Bava Metzia pg.s 36 and 93 in the commentary of the Ramban (Nachmanides)

In the days of Isar Meltzer someone found an ancient copy of the commentary of the Ramban and in the first published edition of it, Rav Meltzar wrote comments. but in those comments he holds a free guard pays the damaged person. Rav Shach wrote to him showing that the Ramban wrote two different approaches, one on page 36 and the other on page 93. In one approach the guard pays the owner of the animal and he pays the damaged person. In the other approach he pays the damaged person. To me this is hard to understand because we do not see anywhere that if the animal he is guarding causes damage that the guard is obligated at all. If the whole responsibility is a minimum guarding, then that is that. Even if the animal does causes damage, and the owner of the animal has to pay for those damages, we do not see anywhere that the free guard pays anything.---- Be that as it may be, I would like here to explain these two approaches of the Ramban in this way. (It might have depended on if the court says any guard has to guard from the possibility that the animal might go out an cause damage, but I do not think that is what the Ramban intends.) Rather, if after the fact, if the animal has in fact gone and caused damage, then we say retroactively that he should have done maximum guarding. We see this in the braita in Bava Kama page 45 that says if an animal that a free guard is guarding goes and kills someone, he pays kofer (restitution), but not the value of the animal to the owner. If he had been required from the start to guard from this possibility, then he would have been required to do maximum guarding, and therefore would anyway be obligated to the owner of the animal to pay for it. But after the fact, that the animal did kill, we say retroactively that he was required maximum guarding and if the case would be of the animal causing other kinds of damage, the guard would pay the damaged person directly. that is an explanation of the ramban on page 93. but we can also understand that a free guard never pays the damaged person. if there is damage then the owner of the animal pays for it, the obligation of kofer is for repentance, not payment for damages. and we always say a free guard is required to di minimum guarding.-------------------------------------In the days of איסר מלצר ר' someone found an ancient copy of the commentary of the רמב''ן and in the first published edition of it, ר' מלצר wrote comments. But in those comments, he holds a שומר חינם pays TO the ניזק. HOWEVER, רב שך wrote to him showing that the רמב’’ן wrote two different approaches, one on דף ל''ו and the other on דף צ''ג. In one approach the guard pays the owner of the animal, and he הבעליםpays the ניזק. In the other approach he pays the ניזק. To me this is hard to understand because we do not see anywhere that if the animal he is guarding causes damage that the שומר חינם ששמר שמירה פחותה is obligated at all. If the whole responsibility is a minimum guarding, then that is that. Even if the animal does causes damage, and the owner of the animal has to pay for those damages, we do not see anywhere that the שומר חינם pays anything. Be that as it may be I would like here to explain these two approaches of the רמב’’ן in this way. It all depends on if אנחנו say any guard has to guard from the possibility that the animal might go out an cause damage. But I do not think that is what the רמב’’ן intends. Rather, if after the fact, if the animal has in fact gone and caused damage, then we say retroactively, that he should have donE maximum guarding. We see this in the ברייתא in בבא קמא דף מ''ה. If an animal that a שומר חינם is guarding goes and kills someone (והחיה נהרג) , he pays כופר but not the value of the animal to the owner. If he had been required from the start )to guard from this possibility(, then he would have been required to do maximum guarding, and therefore would anyway be obligated to the owner of the animal to pay for it. But after the fact, that the animal did kill, we say retroactively that he was required maximum guarding and if the case would be of the animal causing other kinds of damage, the guard would pay the ניזק directly. That is an explanation of the רמב’’ן on בבא מציעא צ''ג. But we can also understand that a שומר חינם never pays the ניזק. If there is damage, then the owner of the animal pays for it, the obligation of כופר is for repentance, not payment for damages. And we always say a שומר חינם is required to dO minimum guarding.