling, the other can claim, "You told me to do it." How can this be? Anyone can then exempt themselves in court by making this claim! Rav explained the braita in a case where the ox was going to be killed as it killed a person and the sapling was to be destroyed as it was used for idol worship. What types of fruit trees cannot be destroyed, and when is there an exception to this rule?