bava kama page 17-18

The Rambam wrote that in a case of a chicken that chews a string with a bucket attached to it that if the string Is cut and the bucket broken that one pays full damage for the bucket. if there was dough on the string then he pays full damage for the string also. It sounds like the payment of full damage for the bucket is independent of whether there was dough on the string or not. If so, that is going like the Nemukei Yoseph and the Rosh and the Shiltei Giborim on the Rif that the damage for the bucket is because the law is like Raba that one goes by the beginning. However, there is a possibility of understanding that the Rambam means that the chicken was pushing the bucket because of a few extra words where he writes that the bucket was broken because of the chicken. Well, that seem obvious so why did the Rambam add that? Maybe because he is going like the Tur and Beit Yoseph [Choshen Mishpat 390 law 11] that held if there is no dough on the string it is a case of pebbles and liable only in half damage. This would be because in the Gemara Bava Kama 18 it say a that in a case where the chicken chewed on the string and the bucket fell and broke another vessel on which it fell, that is a case of force of his force. From that it seems clear that our first case with only the chicken string and bucket that that is a case of force, not direct physical contact and the Gemara has already said that a case of force is half damage. The case of the Gemara is this. Rava asked if one goes by the beginning or the breaking on a vessel? The case in question is this. An animal stepped on a vessel and it rolled away and was broken on a stone. If we go by the start, that is full damage. If we go by the end, that is half damage. We answered this by Raba who said if one throws a vessel off a roof and then someone else come and breaks it, the first Is liable. We therefore go by the beginning. Then the Gemara thought to answer the question of Rava by means of the case with the chicken and bucket where it looks that one goes by the beginning because of the requirement of full damage. Then we push that off and suggest that is Sumchos who holds pebbles are full damage. Then we push that off because the end of that braita (teaching) says if the bucket fell and broke another bucket, the second one is half damage and we are unaware that Sumchos ever said there Is such a thing a half damage. Then the gemara suggests that well perhaps in fact Sumchos holds force of his force is half damage. Then we push that off because then rav ashi would have had an easy answer to his question if force of force is half damage to Sumchos. So we return to our original question that ay the chicken I pushing the bucket until it breaks and therefore we have no answer to the question of rava. (------------------------------------------- The רמב''ם פרק ב' הלכה י''ד wrote that in a case of a chicken that chews a string with a bucket attached to it that if the string Is cut and the bucket broken that one pays full damage for the bucket. if there was dough on the string then he pays full damage for the string also. It sounds like the payment of full damage for the bucket is independent of whether there was dough on the string or not. If so, that is going like the נימוקי יוסף and the רא''ש and the שילטי גיבוריםon the רי''ף that the damage for the bucket is because the law is like רבה that one goes by the beginning. However, there is a possibility of understanding that the רמב''ם means that the chicken was pushing the bucket because of a few extra words where he writes that the bucket was broken because of the chicken. Well, that seem obvious so why did the רמב''ם add that? Maybe because he is going like the טורand בית יוסף חושן משפט ש''צ הלכה י''א that held if there is no dough on the string it is a case of צרורות and liable only in half damage. This would be because in בבא קמא י''חit say a that in a case where the chicken chewed on the string and the bucket fell and broke another vessel on which it fell, that is a case of force of his force. From that it seems clear that our first case with only the chicken string and bucket that that is a case of force, not direct physical contact and the גמרא has already said that a case of force is half damage.