Bava Kama page 18

On the way back from the sea it occurred d to me what is the main problem in Bava Kama page 18 that both Rashi and Tosphot are struggling with. It is that the beginning and end of the discussion do not match. Rav Sama asked Ravina perhaps R. Judah said his law that tam stays in its place only when the animal started out docile and then became dangerous . There was a change in the animal, then there is a difference in the version of Rashi and Tosphot about the answer. To Rashi the answer is, “It is a case where the animal changed, and was warned. It started out docile and became dangerous”. This version answers the question of Rav Sama, but then the next question is. "If so, we have an obvious answer to the question of Rava if warning can apply to pebbles?" Clearly it does not answer that question. The question was, "If a warning applies to pebbles?" not "If warning and change applies to pebbles?" But then let us look at the version of Tosphot. Rava Sama said "Maybe R. Judah said his law only in a case where the animal was docile and became dangerous? Answer: our case of the dog with the loaf and burning coal is a case of when there was warning." Well, how does that answer the question of Rav Sama? The question was not, "If there was warning or not?" The question was, "If there was change or not?"I guess what Tosphot means is that this is a different answer that the one above where we said r elazar holds with sumcho that pebbles are required to pay full damage. On that opinion is Rav sama asked his question. But now we are saying that R Elazara holds a different opinion upon which the question would not be applicable. he holds there times warning about pebbles causes there to be required full payment and that is the case of the mishna with the dogs. I guess that might mean that he is saying that that full payment would be from the body of the animal like in case of half payment. Or he might mean that the tana that suggested the damage of the dog should be paid from the body of the dog only where there was no warning, and it was still the first or second time the even happened. That is think is what Tosphot means here. The Gemara starts out with Rava asking if pebbles pay from the body of the animal or cash. Answer: we learn from the mishna of the dog with the coal that burns the stack that is obligated in half damage for the stack and a Tosephta tells us that payment is from the body of the animal. We ask on that from R. Elazar who said one pays full payment for the stack. How can there be full payment that come from the body? Full payment that is always a case of paying in cash. After some discussion the Gemara answers that perhaps R. Elazar holds like R. Judah that the side of docile stays in its place. That means that even though he pays full payment, still half of it come from selling the animal [ which might be much less that if the whole damage was assessed and paid for without regard to the value of the animal] and from that money restitution is made. On this point, Rav Sama asked his question: "Maybe R. Judah said his law only in a case of change from docile to dangerous, not something like pebbles where the shooting up of pebbles is the normal thing for an animal to do;- so in our case of pebbles, (since R. Elazar holds with Sumchas) that would be full payment and that would have to be in full cash. I am at this point, unclear as for what Rashi answering about this question. However, I can see something that Rav shach says that warning and change are dependent variables. Therefore, according to Tosphot the question of change is equivalent to the question of warning. that is since both depend on if derivative or foot can become a derivative of horn later note > Eventually I got to see what Rashi means here. He holds the answer is change and warning can answer the question of Rav Sama and that is the situation in the case of the dog with the loaf and coal. To R. Elazar payment it goes up to full damage because it is damage by horn, and to the tana of the Mishna it stays at 1/2 because it is pebbles. This is good because it tells us in this situation to R Elazar the damage is paid from cash, and to the tana of the Mishna it is paid from the body. The Gemara make a leap and suggest that from what we know about change and warning, we can know about warning alone. [This is a problem. First there is no reason to make this leap. Second, (the question of Tosphot) it does not tell us anything about the original reason we started this discussion. Does normal pebbles pay from the body, not if the case is there is change and warning] At any rate, the discussion continues from where we left off. That would be a question of Rava who asked what is the law in a case of pebbles with warning alone. Why ask it if the answer is obvious?. Rava answers, “I was asking according to the tana against Sumchos who holds pebbles is half damage. But we can not know anything about that from