Bava Kamma

you have surely not found him maintaining so! You can therefore only say that R. Eleazar's statement regarding full payment deals with a case where the dog has already become Mu'ad [to set fire to stacks in an unusual manner]  and the point at issue will be that R. Eleazar maintains that there is such a thing as becoming Mu'ad [also] regarding [the law of] Pebbles  whereas the Rabbis maintain that there is no such thing as becoming Mu'ad in the case of Pebbles.  But If so what about another problem raised [elsewhere]  by Raba: 'Is there such a thing as becoming Mu'ad regarding [the law of] Pebbles,  or is there no such thing as becoming Mu'ad in the case of Pebbles?'  Why then not say that according to the Rabbis there could be no such thing as becoming Mu'ad in the case of Pebbles, whereas according to R. Eleazar there may be a case of becoming Mu'ad even in the case of Pebbles? — Raba, however, may say to you: The problem raised by me [as to the possibility of becoming Mu'ad] is of course based on the view of the Rabbis who differ [in this respect] from Symmachus, whereas here [in the case of the dog] both the Rabbis and R. Eleazar may hold the view of Symmachus who maintains that Pebbles always involve payment in full. The reason, however, that the Rabbis order only half damages [to be paid]  is on account of the fact that the dog handled the coal in an unusual manner  while it had not yet become Mu'ad [for that]. The point at issue between them  would be exactly the same as between R. Tarfon and the Rabbis.  But R. Tarfon who took the view that the payment will be in full may perhaps never have intended to make it dependent upon the body [of the tort-feasant cattle]?  — Cer tainly so, for he derives his view from [the law of] Horn on public ground  and it only stands to reason that Dayyo,  [i.e. it is sufficient] to a derivative by means of a Kal wa-homer  to involve nothing more than the original case from which it has been deduced.  But behold, R. Tarfon is expressly not in favour of the Principle of Dayyo?  — He is not in favour of Dayyo only when the Kal wa-homer would thereby be rendered completely ineffective,  but where the Kal wa-homer would not be rendered ineffective he too upholds Dayyo. To revert to the previous theme:  Raba asked: Is there such a thing as becoming Mu'ad regarding [the law of] Pebbles, or is there no such thing as becoming Mu'ad in the case of Pebbles? Do we compare Pebbles to Horn [which is subject to the law of Mu'ad] or do we not do so since the law of Pebbles is a derivative of Foot  [to which the law of Mu'ad has no application]? Come and hear: 'Hopping is not Mu'ad [with poultry]. Some, however, say: It is Mu'ad.' Could 'hopping' be thought [in any way not to be habitual with poultry]? It, therefore, of course means 'Hopping and making thereby [pebbles] fly.' Now, does it not deal with a case where the same act has been repeated three times, so that the point at issue between the authorities will be that the one Master [the latter] maintains that the law of Mu'ad applies [also to Pebbles] whereas the other Master [the former] holds that the law of Mu'ad does not apply [to Pebbles]? — No, it presents a case where no repetition took place; the point at issue between them being the same as between Symmachus and the Rabbis. Come and hear: In the case of an animal dropping excrements into dough. R. Judah maintains that the payment must be in full, but R. Eleazar says that only half damages will be paid. Now, does it not deal here with a case where the act has been repeated three times, so that the point at issue between the authorities will be that R. Judah maintains that the animal has thus become Mu'ad whereas R. Eleazar holds that it has not become Mu'ad?  — No, it deals with a case where no repetition took place, the point at issue between them being the same which is between Symmachus and the Rabbis. But is it not unusual [with an animal to do so]?  — The animal was pressed for space [in which case it is no more unusual]. But why should not R. Judah have explicitly stated that the Halachah is in accordance with Symmachus and similarly R. Eleazar should have stated that the Halachah is in accordance with the Rabbis?  — [A specific ruling in regard to] excrements is of importance, for otherwise you might have thought that since these [excrements formed a part of the animal and] were poured out from its body, they should still be considered as a part of its body,  it has therefore been made known to us that this is not so. Come and hear: Rami b. Ezekiel learned:  In the case of a cock putting its head into an empty utensil of glass where it crowed so that the utensil thereby broke, the payment must be in full, while R. Joseph on the other hand said  that it has been stated in the School of Rab that in the case of a horse neighing or an ass braying so that utensils were thereby broken, only half damages will be paid. Now, does it not mean that the same act has already been repeated three times,