gemara bava kama pages 17, 18 and 19.

It occurred to me to mention here something that I have been puzzled about. It I this. There are two places in the gemara bava kama where Rav Ashi is asking about the approach of Sumcho but these two place do not seem to correspond. Alo there come up the question in the gemara about whether you go by the beginning or end and there reem to be some connection with another question about whether you consider force of a force to be the same a a force. But perhaps it makes more sense to bring the subject itself as an introduction to explain what I am puzzled about. In some case where an animal cause damages one pays full damage. But there is a case where the sages say one pays only half damages. That Is when an animal is walking, and steps on pebbles and they fly off and break a vessel. That is obligated in half damages according to the sages, but Sumchos holds that pays full damage. Rava asked about a case of force. Is force like the body of an animal or not. Clearly to Sumchos it is like the body. But what about the age? If it I like the body then he should pay full damage. If not, he should not have to pay anything. Rava answered his own question and aid everyone agree force is like body. But the sages learn a law handed down from Sinai about half damages of pebble to reduce full damage of force to half damage. You can see Rava thinks half damage comes to reduce payment, not increase from nothing to half. Later Rava asked do you go by the start or the finish. and example of this question would be if one shot an arrow at a vessel and then before it reached it destination someone broke the vessel by a hammer. If the law goes by the start that makes the first person obligated. Going by the finish would make the second person obligated. the gemara tried to answer this question by a braita that say in a case of force of a force where only half damage I required. The gemara answers this and says that braita is Sumchos. The gemara then says that this cannot be so since then Rav Ashi would have an answer to his question. [Rav Ashi would not have asked it if the answer was immediate and simple] The question of Rav Ashi was If force of a force like a force according to Sumchos or not. The place where Rav Ashi asks this question however I somewhat different. There he asks according to Sumchos is force of a force like a force of not? Does he learn the law of half damages and apply it to force of a force or do he not? If Rav Ashi learns like Rava that the law of half damage come to reduce the fine then this would mean that Sumchos hold if force of a force is like a force, then full payment oud be required. But it might be that Rav Ashi learn that the law of half damage come to required payment in a place that otherwise would not be obligated at all. Also, the two question of Rav Ashi seem to be related. One If force of a force is like force or not. The other I if Sumchos learned to law of half damage at all. It seems reasonable to say that if he applies the law of half damage at all it could only be by force of a force and that if he does not apply that law then force of a force be might be completely not obligated at all or that it might be obligated in full damage. I would like to add that the rosh holds that one can learn from the question of rav ashi about the approach of the sage. They would hold that force of a force is obligated in full damage, but the tosphot and rambm hold the sages would say in the case of force of a force that one is not obligated at all. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ It occurred to me to mention here something that I have been puzzled about. It I this. There are two places in the בבא קמא where רב אשיis asking about the approach of סומכוס but these two place do not seem to correspond. Alo there come up the question in the גמרא about whether you go by the beginning or end and there reem to be some connection with another question about whether you consider force of a force to be the same a force. But perhaps it makes more sense to bring the subject itself as an introduction to explain what I am puzzled about. In some case where an animal cause damages one pays full damage. But there is a case where the חכמים say one pays only half damages. That Is when an animal is walking, and steps on pebbles and they fly off and break a vessel. That is obligated in half damages according to the חכמים , but סומכוס holds that pays full damage. רבא asked about a case of force. Is force like the body of an animal or not. Clearly, to סומכוס it is like the body. But what about theחכמים ? If it is like the body, then he should pay full damages. If not, he should not have to pay anything. רבא answered his own question and אמר everyone agrees force is like body. But the חכמים learn a law handed down from Sinai about half damages of pebble to reduce full damages of force to half damages. You can see רבאthinks the law of half damages comes to reduce payment, not increase from nothing to half. Later רבא asked,” Do you go by the start or the finish.” An example of this question would be if one shot an arrow at a vessel and then before it reached it destination someone broke the vessel by a hammer. If the law goes by the start, that makes the first person obligated. Going by the finish would make the second person obligated. The גמרא tried to answer this question by a ברייתא that say in a case of force of a force where only half damage I required. The גמראanswers this and says that ברייתא is סומכוס. The גמרא then says that this cannot be so since then רב אשי would have an answer to his question. [רב אשי would not have asked it if the answer was immediate and simple] The question of רב אשי was If force of a force like a force according to סומכוס or not. The place where רב אשי asks this question however הוא somewhat different. There he asks according to סומכוס is force of a force like a force of not? Does he learn the law of half damages and apply it to force of a force or do he not? If רב אשי learns like רבא that the law of half damage come to reduce the fine, then this would mean that סומכוס hold if force of a force is like a force, then full payment required. But it might be that רב אשי learn that the law of half damage come to required payment in a place that otherwise would not be obligated at all. Also, the two question of רב אשי seem to be related. One If force of a force is like force or not. The other if סומכוס learned to law of half damage at all. It seems reasonable to say that if he applies the law of half damage at all it could only be by force of a force and that if he does not apply that law then force of a force be might be completely not obligated at all or that it might be obligated in full damage. I would like to add that the רא''ש holds that one can learn from the question of רב אשי about the approach of the חכמים. They would hold that force of a force is obligated in full damage, but the תוספות and רמב''םhold the חכמים would say in the case of force of a force that one is not obligated at all.