Foot and Tooth as the Two Faces of Grazing Damage

It has been taught: "And he sends" - this is the foot. And so it says, "who send out the foot of the ox and the donkey" (Isaiah 32:20). "And it grazes" - this is the tooth. And so it says, "as the dung is consumed until it is gone" (1 Kings 14:10). The reason is that the Merciful One wrote "who send out the foot." Were it not so, how would you establish the verse? If as horn-damage, that is already written; if as tooth, that too is written. It was necessary, for it might have entered your mind to say that both this phrase and that refer to the tooth - the one where the principal is consumed and the one where the principal is not consumed; this teaches us otherwise. And now that we have established one phrase as the foot, from where do we derive tooth-damage where the principal is not consumed? It is analogous to the foot: just as for the foot it makes no difference whether the principal is consumed or not, so too for the tooth it makes no difference whether the principal is consumed or not. The master said: "And it grazes" is the tooth, and so it says, "as the dung is consumed." The reason is that the Merciful One wrote "as the dung is consumed until it is gone." Were it not so, how would you establish it? If as horn, that is written; if as foot, that is written. You might think both refer to the foot - the one where the animal was driven out by an agent and the one where it went of its own accord; this teaches us otherwise. And now that we have established one as the tooth, from where do we derive foot-damage where the animal went of its own accord? It is analogous to the tooth: just as for the tooth it makes no difference whether it was driven by an agent or went of its own accord, so too for the foot it makes no difference. Let the Merciful One write only "and he sends," and not need "and it grazes," since "sends" implies the foot and also implies the tooth, as it is written, "and the tooth of beasts I will send against them" (Deuteronomy 32:24). Were it not for the extra verse, I would have said: either the foot, whose damage is common, or the tooth, where there is benefit in its damage. Since they are balanced, let both come - for which of them would you exclude? It was necessary, for it might have entered your mind to say that this applies only where the animal was driven by an agent, but where it went of its own accord, no; this teaches us otherwise. And what is a subcategory of the tooth? If the animal rubbed against a wall for its pleasure, or soiled produce for its pleasure. How is the tooth distinctive? There is benefit in its damage, and it is your property, and its safekeeping is upon you - these too have benefit in their damage, and are your property, and their safekeeping is upon you. Thus a subcategory of the tooth is like the tooth. And when Rav Pappa spoke, he spoke of a subcategory of the foot. What is a subcategory of the foot? If the animal damaged with its body in the course of its walking, or with its hair in the course of its walking, or with the saddle upon it, or with the load upon it. Four things the Torah lessened in their safekeeping (this is written in the verse "If a man opens a pit," Exodus 21:33).