Rejection: No. They argue the first time it happens, like Sumchus and Chachamim argue.

Question: This is abnormal!

Answer: There were seeds in the Kli (so it is normal to stick its head in and cackle).

Question (Rav Ashi): Does an abnormal case of Tzeroros pay half-damage or quarter damage?

Suggestion: We can settle the question from Rava.

Question (Rava): Can Tzeroros become Mu'ad (to pay full damage)?

If abnormal Tzeroros pay only quarter-damage, surely they would not become Mu'ad to pay full damage!

Rejection: Perhaps Rava himself was unsure whether abnormality applies to Tzeroros;

He asked, if abnormality does not apply to Tzeroros, can Tzeroros become Mu'ad?

Rav Ashi's question is unresolved.

Question (Rav Ashi): Does Sumchus consider impetus of impetus like impetus (the damager set something in motion, it set something else in motion which then damaged), or not?

Does he learn a tradition from Sinai (of half- damage), and apply this to impetus of impetus?

Or, does he have no tradition (of half-damage of impetus) at all?

This question is unresolved.

(Mishnah): If it was kicking, or pebbles were being strewn by its feet and Kelim were broken, it pays half- damage.

Question: How do we read the Mishnah?

Does it say 'if it kicked and damaged, or if it strewed up pebbles (while walking normally) and damaged, it pays half-damage?'

If so, it is like Chachamim.

Or, if it kicked and damaged, or if it (abnormally) kicked pebbles and damaged, it pays half-damage?

This implies if it kicked pebbles normally he pays full damage.

If so, it is like Sumchus.

Answer (Seifa): If it trampled on a Kli and broke it, and (fragments) broke another Kli, it pays full damage for the first Kli, and half-damage for the second.

This is unlike Sumchus. He holds that Tzeroros pay full damage!

Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah means that he pays full damage for the 'first Kli' broken by shards of the trampled Kli, and half-damage for the 'second Kli' (the one broken by shards of the 'first Kli')!

We must say that Sumchus differentiates between impetus and impetus of impetus.

Question: But Rav Ashi never resolved whether Sumchus differentiates between impetus and impetus of impetus!

Answer: Rav Ashi established the Mishnah like Chachamim. His question (1:a, about abnormal Tzeroros), was based on how to read the Mishnah:

Does it say 'if it kicked and damaged, or if it strewed up pebbles (normally) and damaged, it pays half-damage?'

Had it abnormally kicked pebbles and damaged, it would pay quarter damage.

Or, does it say 'if it kicked and damaged, or if it (abnormally) kicked pebbles and damaged, it pays half-damage?

The question is unresolved.

Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): If an animal was walking in a place where it must strew up pebbles, and it kicked pebbles and damaged, what is the law?

Since it had to strew up pebbles, this is normal;

Or, since it kicked, it is abnormal?

This question is unresolved.

Question (R. Yirmiyah): If an animal was walking in a Reshus ha'Rabim and strewed up pebbles and damaged, what is the law?

Do we compare it to Keren, and it is liable?

Or, since Tzeroros are a Toldah of Regel, it is exempt?

Answer (R. Zeira): Presumably, since Tzeroros are a Toldah of Regel, it is exempt.

Question (R. Yirmiyah): If it strewed up pebbles in a Reshus ha'Rabim and damaged in a Reshus ha'Yachid (private domain) what is the law?

Answer (R. Zeira): Since he is exempt at the place where it strewed them up, he is not liable for where they land.

Question (R. Yirmiyah - Beraisa): It was walking and strewed up pebbles, whether in a Reshus ha'Rabim or a Reshus ha'Yachid, it is liable.

Suggestion: It strewed up in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and damaged in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

Answer (R. Zeira): No, it strewed up in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and damaged in a Reshus ha'Yachid.

R. Yirmiyah: You said that also that is exempt!

R. Zeira: I retract (that law).

Question (R. Yirmiyah - Mishnah): If it trampled on a Kli and broke it, and (fragments) broke another Kli, it pays full damage for the first Kli, and half-damage for the second.

(Beraisa): This is only in the victim's premises. In a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is exempt for the first Kli, and liable for the last.

Suggestion: It strewed up in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and damaged in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

Answer (R. Zeira): No, it strewed up in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and damaged in a Reshus ha'Yachid.

R. Yirmiyah: You said that also that is exempt!

R. Zeira: I retracted.

Question: R. Yochanan taught that there is no distinction in half-damage between Reshus ha'Rabim and Reshus ha'Yachid!

