(Mishnah): How is Shen 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.

When is this (Shen is Mu'ad)? It is in the victim's premises. In Reshus ha'Rabim, it is exempt;

If it benefited, it pays the benefit.

(Gemara - Reish Lakish): [When is this...? In Reshus ha'Rabim, it is exempt] refers to the entire clause (also if it ate clothing or Kelim. It is exempt, for if one deviated (e.g. left Kelim in Reshus ha'Rabim), and another came and deviated and damaged the first, he is exempt.)

(R. Yochanan): It refers [only] to the first matter (an animal is Mu'ad to eat fruit and vegetables. It is not exempt for Kelim in Reshus ha'Rabim.)

Question: Reish Lakish contradicts himself! There Reish Lakish said in the name of R. Hoshayah "if it stopped and ate from gathered Peros [in Reshus ha'Rabim], it is obligated [for this is not normal]'' and here he says so?!

Answer: There he said so in the name of R. Hoshayah [but he himself disagrees]. Here he said in his own name.

Reish Lakish's words show that if a walking animal kicked a crouching animal, it is exempt [for also the first one deviated]. R. Yochanan's words show that if a walking animal kicked a crouching animal, it is liable.

Question: [Reish Lakish exempts] not only if the walking one kicked a crouching animal, or [after it did so, the] crouching animal kicked [back at] the walking animal. If a walking animal kicked a walking animal [does he exempt even then]?

Note: We explained the first part like GILYON HA'SHAS (from SHITAH MEKUBETZES 20a, DH v'Zeh Leshon R. Yeshayahu). The one that kicked first, even though it is exempt because the other deviated first, it is like one who instigated a fight; the one who retaliated is exempt. YERUSHALMI TZERUFAH explains that we ask about a walking animal that kicked a walking animal after a small Shinuy, e.g. it went faster or slower than normal.

Answer (and rejection of premise - R. Ami): Reish Lakish said only that if a walking animal kicked a crouching animal it is exempt, but if a crouching animal kicked a walking animal, or a walking animal kicked a walking animal, it is liable.

(R. Hoshayah): All of these are exempt.

R. Hoshayah holds that this is not Keren in Reshus ha'Rabim. (Rather, it is Regel - HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

(Rav): If it stopped and ate from gathered Peros [in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is exempt];

What is the leniency of Shen [in Reshus ha'Rabim]? It is when it ate while walking, [whether it ate from the load of a walking animal,] or from what is stationary (e.g. gathered Peros).

The stringency of Keren [over Shen] is [that Keren is liable] when a walking animal kicked a stationary animal.

(Ilfai): If it stopped and ate from gathered Peros, it is liable. (He holds like Rav regarding Shen. He argues only about Keren);

What is the leniency of Shen? It is when it ate while walking, even [from what is] stationary.

The stringency of Keren is when a walking animal kicked a walking animal.