The mishna says the ox is not like the tooth. The same aspect of them is what makes them obligated in damages [I am going with Shmuel.] Tosphot says the explanation is not like the usual case in the gemara where there is a question if to learn a third thing from two other cases. Here the mishna means the leniency of this is not like the leniency of that. The Maharam [on the bottom of the page of the Maharsha] and the Tiferet Shmuel [in the back of the Gemara] understand this seems to be that the ox has something that makes it lenient in comparison to tooth and tooth has something lenient about it as compared to ox.
This seems to me to be hard to understand because it is essentially the same thing as saying what makes this strict is not the same thing as what would make the other strict and also visa verse. And yet Tosphot insists that that is not what he is saying.
I think what Tosphot means is that the ox has some leniency about it that makes it necessary to be written . That is opposed to everything else that causes damages that would not need to be written. And the tooth has something else that would make it seem lenient and so it is needed to write it. Then the Mishna says since these are two different things the things that makes them obliged in damages are thus and thus.
I think what Tosphot means is that the ox has some leniency about it that makes it necessary to be written . That is opposed to everything else that causes damages that would not need to be written. And the tooth has something else that would make it seem lenient and so it is needed to write it. Then the Mishna says since these are two different things the things that makes them obliged in damages are thus and thus.
