Study Guide Bava Kamma 25 Today's daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Alma Avraham, a hostage who was returned yesterday to Israel in critical condition. We are praying also for the health of all the other hostages who returned home and for the health and safety of the many who are still being held hostage. Rabbi Tarfon and the rabbis disagree about whether one is liable for keren damages in the property of the nizak (the one who was damaged) half or full damages. To prove his opinion, Rabbi Tarfon bring a kal v'chomer argument from shen and regel (exempt) in the public domain and keren (half damages)in the public domain. The rabbis say that since it is derived from a case of half damages, one is not able to learn full damages as kal v'chomer arguments cannot be used to teach a law that is stricter than the original case (dayo). Rabbi Tarfon holds that this principle is not used in a case where if one were to employ dayo (limit the law), it would obviate the need for the kal v'chomer. Is there an opinion that does not think the principle of dayo is true in any case?  Two tannaitic sources are brought to try to raise a difficulty and show that there is a tana who does not employ the principle dayo in any case. However, both sources are not able to show that there is a tana who holds that way.