Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TRIPPING

(a) (Mishnah): Two potters were walking one after the other. Reuven (the first) tripped; Shimon tripped over Reuven. Reuven must pay the damages.
(b) (Gemara - R. Yochanan): Do not say our Mishnah is only as R. Meir, who says that one who trips is negligent and liable (to pay for the damages);

1. Rather, our Mishnah is even as Chachamim, who say that one who trips is not negligent, and exempt;

i. In the case of our Mishnah, Reuven is liable, for he should have gotten up.

(c) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Even if he was unable to get up, he is liable - he should have warned Shimon.

1. R. Yochanan disagrees - since he is unable to get up, he is distracted, and he is not obligated to warn.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven is walking, carrying a beam; Shimon is walking in back of him, carrying a jug. The jug broke on the beam - Reuven is exempt.

1. If Reuven stopped, he is liable.

(b) Suggestion: The case is, Reuven stopped to adjust the beam, which is normal, and still he is liable, for he should have warned (even though he is distracted - this refutes R. Yochanan)!
(c) Rejection: No, he stopped to rest (which is abnormal).
(d) Question: But if he had stopped to adjust he would be exempt?!

1. If so, why does the end of the Mishnah say, if he warned Shimon, he is exempt? Let it show the distinction when he does not warn!
2. The Mishnah should say 'He is only liable when he stopped to rest. If he stopped to adjust, he is exempt'!

(e) Answer: The Mishnah teaches a different Chidush - even when he stops to rest, if he warned, he is exempt.
(f) (Beraisa): Potters and glassmakers were walking one after the other. Reuven (the first one) tripped and fell; Shimon tripped on Reuven, and Levi on Shimon. Reuven must pay the damages to Shimon; Shimon must pay the damages to Levi.

1. If they all fell because of Reuven, he must pay all the damages.
2. If they warned each other, all are exempt.
3. Suggestion: They were unable to stand (and are liable because they should have warned).
4. Rejection: No - they could have stood.

(g) Question: But if they could not have stood they would be exempt?!

1. If so, why does the end of the Mishnah say, if they warned each other, they are exempt? Let it show the distinction when he does not warn!
2. The Mishnah should say 'They are only liable when they could have stood. If they were unable to stand, they are exempt'!

(h) Answer: The Mishnah teaches a different Chidush - even when they could have stood, if they warned each other, they are exempt.

(a) (Rava): Reuven must pay the damages to Shimon, both damage due to Reuven's body and that due to Reuven's property;

1. Shimon must only pay damage that his own body caused to Levi, not that due to Shimon's property.

(b) Question: This is inconsistent!

1. If one who trips is negligent - Shimon should also be liable for damage done by his property!
2. If one who trips is not negligent - Reuven should also be exempt even for damage done by his body!

(c) Answer: Reuven is certainly negligent (because he tripped on his own). Shimon is blameless for falling, but is liable for damage due to his body, for he should have gotten up.

1. He is exempt for damage done by his property, because he cannot be blamed for his property falling, and he made it Hefker.

(d) Question (Beraisa): Every one of them is liable for damage due to his own body, and exempt for damage due to his property.

1. Suggestion: This applies even to the first.

(e) Answer #1: No - it applies to all except the first.

1. Question: But it says, 'Every one of them'!
2. Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): It means, every one of those injured.
3. Objection: This is unreasonable!

i. If it means even the first, we understand why it says 'every one of them'.
ii. But if it means all other than the first - let it just say 'The injured'!

(f) Retraction (Rava): Rather, Reuven must pay the damages to Shimon, both damage to Shimon's body and to his property (Reuven is not negligent for falling, rather for not getting up).

1. Shimon must only pay damage to Levi's body, not to Levi's property.
2. Question: Why is Shimon exempt on damage to Levi's property?
3. Answer: Shimon's body is an obstacle, it has the law of a pit (he is even less negligent than Reuven, who tripped by himself). One does not pay for vessels damaged by a pit (only for people and animals).

(g) This answer is acceptable according to Shmuel, who says that every obstacle has the law of a pit.
(h) Question: According to Rav, who says that an obstacle is only judged as a pit if the owner made it Hefker (ownerless), how can we answer?
(i) Answer: Really, as we said above (a), Reuven pays to Shimon damages due to Reuven's body and property;

1. Shimon only pays damage that his own body caused to Levi, not what his property caused.

(j) Answer #2 (to question (d) - Rav Ada bar Minyomi): When the Beraisa says 'Every one of them is liable for damage due to his own body, and exempt for damage due to his property' - it speaks of damage to vessels.

1. (A person is liable for all damage caused by his own body; he is exempt for damage caused by his property to vessels - Reuven's property is as a pit, Shimon's property is not even liable as a pit.)

(k) (Beraisa): If they all fell because of Reuven, he must pay all the damages.
(l) Question: How is it that they all fell because of Reuven?
(m) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Reuven fell across the width of the road.
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Zvid): He fell as a blind man's stick (diagonally, covering the width of the road). (Tosafos - But had he fallen horizontally, as Rav Papa said, he would only be liable for damage to Shimon; the latter victims were negligent for not having been careful, having seen others fall before them.)