Explanation #1: If it referred to the bucket, we could establish it by a rope that is frayed, old and worn-out, in which case it would be natural to break with the slightest pecking, which the chicken performs to suck out the water that it has absorbed.

Explanation #1 (cont.): But now that it refers to the rope , it must be speaking about a strong rope, by which payment is applicable.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, if it would refer to the bucket, we would be able to explain that 'Nifsak' with reference to the knot with which the rope is attached to bucket coming loose.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have said that whichever approach we try, they reject by applying second approach.

Answer: Only the Gemara answers satisfactorily anyway.

Explanation #1: Later (on Daf 22a) the Gemara explains that according to the opinion that 'Isho mishum Chitzav', he pays half -damages for the entire haystack, seeing as it is the 'arrows of the dog', which is Tzeroros, apart from the location of the coal.

Explanation #2: Whereas according to the opinion that 'Isho mishum Mamono', he is Patur on the entire haystack, and on the location of the coal, half damages, there where he nudged it along.

Clarification: There where it damaged in the conventional manner.

Text #1: This is the text of Rashi ...

Explanation #1: Who explains that since it became a Mu'ad, it is now conventional, and just as by conventional Tzeroros which are Mu'ad from the beginning, pay Chatzi Nezek and no more, so too, where it made a Shunuy and then became a Mu'ad, it is not more stringent than where it was initially a Mu'ad ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): And since he pays from the body, we see that Tzeroros that are performed conventionally also pay from the body - thereby resolving Rava's She'eilah.

Question: How can one resolve Rava's She'eilah from there, perhaps one pays conventional Tzeroros from one's pocket, and it is only where the animal made a Shinuy that he pays from the body, even after it becomes a Mu'ad, due to the principle 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomah Omedes' (the part of it that is a Tam remains intact).

Refuted Explanation #2: Nor can one explain that, yes, the Gemara is not coming to resolve the She'eilah of Rava, but to teach us that is another way of learning the Beraisa ...

Refutation: Since this is not the way of the Gemara?

Text #2: Therefore the correct Text is 'Ela k'gon de'Iya'ed' ...

Explanation: And it is therefore possible to resolve our She'eilah, and one cannot ask anything on Rebbi Elazar, seeing as their Machlokes is not synonymous with that of Sumchus and the Rabanan ...

Explanation (cont.): And it is not speaking where the animal made a Shinuy, and the same Machlokes as Rebbi Tarfon and the Rabanan ...

Explanation (concl.): Only both of them hold like the Rabanan of Sumchus, and the case is regarding conventional Tzeroros, where the animal is a Mu'ad.

Conclusion: And the Gemara resolves Rava's She'eilah in that 'Tzeroros are subject to Ha'ada'ah, since it is speaking about regular Tzeroros.

Support #1: This is also implied, since the Gemara says 'Or perhaps it is a Toldah of Regel' - implying tha it is speaking where there is no Shinuy.

Support #2: And also from the fact that the Gemara cites in connection with it 'Dancing is not a Mu'ad', which refers to 'in the conventional manner' that the Gemara cited regarding it, earlier.

Question #1: Later (on Daf 19a) it is evident that it is speaking with a Shinuy, when Rav Ashi asks whether Tzeroros are subject to Shinuy, and where the Gemara tries to resolve it from Rava, who asks whether 'Yesh Ha'ada'ah ... ', so we see that 'Ein Shinuy' ...

Question #1 (cont.): Because if we were to say 'Yesh Shinuy', how can one jump from a quarter of the damage to full damages.

Question #2: And similarly, later, where the Gemara asks 'But is this not unconventional?', it implies that if we were to establish the Machlokes by where it became a Mu'ad, there would be no problem ...

Question #2 (cont.): Implying in turn, that the She'eilah of Rava speaks where it is unconventional?

Explanation #3: It therefore seems that the She'eilah goes both ways - Whether there is Ha'ada'ah or not, because if there is Ha'ada'ah by conventional Teroros, then there is also Ha'ada'ah by unconventional Tzeroros, since the chief Parshah of Ha'ada'ah is written by 'Keren' ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Whereas if there is not, then even via a Shinuy there will be no Ha'ada'ah either, seeing as Tzeroros via Ha'ada'ah is no better than conventional Tzeroros.

Refuted Explanation: And when Rashi comments that the She'eilah of 'Yesh Ha'ada'ah' is not applicable by conventional Tzeroros, because what is then the difference between the first time the animal damages and the fourth time?

Rejection: This is not a Kashya ...

Reason: Because since the Torah compares it to Keren with regard to Chatzi Nezek, Ha'ada'ah will apply to it it as well.

Implied Question: Even though Rava did not know the Beraisa, seeing as he asked whether one pays mi'Gufo ...

Answer: The Gemara nevertheless tries to extrapolate both things from it ...

Conclusion: And it concludes that one can derive neither the one nor the other.

Equating this with the Earlier Gemara: This is synonymous with the Gemara's Dichuy earlier 've'Tisb'ra', only the it did not elaborate there like it does here.

Question: Why does the Gemara push to establish the Beraisa like Sumchus?

Answer #1: Because, according to the Rabanan, we can resolve that 'There is no Shinuy for Tzeroros to pay a quarter of the damage'.

Answer #2: Moreover, if by Tzeroros performed in the normal way Rebbi Elazar were to hold Chatzi Nezek, like the Rabanan, then by Tzeroros performed with a Shinuy, one would not be Chayav full damages, even though he holds like Rebbi Tarfon, seeing as there is no Kal va'Chomer.

Answer #2 (cont.): Because since by Tzeroros of Shen va'Regel in the Chatzer of the Nizak one only pays Chatzi Nezek, by Tzeroros of Keren too, one will only pay Chatzi Nezek.

Conclusion: Nor does the Gemara want to establish it like the Rabanan in the location of the coal, and where the animal placed it on the haystack with a Shinuy ...

Conclusion (cont.): Because it prefers to say that he pays Chatzi Nezek on the entire haystack, like the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.

Question: Let us say the other way round - the Kal va'Chomer to pay from one's pocket, and 'Dayo' to pay only half the damage.

Answer: The current explanation is preferable, inasmuch as if one says 'Dayo' concerning paying from the body of the animal, one is not really altering the Din of Chatzi Nezek from the original ruling, one is merely adding another Chatzi Nezek ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas if one would say 'Dayo' with regard to Chatzi Nezek, one would uproot completely the initial Chatzi Nezek, in that one would taken it out of the Din of paying from the animal's body and is now making him pay out of his pocket.

Conclusion: And wherever one is able to uproot the Kal va'Chomer and to maintain 'Dayo', one does.