Tosphot Bava Kama page 18 b

[I would like to make clear that Tosphot gives good reaons to anwer his question. My question is simply why not give the most stricking and obvious reason?] I would like to ask a question on Tosphot Bava Kama page 18 b. He gives several reasons why Rava did not want to suggest that the Mishna with the dog and the loaf goes like the sages that disagree with Sumchos, and hold that pebbles is half damage. That means that they are not asking if the Mishna should be read as referring to a regular case of pebbles because we already answered that. We said that if that would be so, then how could R. Elazar hold it is full damage and also that must be paid from the body of the animal. Rather, the question is that we should read the Mishna as being about a change in pebbles. the sages would say it is half damage because that is the regular law, and the change would make no difference, but R. Elazar would hold it is full damage. My question: There is no way that R Elazar would hold a regular case of pebbles is half damage, but if there is a change it would go up to full damage. That is, I am asking why Tosphot did not answer the most obvious reason why Rava could not have said that Mishna is a case of pebbles with change, and yet R. Elazar holds it is full damage though in general he holds with the sages that it is half damage. All I can think of to answer this is perhaps Tophot is suggesting that Rava might have said the sages of this Mishna hold like the sages of sumchos that it is half damage and that R. Elazar holds it like Sumchos that it is full damage. At any rate, we can see why rava did say that both R. Elazar and Sumchos hold it is a case of change and both hold with Sumchos that it is normally full damage, but to the sages that is brought down to half damage because of the change. To Sumchos that change does not bring the payment down, but it does cause that the law that the damage is paid from the body of the animal, not full payment in cash because the change make its like a docile ox who changed and gored and that damage is paid from the body. ____________________________ Just to help clarify my remarks here let me bring the basic subject. Rava asked,"do pebbles pay from the body or full cash?" Answer: we see from the mishna of the dog with the loaf that is paid half damage and we assume that is pebbles, and yet is paid from the body. No. That cannot be so because r elazar said that case pays full damage and we know full damage cannot be paid from the body. Answer: he holds that full damage is paid like sumchos, but from the body like R. Yehuda who said docile stays in its place. Rav sama asked; “We only know that R Judah said this in a case of change, not in our case where damage with pebbles is normal. Answer: (according to Tosphot) this case of the mishna is not when there was just one act of the dog with the loaf. Rather, it happened three-times and there was a warning each time. so, to R Elazar it is full damage, but to the sages it remains at half damage because there was no change. [At this point, we are not answering why it would be full damage R. Elazar and yet paid from the body.] We ask, "but then Rava would have an obvious answer to his question, "If warning applies to pebbles?" It would be clear that it does not according to the sages, but warning does apply according to R. Elazar. Rava answered. No. My question was only about if warning applies to a regular case of pebbles according to the sages who hold it is half damage. But the Mishna of the dog with the loaf is going according to sumchos who holds all case of pebbles is full damage. But this mishna is referring to a case where there was change but no warning. Thus to R. Elazar there is full damage, but it is paid from the body, and the sages hold it is half damage. That is because of the change it went down to half damage. _____________________________________________________________________________________ I would like to ask a question on תוספות בבא קמא page י''ח ע''ב. He gives several reasons why רבא did not want to suggest that the משנה with the dog and the loaf goes like the חכמים that disagree with סומכוס ,and hold that צרורות is half damage. That means, that they are not asking the משנה should be read as referring to a regular case of צרורות because we already answered that. We said that if that would be so, then how could ר' אלעזר hold it is full damage, but also that must be paid from the body of the animal? Rather, the question is that we should read the משנה as being about a change in צרורות. the חכמים would say it is half damage because that the regular law, and the change make no difference to ר' אלעזר who would hold it is full damage. שאלה שלי There is no way that ר' אלעזר would hold a regular case of צרורות is half damage, but if there is a change, it would go up to full damage. That is, I am asking why תוספות did not answer the most obvious reason why רבא could not have said that משנה is a case of צרורות with change and yet ר' אלעזר hold it is full damage, though in general he holds with the חכמים that it is half damage. All I can think of to answer this is perhaps תוספות is suggesting that רבא might have said the חכמים of this משנה hold like the חכמים of סומכוס that it is half damage and that ר' אלעזר holds it like סומכוס that it is full damage. At any rate, we can see why רבא did say that both ר' אלעזר and סומכוס hold it is a case of change, and both hold with סומכוס that it is normally full damage, but to the חכמים that is brought down to half damage because of the change. To סומכוס that change does not bring the payment down, but it does cause that the law that the damage is paid from the body of the animal, not full payment in cash הטעם הוא.because the change make its like a שור תם who changed and gored and that damage is paid from the body. Just to help clarify my remarks here let me bring the basic subject. רבא asked do צרורות pay from the body or full cash. Answer we see from the משנה of the dog with the loaf that is paid half damage and we assume that is צרורות like and yet is paid from the body. No. That cannot be so because ר' אלעזר said that case pays full damage and full damage cannot be paid from the body. Answer: he holds that full damage is paid like סומכוס but from the body like ר' יהודה who said תם stays in its place. רב סמא asked “we only know that ר' יהודה said this in a case of שינוי , not in our case where damage with צרורות is normal. Answer (according to תוספות) this case of the משנה Is not when there was just one act of the dog with the loaf. Rather, it happened three-times and there was a warning each time. so, to ר' אלעזר it Is full damageת but to the חכמים it remains at half damage because there was no change. [At this point, we are not answering why it would be full damage ר' אלעזר and yet paid from the body.] THEN we askת but then רבא would have an obvious answer to his question if warning applies to pebbles? It would be clear that it does not according to the חכמים but warning does apply according to ר' אלעזר. BUT רבא answered. No. My question was only about if warning applies to a regular case of צרורות according to the חכמים who hold it half damage. But the משנה of the dog with the loaf is going according to סומכוס who holds all case of צרורות is full damage. But this משנה is referring to a case where there was change but no warning. Thus to ר' אלעזר there is full damage but it is paid from the body, and the sages hold it is half damage. That is because of the שינוי it went down to half damage.