If there are seeds in a cup it is usual for a rooster to stick its head in the cup and if the rooster breaks the utensil by way of shrieking it is the Hezek of Tzeroros.
It is a Machlokes between Sumchus and the Rabanan whether Tzeroros pays Chatzi Nezek or Nezek Shalem.
If roosters were pecking at the cord of a pitcher and the cord snapped and the pitcher broke it pays Nezek Shalem. (1)
If a shard from the pitcher shot out and broke a second utensil it pays Nezek Shalem for the pitcher and Chatzi Nezek for the second utensil.
Rebbi Ashi is in doubt if Ko'ach Kocho is the same as Kocho according to Sumchus. (2)
Rava is in doubt if Chatzi Nezek of Tzeroros pays mi'Gufo or from Aliyah.
If a rooster prances around and pebbles shoot out and causes damage it is a Machlokes if it is a Mu'ad or not.
If a dog takes a hot biscuit and takes it to a stack of grain and eats the biscuit and sets the grain on fire it pays Nezek Shalem on the biscuit and Chatzi Nezek on the grain mi'Gufo.
Rebbi Elazar holds that it pays Nezek Shalem for the grain mi'Gufo. (3)
Rebbi Tarfon holds that Keren in Reshus of the Nizak pays Nezek Shalem mi'Gufo.
Rebbi Yehudah holds that a Tam that becomes a Mu'ad pays half of the payment mi'Gufo because a Mu'ad pays the Chatzi Nezek of a Tam plus another Chatzi Nezek from Aliyah.
Rebbi Tarfon does not hold of Dayo (the rule that one may not learn with a Kal va'Chomer more than the Din of what we are learning it out from) if it will make the Kal va'Chomer void.
Rava is in doubt if Mu'ad can become a Mu'ad to pay Nezek Shalem.
If an animal discharges dung on dough Rebbi Yehudah holds that it pays Nezek Shalem and Rebbi Elazar holds that it pays Chatzi Nezek. (4)
If a rooster sticks its head into a glass utensil and it shrieks causing it to break it pays Nezek Shalem. (5)
If the neighing of a horse or donkey causes utensils to break it pays Chatzi Nezek (6)
A BIT MORE
1. According to Rabah it pays Nezek Shalem even if the pitcher rolled and than broke because Rabah holds that a utensil is considered broken as soon as sufficient force is put into it that it will inevitably break. Rebbi Bibi says that the rooster pushed at the pitcher all of the way until it broke.
2. Sumchus holds that Tzeroros (Kocho) pays Nezek Shalem and it is a Safek if Ko'ach Kocho is the same as Koch and it pays Nezek Shalem or if it is different than Kocho and it pays Chatzi Nezek.
3. According to one Peshat both the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar hold like Sumchus that Tzeroros pays Nezek Shalem and in this case it is Tzeroros with a Shinuy (an unusual case of Tzeroros) and the Tana Kama holds that it since it is done with a Shinuy it pays Chatzi Nezek while Rebbi Elazar holds like Rebbi Tarfon that Keren in Reshus ha'Nizak pays Nezek Shalem. According to a second the animal was a Mu'ad to damage with Tzeroros and the Tana Kama holds that Tzeroros does not become a Mu'ad while Rebbi Elazar holds that Tzeroros does become a Mu'ad and it pays Nezek Shalem.
4. It is a damage of Tzeroros and Rebbi Yehudah holds like Sumchus that Tzeroros pays Nezek Shalem, while Rebbi Elazar holds like the Rabanan that Tzeroros pays Chatzi Nezek.
5. This is in accordance with Sumchus who holds that Tzeroros pays Nezek Shalem.
6. This is in accordance with the Rabanan who holds that Tzeroros pays Nezek Shalem.
The Rashba asks that the Rif Paskens like Rabah that a utensil is considered broken as soon as sufficient force is put into it that it will inevitably break and yet he quotes the answer of Rebbi Bibi that the rooster pushed the pitcher all the way until it broke. The answer of Rebbi Bibi is not necessary according to Rabah because even if it didn't push it all the way it pays Nezek Shalem since it is considered broken as soon as sufficient was out into it. The Rashba answers that even according to Rabah the answer of Rebbi Bibi is necessary because if the animal only snapped the rope without touching the pitcher at all it is Tzeroros and it pays only Chatzi Nezek. Therefore the rooster must have pushed the actual pitcher. Even though according to Rabah the rooster did not have to push the pitcher all of the way until it broke and it is sufficient that the rooster pushed it and caused it to roll, that which Rebbi Bibi said that he pushed it all the way until it broke is Lav Davka.
AN INTABGIBLE HEZEK
Just as one is Chayav for a tangible Ko'ach so too one is Chayav for an intangible Ko'ach. For example, if a horse or donkey neighed and caused utensils to break or birds broke utensils with the wind from their wings or a rooster stuck its head in a utensil and its shriek caused it to break, however in the latter case it is only Chayav if there are seeds in the utensil because that make sit a usual Hezek because otherwise it is an unusual Hezek and nowadays an unusual Hezek may not be collected. (Shulchan Aruch CM 390:9)