Tosphot in Bava Kama page 18. First words of Tosphot: Have you heard this in a case (of pebbles) from the start

I would like to explain the approach of Tosphot in Bava Kama page 18. The gemara wants to answer a question of Rava, if pebbles pay from the body of the animal or not. A tentative answer is yes because of the mishna with the coal loaf and dog that cause a stack to go up in flames. The mishna says that pays half damage and that it thought to be pebbles and we learn elsewhere that payment is from the body. Then we ask from R. Elazar who said that case is required to pay full damage and it is unlikely to pay full damage and also from the body. We answer that he holds like R. Judah that half is paid from the body, and the other half from cash. Rav sama asked, maybe R. Judah said that only in a case when there was change, not in a case of pebbles which is normal. The gemara answers it is a case of three times warning. It took me a long time to realize what Tosphot mean here. At firs the answer seems to have no relation to the question. The question was this. R Elazar holds the case of the loaf and burning coal is full damage and yet we know it is also paid from the body like in case of half damage. We answered that R Elazar holds like R Yehuda that the side of tameness stay in it place. Ie even though the payment goes up to full damage still the beginning half stays in it place and is paid from the body. The answer is it is a case of three times warning. Was that not the question? How could there be payment from the body if it is a case of the normal way? I realized what Tosphot means here. He is a saying that the Gemara is disagreeing with Rav Sama and holds that even not in a case of change, but in a normal case when there are three times waring and the damage goes up to full payment to R Elazar, still half payment is made from the body. The Gemara later on changes this, and says that, in fact, both R Elazar and the sages agree with Sumchos that you need no warning for pebbles to require full payment. But they are disagreeing because there was change, and therefore the type of damage became horn and R Elazar holds first time horn is full payment and the sages here of R Elazar hold like the sages that disagree with R. Tarfon and they hold first time horn is half payment ____________________________________________________________________________________________I would like to explain the approach of תוספותin בבא קמא ע''א ג''ה מועד page 18. The גמרא want to answer a question of רבא is if צרורות pay from the body of the animal or not. A tentative answer is yes because of the משנה with the coal loaf and dog that cause a stack to go up in flames. The משנה says that pays half damage and that it thought to be pebbles and we learn elsewhere that payment is from the body. Then we ask from ר' אלעזר who said that case is required to pay full damage, and it Is unlikely to pay full damage and also from the body. We answer that he holds like ר' יהודה that half is paid from the body, and the other half from cash. רב סמא asked maybe ר' יהודה said that only in a case when there was change, not in a case of צרורות which is normal. The גמרא answers it is a case of three times warning. It took me a long time to realize what תוספות mean here. At first the answer seems to have no relation to the question. The question was this. ר’ אלעזר holds the case of the loaf and burning coal is full damage, and yet we know it is also paid from the body like in case of half damage. We answered that ר’ אלעזר holds like ר' יהודה that the side of tameness stay in its place. I.e., even though the payment goes up to full damage, still the beginning half stays in it place, and is paid from the body. The answer is it is a case of three times warning. Was that not the question? How could there be payment from the body if it is a case of the normal way? I realized what תוספות means here. He is a saying that the גמרא is disagreeing with רב סמא and holds that even not in a case of change, but in a normal case when there are three times waring and the damage goes up to full payment to ר’ אלעזר, still half payment is made from the body. The גמרא later on changes this, and says that, in fact, both ר’ אלעזר and the חכמים agree with סומכוס that you need no warning for צרורות to require full payment. But they are disagreeing because there was change, and therefore the type of damage became horn and ר’ אלעזר holds first time horn is full payment and the חכמים here of ר’ אלעזר hold like the sages that disagree with ר' טרפון and they hold first time horn is half payment.