The law is sufficient for what follows from the law.

Why, in the opinion of the Rabbis, do they not accept Rabbi Tarfon's ruling on the foundation in the presence of the damage: "And what about where the tooth and the foot were relieved – in the public domain – the one who became more severe in the foundation, where the tooth and the foot were aggravated – in the presence of the damage – is it not a law that we should become more severe in the foundation?" They said to him: It is enough for the law to be as it is said: What is in the public domain half the damage – even in the presence of the damage, half the damage." And after all, apparently, in this case the relief and the material created are indeed valid, since the relief is the habit in relation to the foundation (and this is taught by the Rabbis), then in the matter of the presence of the damage, even within the framework of the principle of sufficient damages, one would be liable for full damage in the foundation.