Yeruhalmi bava kama chapter 2. halacha 1. our gemara bava kama, pg 18.

in order to answer what I asked in my previous blog entry I would like to suggest that there is an argument between the Gemara written in Babylon and the one written Israel. I think the our Gemara (the Talmud written in Babylon) holds that pebbles are an a extension of damage by foot, but that if there occurs an unusual case of pebbles (for example an animal kicks and pebbles are shot up and cause damage), that is a doubt if it is an extension of damage by foot or damage by horn. if it is still damage by foot, then being unusual does not matter, and it remain at 1/2 damage. If the change causes it to become damage by horn, then it is half of what would have been required with that change and it is 1/4 damage. The same doubt applies to warning. If the unusual act makes it horn, then warning applies to it, and if done three time it goes back up to 1/2 damage, or perhaps it remains foot and never goes down at all to 1/4 damage. Furthermore Rava is asking if warning can apply to pebbles even if done normally, so that even if it remains foot, still warning might be applied. Rava has a doubt about pebbles if they are paid by the body of the animal or plain cash or good land. That means he Is wondering if even plain pebbles are foot or horn. Rav Papa says they are paid by cash or good land, and therefore this is not a doubt at all to Rav Papa. It is foot. The Yeruhalmi however is holding that pebble are subject to an argument between R, Zeira and R Ila for there it is written R. Lazer said if damage is caused by an animal by indirect contact, it is liable both in a private domain and public domain o 1/2 penalty. r Zeira said it can receive warning and R. Ila said it cannot. I think this argument if regular pebbles are foot or horn. even though our Gemara hold they are foot the Yeruhalmi is hold they are a doubt. at any rate we can now see what Rav Shach meant in his answer to the question why the Rambam left out the doubt if warning applies to pebble. the reason is simple. The Rambam wrote that change a doubt and therefore warning is also a doubt. they are interdependent variables, not independent variables. they depend on whether pebbles are foot or horn. if foot neither change nor warning applies. if horn both warning and change apply. however, Rav Papa holds it they are definitely foot and that is the law. So how can the Rambam decide both by Rav papa to whom they are definitely foot and by Rava that it is a doubt? Actually, you can see this directly in the Rambam and in Rav Shach. The Rambam writes the phrase It is a change and not derived from foot [toldat regel]. That is, it became derivative of horn [toldat horn] and rav shach writes also it is toldat horn _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In order to answer what I asked in my previous blog entry I would like to suggest that there is an argument between the גמרא written in Babylon and the one written Israel. I think the our גמרא (the תלמו written in Babylon) holds that צרורות are an a extension of damage by foot, but that if there occurs an unusual case of צרורות (for example an animal kicks and צרורות are shot up and cause damage), that is a doubt if it is an extension of damage by foot or damage by horn. if it is still damage by foot, then being unusual does not matter, and it remain at חצי damage. If the change causes it to become damage byקרן , then it is half of what would have been required with that change and it is רביע damage. The same doubt applies to warning. If the unusual act makes it horn, then warning applies to it, and if done three time it goes back up to חצי damage, or perhaps it remains foot and never goes down at all to רביע damage. Furthermore רבא is asking if warning can apply to pebbles even if done normally, so that even if it remains foot, still warning might be applied. רבא has a doubt about pebbles, if they are paid by the body of the animal or plain cash or good land. That means he Is wondering if even plain pebbles are foot or horn. רב פפא says they are paid by cash or good land, and therefore this is not a doubt at all to רבא. It is foot. שינוי שייך רק לקרן התם The ירושלמי however is holding that pebble are subject to an argument between ר' זעירא and ר' אילא for there it is written ר' לעזר said if damage is caused by an animal by indirect contact, it is liable both in a private domain and public domain o 1/2 penalty. ר' זעירא said it can receive warning and ר' אילא said it cannot. I think this argument if regular pebbles are foot or horn. Even though our גמרא hold they are foot, the ירושלמי is hold they are a doubt. At any rate, we can now see what רב שך meant in his answer to the question why the רמב''ם left out the doubt if warning applies to pebble. The reason is simple. The רמב''םwrote that change a doubt and therefore warning is also a doubt. They are interdependent variables, not independent variables. They depend on whether pebbles are foot or horn. If foot, neither change nor warning applies. If horn, both warning and change apply. However, רב פפא holds it they are definitely foot and that is the law. So how can the רמב''ם decide both by רב פפא to whom they are definitely foot and by רבא that it is a doubt? Actually, you can see this directly in the רמב''ם and in רב שך. The רמב''ם writes the phraseשנוי הוא ואינו תולדת רגל "It is a change and not derived from foot.ורב שך שינוי הוא ונחשב גוף ההיזק למשונה וקרו הוא פשיטא שייך ביה שם העדאה