Suggestion: This means, (he is liable even if) it strewed up in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and damaged in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

Answer #1 (R. Zeira): No, it strewed up in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and damaged in a Reshus ha'Yachid.

R. Yirmiyah: But you said that also that is exempt!

R. Zeira: I retracted.

Answer #2 (R. Zeira): R. Yochanan discussed only Keren.

Question (R. Yehudah Nesi'ah or R. Oshiya): If an animal damaged by wagging its tail, what is the law?

Answer (the other of R. Yehudah and R. Oshiya): You can't expect a man to hold his animal's tail as he walks! (He is exempt.)

Question: You can't expect a man to hold his animal's horns as he walks, yet he is liable for Keren!

Answer: That is different. Keren is abnormal, but wagging its tail is normal!

Objection: If it is normal, clearly it is like Regel (and exempt in a Reshus ha'Rabim)!

Answer: He asked about excessive wagging.

Question (Rav Eina): If it damaged by wagging the Ever (male organ), what is the law?

This is just like goring. Its evil inclination overcame it!

Or, it is unlike goring, in which it intends to damage. Here, it does not intend to damage!

This question is unresolved.

(Mishnah): Chickens are Mu'ad to walk normally and break... (if something was tied to its leg, or if it was dancing and broke Kelim, it pays half-damage).

(Rav Huna): This is only if it became tied by itself. If a man tied it, he pays full damage.

Question: If it became tied by itself, who pays?!

Suggestion: The owner of the tied item pays.

Question: What is the case?

If the item was hidden away, he is blameless!

If it was not hidden away, he was negligent! (He should pay full damage, like for a pit.)

Answer #1: Rather, the owner of the chicken pays.

Question: Surely, he doesn't pay full damage because it says "when a man will open a pit", not when an ox will open a pit (create an obstacle);

If so, he should be totally exempt!

Answer #2: Rather, the Mishnah (that obligates half- damage) discusses a chicken that damaged by throwing the attached item (Tzeroros). Rav Huna's law was not taught regarding our Mishnah.

(Rav Huna): If a Hefker item became attached to a chicken and damaged, the chicken's owner is exempt;

This is only if it became tied by itself. If a man tied it, the man pays full damage.

Question: For which (Av or Toldah) damager is he liable?

Answer (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): This is a pit that is pushed around by people and animals.

(Mishnah): Shen is Mu'ad to eat what is appropriate for it;

An animal is Mu'ad to eat fruit and vegetables. If it ate clothing or Kelim, it pays half-damage.

This is in the victim's premises. In Reshus ha'Rabim, it is exempt;

If it benefited, it pays the benefit.

This is when it ate from Rechavah (a public area or square). If it ate from the side of the Rechavah, it pays the damage (Rashi - according to the damage, but it only pays half-damage, like Keren. Most explain that it pays full damage.)

If it ate from the entrance to a store, it pays what it benefited;

If it ate from inside the store, it pays (Rashi - half) the damage.

(Gemara - Beraisa): Shen is Mu'ad to eat what is fitting for it;

If it entered the victim's premises and ate fitting food and drink, it pays full damage.

Similarly, if a Chayah entered the victim's premises and killed an animal and ate meat, it pays full damage.

If a cow ate barley, a donkey ate fodder, a dog lapped up oil, or a pig that ate a piece of meat, it pays full damage (even though these are not their normal foods).

(Rav Papa): Since we say that anything not normally eaten, but is eaten in pressed circumstances, is considered eating, if a cat ate dates, or a donkey ate fish, it pays full damage.

A case occurred in which a donkey ate bread and chewed the basket. Rav Yehudah obligated the owner to pay full damage for the bread and half-damage for the basket.

Question: Since it is normal for a donkey to eat bread, it is also normal to chew the basket at the time!

Answer: After eating the bread, it chewed the basket.

Question: Is it really normal for a donkey to eat bread?!

Contradiction (Beraisa): If it ate bread, meat or a cooked dish it pays half-damage.

Suggestion: This refers to a Behemah (which includes a donkey).

Answer #1: No, it refers to a Chayah.

Question: It is normal for a Chayah to eat meat!

Answer #1: The meat was roasted.

Answer #2: The Beraisa discusses a deer (it does not normally eat meat).

Answer #2 (to Question (l)): The Beraisa discusses a Behemah. It ate on a table.