Opinion #1: We could have asked from his minor son and daughter.

Opinion #2: Since [his minor children] cannot pardon, he cannot pain them at all.

Explanation: And according to R. Yochanan, in both of them he does not feed them.

Explanation: They do not eat according to Torah law, since this is not final processing.

Implied question: Above (89a), we said that one who weeds among onions... and similarly one who digs under olive trees and covers the roots does not eat!

Answer: This means that mid'Oraisa he does not eat, but he eats based on the custom.

Observation: (Usually, "Iy Hachi" means that according to what you said, there is a difficulty.) Here, there is no "granted, if you would say...", for we could have asked so from the beginning;

There are many cases like this in the Gemara.

Explanation: This is at a time when wolves are rampant, and it is like R. Yehudah, who says that [at such a time] one wolf is Ones.

Question: Also according to Abaye, who establishes it when [he ascended] at a time that people normally ascend, this is difficult! In any case, if he could have saved, he is liable. This shows that the beginning was negligence!

Answer: He does not consider this negligence, rather, [a small Ones like] theft or loss.

Inference: If the beginning was like theft or loss and the end was Ones, he is exempt.

Suggestion: We can prove so from Rav, who said above (36a) that even a Shomer Sachar who gave over to a Shomer Chinam is exempt, because he gave to a Ben Da'as (one with intelligence)!

Rejection: Even if Rav held that if the beginning was like theft or loss and the end was Ones, he is liable, even so he is exempt [in Rav's case];

We do not say that surely, a Shomer Chinam will not guard from theft or loss, only from negligence, and the beginning (giving over to a Shomer Chinam) was like theft or loss;

Rather, a Stam Ben Da'as guards much, even from [mishaps] for which he is not liable.

Possibility: Perhaps even if he gave over to a Shomer Chinam and exempted him from negligence, [the first Shomer] is exempt, for this is not considered that the beginning was negligence (for even so, he will guard properly).

Assertion: He is not considered negligent due to this. Rather, it is like theft or loss;

He is liable because "I paid you in order that you will guard extra well, like Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna", since we bring this [case of the animal that fell off the bridge] here (after the opinion of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna).

Support: This is why it says below "people before you already screamed." They wanted to exempt themselves based on Rabah's opinion;

If not, why did they scream? Obviously they are liable, for even a Shomer Chinam is liable!

Observation: Rav Papa here holds like Rava in Bava Kama (58a), who says that "because you should have led them one at a time" is not negligence;

This is unlike Rav Kahana, who says there that it is negligence regarding [an animal] that fell into a garden.

Observation: Even if the text says "Rava", this is fine.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (108b), Rava establishes Rav Huna bar Avin's teaching when he swore first;

However, if he did not swear, even a Shomer Chinam, he takes the thief to Beis Din, and he [cannot] swear [that he was not negligent]!

Answer: Here, [Rava] answers according to the questioner (who holds that he was not negligent), but [Rava] himself disagrees.

Implied question: Here, even if the thief was not found, he would be liable, since he was negligent!

Answer: The Gemara mentioned that the thief was found only due to the Talmidim, who thought that he obligated him because the thief was found.

Question: This is obvious! It is absolute negligence!

Answer: The Chidush is that even if we can attribute that it died also due to something else, even so he is liable, for he should not have starved it.