the mishna of the dog with the loaf because R Elazar are going with the opinion of Sumchos who holds pebbles is full damage, but that is not the case of the dog and loaf. There is change with no warning, and that change turns the pebbles into first time damage by horn. And R Elazar holds like R Tarphon that first time damage by horn is full damage, while the sages (againt R Tarffon )hold it is 1/2 damage. At any rate, thi i the approach of Rashi. Tosphot is quite different ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On the way back from the sea it occurred to me what is the main problem in בבא קמא page 18 that both רש''י and תוספות are struggling with. It is that the beginning and end of the discussion do not match. רב סמא asked רבינאperhaps ר' יהודה said his law that תם stays in its place only when the animal started out תם and then becameמועד . There was a change in the animal, then there is a difference in the version of רש''י and תוספותabout the answer. To רש''י the answer is “It is a case where the animal changed and was warned. It started out תם and became מועד”. This version answers the question of רב סמא but then the next question is if so, we have an obvious answer to the question on of רבא if warning can apply to צרורות. Clearly it does not answer that question. The question was if a warning applies to צרורות not if warning and change applies to צרורות. But then let us look at the version of תוספות. THEN רב סמא said maybe ר' יהודה said his law only in a case where the animal was תם and became מועד? Answer: our case of the dog with the loaf and burning coal is a case of when there was warning. Well, how does that answer the question of רב סמא ? The question was not if there was warning or not. The question was if there was change or not. The גמראstarts out with רבא asking if צרורות pay from the body of the animal or cash. Answer: we learn from the משנהof the dog with the coal that burns the stack that is obligated in half damage for the stack and a תוספתא tells us that payment is from the body of the animal. We ask on that from ר' אלעזרwho said one pays full payment for the stack. How can there be נזק שלם that come from the body? Full payment that is always a case of paying in cash. After some discussion the גמראanswers that perhaps ר' אלעזר holds like ר' יהודה that the side of תם stays in its place. That means that even though he pays בזק שלם, still half of it come from selling the animal [ which might be much less that if the whole damage was assessed and paid for without regard to the value of the animal] and from that money restitution I made. On this point רב סמא asked his question maybe ר' יהודה אמרhis law only in a case of change from docile to dangerous, not something like אבנים קטנות צרורות where the shooting up of צרורות is the normal thing for an animal to do in that case since ר' אלעזר hold with סומכוסthat that is full payment that would have to be in full cash I am at this point, unclear as for what רש''י answering about this question. However, I can see something that רב שך says. warning and change are dependent variables. Therefore, according to תוספות the question of change is equivalent to the question of warning. That is since both depend on if derivative or foot can become a derivative of horn later note > Eventually I got to see what רש''י means here. He holds the answer is change and warning can answer the question of רב סמא and that is the situation in the case of the dog with the loaf and coal. To ר’ אלעזר payment it goes up to full damage because it is damage by horn, and to the תנא of theמשנה it stays at 1/2 because it is צרורות. This is good because it tells us in this situation to ר’ אלעזר the damage is paid from cash, and to the tana of theמשנה it is paid from the body. The גמרא make a leap and suggest that from what we know about change and warning, we can know about warning alone. [This is a problem. First there is no reason to make this leap. Second, (the question of תוספות) it does not tell us anything about the original reason we started this discussion. Does normal צרורות pay from the body, not if the case is there is change and warning] At any rate, the discussion continues from where we left off. That would be a question of רבא who asked what is the law in a case of צרורות with warning alone. Why ask it if the answer is obvious? רבאanswers, “I was asking according to the תנא against סומכוס who holds צרורות is half damage. But we cannot know anything about that from theמשנה of the dog with the loaf because ר’ אלעזר are going with the opinion of סומכוס who holds צרורות is full damage, but that is not the case of the dog and loaf. There is change with no warning, and that change turns the צרורות into first time damage by horn. And ר’ אלעזר holds like ר' טרפון that first time damage by horn is full damage, while the חכמים (against ר' טרפון) hold it is 1/2 damage. At any rate, this is the approach of Rashi. HOWEVER תוספות is quite different