The Rambam holds by R. Natan in Bava Kama page 53a.
[A ox knocks a person into a pit. The person that dug the pit and the owner of the ox each pays half. But we do not know if that means each is obligated in the full damages or only half. The difference is if let's say the ox had no owner. Would the person that dug the pit pay full damages?
But what was unclear if if one page 19a if the string and the chicken both have an owner if both pay 1/2.
But the Rambam does not fit the Gemara there at all on page 19.
What I had to do to get the Rambam to fit was to say he changed the order of the questions of the Gemara so that Rav Huna was coming to answer the question איש בור ולא שור בורץ, [This might have been the actual version of the Rambam or that he himself because of some questions that I mentioned at the and of my essay he might have decided to change the version on his own.]
But there are two possibilities for Rabbi Natan. One is when זה וזה גורם then each one is liable for all the damages. The other is that each one is liable to half the damages. So now we know that the Rambam holds the later way. Because in the case on page 19 if the string has no owner, the owner of the chicken pays only half, not full damages.
All I am saying here is just that if we say the Rambam was thinking of the law of Rabbi Natan and the sugia on page 19 as being related we come out with lots of nice results. Too many to go into here. But without this idea then our sugia on page 19 is not what the Rambam was saying.
________________________________________________________________________________
I admit we do not have to say this. We could say the whole סוגיה on page י''ט is talking about דרך שינוי and then the two סוגיות will be unrelated. Fine. And that is clearly how the רא''ש understood it. But that will leave u in a position of not understanding the רמב''ם nor having any way to get him to click with our גמרא. Or we could say like I wrote and live happily ever after.
_________________________________________________________________________________
What we know to the רמב''ם is he holds by רבי נתן in בבא קמא page נ''ג. But what was unclear was on page י''ט ע''א if the חוט and the chicken both have an owner if both pay a half.
From the language of the Rambam alone it could be that if there is an owner of the חוט Then only he pays damages at all. The reason is the only time the Rambam says the owner of the chicken pays is when there is no owner to the string.
But the רמב''ם does not fit the גמרא there at all on page י''ט.
What I had to do to get the רמב''ם to fit was to say he changed the order of the questions of the גמרא so that רב הונא was coming to answer the question איש בור ולא שור בורץ. This might have been the actual version of the רמב''ם or that he himself because of some questions that I mentioned t the and of my essay he might have decided to change the version on his own.
But there are two possibilities for רבי נתן. One is when זה וזה גורם then each one is liable for all the damages. The other is that each one is liable for half the damages. So now we know that the רמב''ם holds the last way. Because in the case on page י''ט if the string has no owner, the owner of the chicken pays only half, not full damages.
_________________________________________________________________________________ מה שאנחנו יודעים על הרמב''ם הוא שהוא מחזיק בשיטת רבי נתן בבבא קמא דף נ''ג. אבל מה שלא היה ברור היה בעמוד י''ט ע''א אם החוט והתרנגולת יש להן בעלים אם שניהם משלמים חצי. מלשון הרמב"ם לבד זה יכול להיות שאם יש בעלים של חוט ואז רק הוא משלם פיצויים בכלל. הסיבה לכך היא שהפעם היחידה שהרמב"ם אומר בעלים של העוף משלמים הוא כשאין בעלים לחוט
הרמב''ם אינו תואם עם הגמרא בעמוד י''ט. מה שהייתי צריך לעשות כדי להתאים את הרמב''ם היה לומר שהוא שינה את סדר השאלות של גמרא כך שרב הונא בא לענות על השאלה של "איש בור ולא שור בור". ייתכן שזו היתה הגירסה בפועל של רמב''ם או שהוא עצמו בגלל כמה שאלות שהזכרתי אולי החליט לשנות את הגרסה. אבל יש שתי אפשרויות עבור רבי נתן . אחת היא כאשר זה וזה גורם אז כל אחד מהם הוא אחראי לכל הנזקים. השני הוא שכל אחד עלול לחצי הנזקים. אז עכשיו אנחנו יודעים כי רמב''ם מחזיק הדרך האחרונה. כי במקרה בעמוד י''ט אם לחוט אין בעלים, הבעלים של העוף משלמים רק חצי, לא מלוא הנזקים
[A ox knocks a person into a pit. The person that dug the pit and the owner of the ox each pays half. But we do not know if that means each is obligated in the full damages or only half. The difference is if let's say the ox had no owner. Would the person that dug the pit pay full damages?
