Bava Kama page 22 and page 23.

I have been at the sea shore and thinking that even if we go with the Gra who wrote that the Rambam holds that R Yochanan changed his mind, and he goes with the idea of Reish Lakish that the obligation of paying for damage by fire is because of damage by his property (not his arrows) that still does not tell us about the Mishna with the dog and coal. You anyway have to say the reason for Reish Lakish that the rest of the stack is not liable because it is force of his force. but that just throws the question one step back. Let’s say the dog threw the coal on the stack. Don’t we say that an animal that steps on a vessel and it rolls away and get broken, that we go by the beginning? And that is in fact how the Rambam decided the law. {Thi I lie Raba that if one throws a vessel and before it reaches the ground and is broken, someone else breaks it while it is still in the air. The first one is obligated, not the second one.} However, maybe that is the whole point of Reish Lakish? that we go by the beginning of the damage and o dragging the coal or throwing it on the stack would be liable because of that is the first force. then the remainder of the stack is force of his force. so that would explain the Rambam. This also helps R Yochanan who said to be liable for the whole stack the dog needs to place the coal on it. It might be that he agrees that if the dog dragged it along the stack or threw it on the stack that would be like Reish Lakish that that area is liable half damage. But R Yochanan is looking for a way to get the obligation of half damage to be applied to the whole stack, not just the place the coal landed. In summery the Rambam decided the law like Reish Lakish. The owner of the dog is liable for the bread full damage, and for the place where the coal was dragged, he is liable half damage because we go by the beginning of the cause of damage like Raba; and for the rest of the stack, he is not liable because that is force of his force. I am thinking that this explains Reish Lakish and the Rambam, but the sugia on page 23 is still blurry to me. The nice thing about this approach is that it uses the insight of the Gra to explain the Rambam, and also the inight of the Tosphot that we still need the idea of force of his force. _____________________________________________________________________________ I have been at the sea shore and thinking that even if we go with the גר''א who wrote that the רמב’’ם holds that ר’ יוחנן changed his mind, and he goes with the idea of ריש לקיש that the obligation of paying for damage by fire is because of damage by his property (not his arrows) that still does not tell us about the משנה with the dog and coal. You anyway have to say the reason for ריש לקיש that the rest of the stack is not liable because it is force of his force. but that just throws the question one step back. Let’s say the dog threw the coal on the stack. Don’t we say that an animal that steps on a vessel and it rolls away and get broken, that we go by the beginning? And that is in fact how the רמב’’ם decided the law. {This is like רבה that if one throws a vessel and before it reaches the ground and is broken, someone else breaks it while it is still in the air. The first one is obligated, not the second one.} However, maybe that is the whole point of ריש לקיש? that we go by the beginning of the damage and so dragging the coal or throwing it on the stack would be liable because of that is the first force. Then the remainder of the stack is force of his force. so that would explain the רמב’’ם. This also helps ר’ יוחנן who said to be liable for the whole stack the dog needs to place the coal on it. It might be that he agrees that if the dog dragged it along the stack or threw it on the stack that would be like ריש לקיש that that area is liable half damage, (but not full damage because it is not the normal way of a dog to throw coals. A person throwing a vessel however would be liable full damage.) But ר’ יוחנן is looking for a way to get the obligation of half damage to be applied to the whole stack, not just the place the coal landed. In summery the רמב’’ם decided the law like ריש לקיש. The owner of the dog is liable for the bread full damage, and for the place where the coal was dragged, he is liable half damage because we go by the beginning of the cause of damage like רבה; and for the rest of the stack, he is not liable because that is force of his force.