Even though it is kind of obvious I think I might mention how the רמב’’ם understands the גמרא on page י''ט (that is brought here in my previous blog entry). The רמב’’ם I think is the simplest. The גמרא says, “If there is a question about warning, that automatically implies there is no change.” Then the גמרא turns that around, and says that change is, in fact, in doubt. However, on the side that there is no doubt, there must be a question about warning. The רמב’’ם understands that that is simply in order to change the direction of causation. However, the basic premise stands. That means according to the רמב’’ם, that if there is warning, there can be no change. There can only be doubt about one, or the other. They are variables that are exclusive. To תוספות the understanding of the גמרא is thus. If there is doubt about change, there can be no warning. That is, that warning and change are mutually dependent variables. If there is warning about צרורות according to their regular way, there must be warning about change also. If there is no change., there cannot be warning about warning when צרורות come their normal way.