Mishna & Gemara

If an animal is walking in the reshus harabim and eats from items there, it is classified as shein, the owner is patur from damages, but has to pay the benefit he received from not feeding his animal. If the animal turns his head to the side of the reshus harabim and eats items there, it is classified as keren, and if the animal is a tam, the owner pays half damages (chatzi nezek). My question is: What happens if the chatzi nezek amount is less than the value the owner would pay for benefit in the case of shein? Do we say that the benefit amount is an overall minimum payment in all cases, or paying any amount of damages absolves the owner of paying for benefit?

Dear Rabbi Rashi Commentary - Perek 6 Pasuk 4 “and also afterward: Although they had seen the destruction of the generation of Enosh when the ocean rose up and inundated a third of the world, the generation of the Flood did not humble themselves to learn from them.” Question - My Torah Chavrusa partner and I are a bit mystified by the Rashi’s statement above. “Inundated a third of the world”, in order for this to be viable there would have been two floods. The evil generation was not humbled by the first wave (third of the world etc.). so, there would have to of been a second wave that destroyed all humanity save Noach’s ark. Can you shed some light on this? Thank you.

Where can I buy a set of the Talmud?

Who wrote the Talmud?