I think that the רמב’’ם in [('ניזקי ממון פרק ב' הלכות ה' ו] holds that there cannot be three kinds of payment for צרורות לתנא אחד and that that is how he understands the גמרא on דפים י''ח וי''ט בבא קמא. I mean that there can be half damage and a fourth; or a half and a whole, but not all three. To explain what I mean let me bring the גמרא on דף י''ט. THERE רב אשי asked if there can be change for צרורות to bring down the payment from חצי to רביע. The גמרא suggests that we can know this from the question of רבא if there can be warning for צרורות? The גמרא says since this is a question to רבא, therefore there cannot be change to a רביע. (This is a problem because רב אשי had a doubt if change is applicable. If the answer is simple he would not have had a question). so גמרא then suggests that perhaps רבא meant to say that if there is no change, then there must be a question if warning can be applied. (That Is to say that it is not that there is no change for sure. Rather there might be change, and therefore we have no question about warning. Or there might be no change and therefore there is a question about warning.) This גמרא can be summed up thus. If there is a question about warning, then change is not applicable. I.e. the question about warning causes there to be no change. Then the גמרא turns that around, and says if there is no change, there has to be a question about warning. That means to say that the arrow of causation is turned around. But at any rate, the רמב’’ם is first bothered by the same question that bothers תוספות. How can there be three kinds of payment, רביע, חצי and a whole. The רמב’’ם that you can have three kinds of payment, but only two kinds for every תנא (teacher). ר’ אלעזר holds there is חצי with no warning, and that goes up to full payment when there is warning, (and change does not matter at all, whether it is present or not). The חכמים hold there is חצי payment, and if there is change, that goes down to רביע, (and warning does not apply at all, whether warning was given or not). One thing still bothers me about the conclusion of this גמרא is this: how would the fact that there is no change cause there to be a question about warning? I would like to add one more idea here. רב שך brings up a question on the רמב’’ם. Why does he bring the question about change but not the question about warning? I would like to suggest a possible answer to this question. I think the רמב’’ם holds that in our גמרא, we can see that change and warning are incompatible variables. If there is change going down to רביע, there cannot be warning. If there is warning going up to full payment, there cannot be change going down to a רביע. Therefore, he brought only the question about change because the law is not like ר’ אלעזר who holds that with warning the payment goes up to full payment. (ר’ אלעזר holds this in the situation in the משנה about the dog with the loaf and burning coal. He holds this requires full payment when there is warning given three times). But the רמב’’ם decided the law is like the חכמים that that case required only half payment. But רב אשי asked according to the sage if change is possible that would bring the payment down to a fourth. The רמב’’ם therefore decided that change for צרורות is a doubt and leave out the possibility of a warning bring up the payment to full damage because the law is not like ר' אלעזר. However, תוספות however holds that the explanation of our גמרא on דף י''ט is different. He holds that the meaning of the גמרא is this. If warning is applicable to צרורות (so that the payment would be full damage), then it would also be applicable to a change in צרורות. That is to say there is change in צרורות that bring it down to a fourth and that warning is applicable in such a way that would bring it back up to a half. (It would not bring to full damage because that would be too much of a jump as תוספות said before. תוספות also holds that the גמרא holds that if warning is not applicable to צרורות (to bring payment to full damage), then warning cannot be applicable to change either. That is, at this point there might be change, but warning would not apply to it to bring it to half payment. Or there might not be change at all. That is even if change happen the payment is still חצי