But what was unclear if if one page 19a if the string and the chicken both have an owner if both pay 1/2.
But the Rambam does not fit the Gemara there at all on page 19.
What I had to do to get the Rambam to fit was to say he changed the order of the questions of the Gemara so that Rav Huna was coming to answer the question איש בור ולא שור בורץ, [This might have been the actual version of the Rambam or that he himself because of some questions that I mentioned at the and of my essay he might have decided to change the version on his own.]
But there are two possibilities for Rabbi Natan. One is when זה וזה גורם then each one is liable for all the damages. The other is that each one is liable to half the damages. So now we know that the Rambam holds the later way. Because in the case on page 19 if the string has no owner, the owner of the chicken pays only half, not full damages.
All I am saying here is just that if we say the Rambam was thinking of the law of Rabbi Natan and the sugia on page 19 as being related we come out with lots of nice results. Too many to go into here. But without this idea then our sugia on page 19 is not what the Rambam was saying.
________________________________________________________________________________
I admit we do not have to say this. We could say the whole סוגיה on page י''ט is talking about דרך שינוי and then the two סוגיות will be unrelated. Fine. And that is clearly how the רא''ש understood it. But that will leave u in a position of not understanding the רמב''ם nor having any way to get him to click with our גמרא. Or we could say like I wrote and live happily ever after.
_________________________________________________________________________________
What we know to the רמב''ם is he holds by רבי נתן in בבא קמא page נ''ג. But what was unclear was on page י''ט ע''א if the חוט and the chicken both have an owner if both pay a half.
From the language of the Rambam alone it could be that if there is an owner of the חוט Then only he pays damages at all. The reason is the only time the Rambam says the owner of the chicken pays is when there is no owner to the string.
But the רמב''ם does not fit the גמרא there at all on page י''ט.
What I had to do to get the רמב''ם to fit was to say he changed the order of the questions of the גמרא so that רב הונא was coming to answer the question איש בור ולא שור בורץ. This might have been the actual version of the רמב''ם or that he himself because of some questions that I mentioned t the and of my essay he might have decided to change the version on his own.
But there are two possibilities for רבי נתן. One is when זה וזה גורם then each one is liable for all the damages. The other is that each one is liable for half the damages. So now we know that the רמב''ם holds the last way. Because in the case on page י''ט if the string has no owner, the owner of the chicken pays only half, not full damages.
_________________________________________________________________________________ מה שאנחנו יודעים על הרמב''ם הוא שהוא מחזיק בשיטת רבי נתן בבבא קמא דף נ''ג. אבל מה שלא היה ברור היה בעמוד י''ט ע''א אם החוט והתרנגולת יש להן בעלים אם שניהם משלמים חצי. מלשון הרמב"ם לבד זה יכול להיות שאם יש בעלים של חוט ואז רק הוא משלם פיצויים בכלל. הסיבה לכך היא שהפעם היחידה שהרמב"ם אומר בעלים של העוף משלמים הוא כשאין בעלים לחוט
הרמב''ם אינו תואם עם הגמרא בעמוד י''ט. מה שהייתי צריך לעשות כדי להתאים את הרמב''ם היה לומר שהוא שינה את סדר השאלות של גמרא כך שרב הונא בא לענות על השאלה של "איש בור ולא שור בור". ייתכן שזו היתה הגירסה בפועל של רמב''ם או שהוא עצמו בגלל כמה שאלות שהזכרתי אולי החליט לשנות את הגרסה. אבל יש שתי אפשרויות עבור רבי נתן . אחת היא כאשר זה וזה גורם אז כל אחד מהם הוא אחראי לכל הנזקים. השני הוא שכל אחד עלול לחצי הנזקים. אז עכשיו אנחנו יודעים כי רמב''ם מחזיק הדרך האחרונה. כי במקרה בעמוד י''ט אם לחוט אין בעלים, הבעלים של העוף משלמים רק חצי, לא מלוא הנזקים
