Question: How do we know that they argue? Perhaps Rami bar Yechezkel speaks where they wer4e warned, and Amri bei Rav where they were not?

Answer: In that case, what is Amri bei Rav coming to teach us?

Refuted Question: And one cannot ask hoe he can argue with a Beraisa?

Answer #1: Since S'tam Amri bei Rav is said in the name of Rav, and Rav was a Tana who has the authority to argue with Tana'im.

Answer #2: Alternatively, because, since the Beraisa was not learned in the Beis-ha'Medrash of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshaya, one cannot question an Amora from it.

Implied Question: Even though it is not possible to explain the Beraisa later, which states with regard to the Mishnah 'That speak in the domain of te Nizak, but in the R'shus ha'Rabim, he is Patur on the former and Chayav on the latter' ..

Implied Question (cont.): And if it speaks where the first one damaged via Hatazah (the object shooting up), this could happen in the domain of the Nizak as in the R'shus ha'Rabim, just as the Hatazah of the second one?

Answer: Nevertheless, one can explain the Mishnah on this way.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have said in a Lashon of 'If you will say' - 'If you will say that it (Ko'ach Kocho) is not like Kocho, is the author of our Mishnah the Rabanan or Sumchus?'

Answer: But the Gemara prefers to ask the She'eilah as to whether there is Shinuy (with regard to a quarter payment) or not.

Clarification: And it appears that the previous She'eilah was merely as to whether the Mishnah is speaking by conventional Tzeroros or by unconventional Tzeroros, and no more.

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara of its own accord added whether it goes like the Rabanan or Sumchus, and Rav Ashi explains that the She'eilah is whether there is Shinuy with regard to a quarter payment or not.

Precedent: And a similar format is to be found in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 112a and 112b DH 'Uman') in connection with the She'eilah of Rav Sheishes whether 'a Kablan transgresses bal Talin or not').

Precedent (cont.): There too, the Gemara of its own adds 'whether a worker acquires the improvement of the K'li that he is working on', even though Rav Sheishes asked the She'eilah S'tam.

Precedent (concl.): Whereas in 'ha'Gozel Kama' (later on Daf 99a and and 99b DH bi'Shelicha', it establishes it by a Shali'ach who is delivering a letter (See Mesores ha'Shas 6).

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that it speaks in the R'shus ha'Rabim, and the She'eilah is whether he is Patur if it damaged in the conventional manner, similar to 'Regel' ...

Refutation: Since the Beraisa does not say that it was walking in the R'shus ha'Rabim, as it did in the She'eilah that follows.

Authentic Explanation: Rashi's explanation is therefore the correct one.

Clarification: It speaks after the object has landed, and he is Chayav because of 'Bor'.

Clarification (cont.): 'Kashro' is La'av Davka, because wherever one places the object in an guarded location, it is as if he tied it, as the Gemara states 'If he did not place it in a guarded place, he is negligent'.

Clarification: It speaks in a case of an object that is Hefker, or where the owner tied it and placed it in a guarded location.

Reason: It cannot refer to our Mishnah, because 'Kashro Adam' implies that he pays full damages, and where the chicken kicked the object, the owner of the chicken is also liable.

Refuted Reason: Rashi explains that it cannot refer to our Mishnah, since the one who tied it would be Patur because the chicken kicked it, and the person who fell because of it, did not trip over his 'Bor'.

Refutation: Why is he not then Chayav because it is his fire, like the case of 'A stone, knife or load which one placed or top of a roof, and which fell on account of a regular wind ...

Refutation (cont.): Because the chicken is like a regular wind, since the Gemara asks 'If he did not place it in a guarded spot, he is negligent?'

Clarification: On account of the D'rashah "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor'.

Clarification: 'Kashro' is La'av Davka, and the same Din will apply where he moved it from a guarded location to one that is unguarded, which is an act of negligence.

Refuted Explanation: Not like Rashi, who explains that he acquired it by picking it up, in which case the object has an owner ...

Reason: Since any stumbling-block that one places in the R'shus ha'Rabim renders one Chayav because of 'Bor', even though one has not acquired it.

Conclusion: And Rav and Shmuel only argue later (on Daf 28:) where the owner did not declare his object Hefker, but there where he did, both agree that it is a 'Bor'.

Clarification: It is 'eating in an emergency', as the Gemara concludes.

Implied Question: And when the Mishnah states (in Ohalos, 18:8) in connection with 'the dwellings of Nochrim' (which the Gemara cites in Pesachim, Daf 9a) 'Any location where a Chazir and a weasel is able to walk, does not require searching (with regard to Tum'as Meis)?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that stillborn babies are different, inasmuch as they are soft.