bava kama pg 22 and 23. A better answer for the Rambam than the one I gave previously

The Gra wrote on page 23 in Bava Kama and in the Shulchan Aruch chapter 418 paragraph 33 that the Rif and Rambam hold that the Gemara changed its mind about the approach of R Yochanan because of the question of Rava, if fire is liable because of his arrows then why is hidden not obligated? (That is to say that if there were things hidden in the stack, he is not obligated for them.) Rather R Yochanan holds completely with the opinion of Reish Lakish and the only difference between them is the four extra thing that one is obligated for when one doe damage by his own body rather than by one property like hi ox. the proof of this is clear. It is because the Rif and Rambam both leave out the first answer of the Gemara that intended to answer the question of Rava, that because there was wall, his arrows are finished. The Gemara pushed out that answer because if his arrows are finished, then they would be finished in regard to possessions that are not hidden. I write this because it is clear to me that the reason the Rambam wrote that when a dog take a loaf with a coal to a stack and the stack is burnt up that the case is where the dog carried it over the stack, but never put it down and so the obligation is half damage for wherever the path of the coal was, and there is no obligation for the rest of the stack is that the Rambam simply decided the law like Reish Lakish because that is how he and the Rif explain the Gemara on page 23 that R Yochanan in fact hold like Reish Lakish and the previous case where he the dog put the coal on the stack would be full damage for the whole stack. However, I might mention that my previous approach to explain the Rambam was that he holds force of force is not obligated (like Tosphot said) was a viable answer except that it would make more sense that the rest of the stack would have been liable a fourth of the damage as the Raavad in fact ask.[and in fact the Rambam does hold that force of a force is not obligated at all.] but I think now that this case of the dog is not force of a force but simply fire is obligated because of his property like his ox like Reish Lakish said and carrying it over the stack is pebbles or horn of a tame ox. (This night I saw the Radvaz wrote my original answer for the Rambam that the case is force of his force. And later in the evening I discovered the comment of the Gra. I think the approach of the Gra is more accurate.) A little background for this subject. R Yochanan said that damage by fire is because of his arrows and Reish Lakish said it is because of damage by means of one’s property e.g., his ox. The Gemara asked on R Yochanan that if the liability would be because of direct damage by one own action, then why would hidden thing be exempt? That means, if one burnt someone else’s stack of wheat, and inside was hidden some object, the obligation to pay is only for a stack of wheat. The answer the Gemara gives for R Yochanan is that there had been a wall there which fell, and before the person had a chance to repair it, the fire broke out and went to the neighbor’s property. Then the Gemara objected to this answer and said in that case then even for the open things like the stack itself, he should not be obligated. So then the Gemara said that in fact R Yochanan agrees with Reish Lakish, and the only difference between them is in the four extra types of damage that one is liable for when he does damage by his own action rather than by his property _____________________________________________________________ The גר’’א wrote on page כ''ג in בבא קמא and in the שלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק תי''ח הערה ל''ג that theרי’’ףand רמב’’ם hold that the גמרא changed its mind about the approach of ר’ יוחנן because of the question of רבא, if fire is liable because of his arrows then why is hidden טמון not obligated? (That is to say that if there were things hidden in the stack, he is not obligated for them.) Rather ר’ יוחנן holds completely with the opinion of ריש לקיש and the only difference between them is the four extra things that one is obligated for when one does damage by his own body rather than by one's property like his ox. The proof of this is clear. It is because the רי’’ף and רמב’’ם both leave out the first answer of the גמרא that intended to answer the question ofרבא , that because there was wall, his arrows are finished. The גמרא pushed out that answer because if his arrows are finished, then they would be finished in regard to possessions that are not hidden. I write this because it is clear to me that the reason the רמב’’ם wrote that when a dog take a loaf with a coal to a stack and the stack is burnt up that the case is where the dog carried it over the stack, but never put it down and so the obligation is half damage for wherever the path of the coal was, and there is no obligation for the rest of the stack is that the רמב’’ם simply decided the law like ריש לקיש because that is how he and the רי’’ף explain the גמראon page כ''ג that ר’ יוחנן in fact hold like ריש לקיש and the previous case where he the dog put the coal on the stack would be full damage for the whole stack. However, I might mention that my previous approach to explain the רמב’’ם was that he holds force of force is not obligated (like תוספות said) was a viable answer except that it would make more sense that the rest of the stack would have been liable a fourth of the damage as the ראב''ד in fact ask.[and in fact the רמב’’ם does hold that force of a force is not obligated at all.] but I think now that this case of the dog is not force of a force but simply fire is obligated because of his property like his ox like ריש לקיש said and carrying it over the stack is צרורות or horn of a tame ox. (This night I saw the Radvaz wrote my original answer for the רמב’’ם that the case is force of his force. And later in the evening I discovered the comment of the גר’’א. I think the approach of the גר’’א is more accurate.) A little background for this subject. ר’ יוחנן said that damage by אש is because of his arrows and ריש לקיש said it is because of damage by means of one’s property e.g., his ox. The גמרא asked on ר’ יוחנן that if the liability would be because of direct damage by one own action, then why would hidden thing טמון be exempt? That means, if one burnt someone else’s stack of wheat, and inside was hidden some object, the obligation to pay is only for a stack of wheat. The answer the גמרא gives for ר’ יוחנן is that there had been a wall there which fell, and before the person had a chance to repair it, the fire broke out and went to the neighbor’s property. Then the גמרא objected to this answer and said in that case then even for the open things like the stack itself, he should not be obligated. So, then the גמרא said that in fact ר’ יוחנן agrees with ריש לקיש, and the only difference between them is in the four extra types of damage that one is liable for when he does damage by his own action rather than by his property