Previous daf

1)

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah say about two potters who were walking one behind the other, when the first one tripped and fell, and the second one tripped over him and fell and injured himself?

(b) At first glance, the author of our Mishnah appears to be Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Niskal Poshe'a' (falling is considered negligent).
How does Rebbi Yochanan establish our Mishnah even like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that it is O'nes?

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak goes one step further. According to him, the first potter would have been liable even if he had not been able to get up. On what grounds would he then be held liable?

(d) And what does Rebbi Yochanan say to that?

(a) In the following Mishnah, the Tana obligates the owner of a beam to pay the owner of a barrel, if he stopped in the street and the barrel crashed into his beam and broke.
Why does ...

1. ... the assumption that the former stopped to adjust his beam present Rebbi Yochanan with a Kashya?
2. ... establishing the Mishnah when he stopped to rest resolve the problem?

(b) Why does the Tana then switch in the Seifa to when the owner of the beam warned the owner of the barrel to stop? Why does he not rather present a case when he stopped to adjust his beam (even without warning the man behind him)?

(c) In a Beraisa which reiterates the Din of our Mishnah, the Tana discusses three potters or glaziers who are walking one behind the other.
What does the Tana say in a case where first the first one, then the second, warned the one behind him, before he too, fell?

(d) Why do we initially think that this presents a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?

4)

(a) Rava comments on the above Beraisa that the first Mazik is liable for damage done to the second man, irrespective of whether the injury was caused by his body or by his vessels (or clothes).
What does he say about the damage done to the third man by the second Mazik's vessels (or clothes)?

(b) Why this distinction? Why are the first Mazik's vessels considered to be his Bor, and not the second man's?

(c) Why is the second man then liable to pay for the damage done to the third man with his body?

(d) In all these cases, what is the basic difference between damage caused by the person and damage caused by his vessels?

(a) In view of what Abaye said above, that according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir, 'Niskal La'av Poshe'a', how will we explain the first part of Rava's statement? Why does Rava consider the first Mazik to be a Poshe'a?

(b) In that case, how will Rava establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim?

6)

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa mean when he writes 'Kulan Chayavin al Nizkei *Gufan*, u'Peturin al Nizkei *Mamonam*'?

(b) Taking 'Kulan' literally, how do we intially understand the Beraisa? In which basic point does it clash with Rava?

(c) To conform with Rava's statement, how does Rav Ada bar Ahavah attempt to interpret 'Kulan'?

(d) On what grounds do we reject this explanation?

(a) How do we then attempt to reinterpret Rava statement? What does Rava mean when he says that the first Mazik is Chayav 'Bein be'Nizkei Gufo, Bein be'Nizkei Mamono', whereas the second one is only Chayav by Nizkei Gufo', but not by Nizkei Mamono'?

(b) What is the reason for this?

(c) Why will this explanation only work according to Rav, who considers every obstacle a 'Bor'? What makes it unacceptable according to Shmuel?

(a) In the final analysis, what does Rava really mean?

(b) To reconcile Rava with the Beraisa, how does Rav Ada bar Minyumi qualify the Beraisa, which states 'Kulan Peturin al Nizkei Mamonan'?

(c) How will we now explain the Beraisa according to Rav and according to Shmuel? When will the first Mazik be Patur for the damage done by *his* vessels to those of the Nizak respectively?

(d) How about the vessels of the second Mazik? Is he liable for the injuries sustained by the third person according to Rav?

(a) We learned in the Beraisa quoted on the previous Amud that if the second and the third men both tripped over the first one, then he is liable.
What problem do we have with this statement?

(b) Rav Papa answers that the Beraisa speaks when he was sprawled across the street like a Shelda.
What is 'a Shelda'?

(c) How does Rav Z'vid describe the case?

(d) What is the difference between the two answers (see Tosfos DH ke'Chutra')?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah rule in a case where a man carrying a beam and a man carrying a barrel collide head-on in the street, and the barrel breaks?

(b) What does he say in a case where the man with the beam is walking in front of the man with the barrel ...

1. ... and the barrel smashes into the beam and breaks?
2. ... and the barrel smashes into the beam and breaks, but after the man with the beam stopped suddenly?

(c) And what does the Tana rule in a case where the man with the barrel is walking in front of the man with the beam ...

1. ... and the beam smashes into the barrel and it breaks?
2. ... and the beam smashes into the barrel and it breaks, but after the man with the barrel stopped suddenly?
3. ... in the latter case, if the latter warned the former that he was about to stop?

(d) Which similar case follows the same pattern as that of the barrel and the beam?

Next daf