Bava Kamma

Let Scripture record only two kinds of damage  and from them you will deduce a further kind of damage?  In response it was declared: Even from two kinds of damage it would not be possible to deduce one more. Raba, however, said: If you retain any one kind of damage along with Pit [in Scripture], all the others but Horn will be deduced by analogy;  Horn is excepted as the analogy breaks down, since all the other kinds of damage are Mu'ad ab initio.  According, however, to the view that Horn on the other hand possesses a greater degree of liability because of its intention to do damage,  even Horn could be deduced. For what purpose then did Scripture record them all? For their [specific] laws: Horn, in order to distinguish between Tam and Mu'ad;  Tooth and the Foot, to be immune [for damage done by them] on public ground;  Pit, to be immune for [damage done by it to] inanimate objects;  and, according to R. Judah who maintains liability for inanimate objects damaged by a pit,  in order still to be immune for [death caused by it to] man;  Man, to render him liable for four [additional] payments [when injuring man];  Fire, to be immune for [damage to] hidden goods;  but according to R. Judah, who maintains liability for damage to hidden goods by fire,  what [specific purpose] could be served?