Objection: The Torah exempts for Ones - "you will not punish the Na'arah (who was raped)"!

Suggestion: Perhaps that applies only to capital punishment, but one is liable for damages, even due to Ones.

Rejection (Beraisa - R. Meir): If his jug broke and he did not clear away the fragments, or his camel fell, and he did not stand it up, he is liable for damage they caused;

Chachamim say, Beis Din does not make him pay, but Heaven holds him accountable.

Chachamim admit to R. Meir that if Reuven left a rock, knife or load on his roof and it fell in a normal wind and damaged, Reuven is liable.

R. Meir admits to Chachamim that if he put bottles on the roof to dry, and they fell in an abnormally strong wind, he is exempt.

Answer #2 (to Question 3:n, 28b - Abaye): Chachamim (R. Meir) and R. Yehudah argue in two cases: at the time of falling, and afterwards:

For damage at the time of falling, they argue about whether or not one who trips is negligent. R. Meir says that he is negligent, and R. Yehudah says that he is not. ('Intent' is when he broke the flask b'Mezid. Without intent is when he tripped and it broke.)

For damage after the time of falling, they argue about one who is Mafkir things that can damage. R. Meir obligates for this, and R. Yehudah exempts.

Question: How did Abaye know that (in the Mishnah) they argue about two matters?

Answer: The Mishnah gives two cases. Shimon slipped on the water or was damaged by the shards. Seemingly, these are the same!

Rather, they argue about slipping on the water at the time of falling (i.e. before Reuven was able to clean up the water);

They argue about damage through the shards after Reuven fell and was Mafkir the shards.

Question: Since in the Mishnah they argue in two cases, presumably also in the Beraisa they argue in two cases!

Granted, the case of the jug breaking could be at the time of falling, or after.

Granted, the case of the camel falling could be after falling. He was Mafkir the carcass.

How can they argue about this at the time of falling? He is blameless. Why would R. Meir obligate him to pay?!

Answer #1 (Rav Acha): He led the camel where the river was overflowing. This caused it to fall.

Objection: What is the case?

If there is another path, he was negligent. Why do Chachamim exempt him?

If there is no other path, he is Ones. Why does R. Meir obligate him to pay?

Answer #2: Rather, the owner tripped, and the camel tripped on the owner.

Question: If he was Mafkir Nezakav (his things that can damage), why does R. Yehudah distinguish between whether or not he intended?

Answer (and Answer #3 to 3:n, 28b - Rav Yosef): R. Yehudah agrees that he is liable if he intended that the shards remain his (he was not Mafkir them).

(R. Elazar): They argue at the time of falling.

Question: Do all agree after the time of falling?!

You cannot say that they agree that he is exempt. R. Meir obligates!

You cannot say that they agree that he is liable. Chachamim exempt!

Rather, R. Elazar must mean that they argue even at the time of falling, like Abaye.

(R. Yochanan): They argue after the time of falling.

Question: Do all agree that he is exempt at the time of falling?!

R. Yochanan said 'do not say that the Mishnah (31b) is only like R. Meir, who says that one who trips is negligent.' This implies that R. Meir says that he is liable!

Counter-question: Can you say that at the time of falling, all agree that he is liable?!

R. Yochanan's teaching (just quoted) implies that Chachamim exempt!

Answer to both questions: R. Yochanan teaches that here Chachamim exempt one who was Mafkir Nezakav in Reshus ha'Rabim only if this was due to Ones. If he intentionally put them there, all agree that he is liable. (However, the Tana'im could also argue about at the time of falling, when it was Ones.)

R. Yochanan and R. Elazar argued about one who makes Nezakav Hefker. One of them obligates, and the other exempts.

Suggestion: The one who obligates holds like R. Meir, and the other holds like Chachamim.

Rejection: No. Granted, the one who exempts must hold like Chachamim (since R. Meir obligates even one who is Mafkir Nezakav after they fell b'Ones!)

However, the one who obligates could hold like Chachamim.

We know that Chachamim exempt when the Nezakav fell b'Ones. They could admit that he is liable when there was no Ones.

The following shows that R. Elazar obligates:

(R. Elazar, citing R. Yishmael): There are two things that one does not own, but the Torah obligates him for them as if he owned them: a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Chametz from noon of Erev Pesach and onwards.

Question: R. Elazar does not obligate!

(Mishnah): If Reuven turned over dung in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and Shimon was damaged by it, Reuven is liable.

(R. Elazar): This applies only when Reuven intended to acquire the dung. If not, he is exempt.

This shows that R. Elazar exempts one who makes Nezakav Hefker!

Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): R. Elazar exempts when he returned the dung to its place.

(Ravina): A parable helps to understand Rav Ada's case. This is like one who finds an open pit, covers it, and again opens it (he is exempt).

Objection (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): The comparison is faulty! Regarding the pit, he never removed the damager. Regarding the dung, he removed the damager (when it was in his shovel; when he puts it back, he (re- )creates a damager).

(Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): This is a proper parable. It is like one who finds an open pit, fills it with dirt, and again digs it. (He is liable, since he created a damaging item.)

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): He did not lift the dung three Tefachim (so it was always a damager).

Question: What forced R. Elazar to say that the Mishnah is a case when he did not lift the dung three Tefachim, and he is liable because he intended to acquire it? Let him say that he lifted it more than three Tefachim, and he is liable even if he did not intend to acquire!

Answer (Rava): He saw a difficulty in the Mishnah. Why did it say 'he turned over', and not 'he lifted'?

He concluded that 'he turned over' connotes that he did not lift it three Tefachim.

Inference: Since R. Elazar obligates, it must be that R. Yochanan exempts.

Question: This is not so!

(Mishnah): If Reuven hid a thorn or glass, or made a fence of thorns, or his wall fell in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and people were damaged by it, he is liable.

(R. Yochanan): This is only if the fence of thorns protruded into the Reshus ha'Rabim. If it was within his property, he is exempt.

Suggestion: If it was within his property, he is exempt because it is like a pit within his property.

Inference: He holds that the pit that the Torah obligates for is in the Reshus ha'Rabim, even though such a pit is Hefker!

Answer: No. Really, R. Yochanan exempts one who is Mafkir Nezakav;

The reason he is exempt if the thorn was within his property, is like Rav Acha taught.

(Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): He is exempt because people do not normally scrape themselves on walls (the victim brought the damage on himself by acting abnormally).

Question: R. Yochanan does not exempt one who is Mafkir Nezakav! R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows a Stam (anonymous) Mishnah!

(Mishnah): If one dug a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and an ox or donkey fell in and died, he is liable.

Answer: Indeed, R. Yochanan obligates one who is Mafkir Nezakav.

Inference: R. Elazar exempts.

Question: R. Elazar cited R. Yishmael to say that one is liable!

Answer: R. Elazar himself exempts.