(Mishnah): If two potters were walking one after the other, and one tripped, and the other tripped over him, the first pays the damages.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): Do not say that our Mishnah is only like R. Meir, who says that one who trips is negligent, and therefore liable;

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

In our Mishnah, he is liable, for he should have gotten up.

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

R. Yochanan disagrees. Since he cannot get up, he is distracted, and he is not obligated to warn.

(Mishnah): If Reuven was walking, carrying a beam, and Shimon was walking in back of him, carrying a jug, and the jug broke on the beam, Reuven is exempt;

If Reuven stopped, he is liable.

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 was distracted. This refutes R. Yochanan!)

Rejection: No, he stopped to rest (which is abnormal).

Inference: Had he had stopped to adjust it, he would be exempt.

Question: If so, why does the Reisha say that if he warned Shimon, he is exempt? It should distinguish between stopping to rest and to adjust!

The Mishnah should say 'he is liable only when he stopped to rest. If he stopped to adjust, he is exempt'!

Answer: The Mishnah teaches a different Chidush. Even if he stopped to rest, if he warned, he is exempt.

Question (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 pays the damages to Shimon, and Shimon pays the damages to Levi.

If they all fell due to Reuven, he pays all the damages.

If they warned each other, all are exempt.

Suggestion: They were unable to stand (they are liable because they should have warned).

Rejection: No, they could have stood.

Inference: If they could not have stood, they would be exempt.

If so, why does the Reisha say that if they warned each other, they are exempt? It should distinguish between whether or not they could not have stood!

The Beraisa should say 'they are liable only when they could have stood. If they were unable to stand, they are exempt'!

Answer: The Beraisa teaches a different Chidush. Even when they could have stood, if they warned each other, they are exempt.

(Rava): Reuven pays the damages to Shimon, both bodily damage (to Shimon himself, due to Reuven's body or property) and property damage (to Shimon's property, caused by Reuven's body).

Shimon pays to Levi only bodily damage, but not property damage.

Question: This is inconsistent!

If one who trips is negligent, Shimon should be liable also for property damage!

If one who trips is not negligent, Reuven should be exempt even for bodily damage!

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.

He is exempt for damage due to his property, because he cannot be blamed for his property falling, and he made it Hefker. (We explain like Tosfos and Rashi's latter Perush (Sof 31b).)

Question (Beraisa): Every one of them is liable for bodily damage, and exempt for property damage.

Suggestion: This applies even to the first.

Answer #1: No, it applies to all except the first.

Question: It says 'every one of them'!

Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): It means, every one of those injured.

Objection: This is unreasonable!

Granted, if it means even the first, this is why it says 'every one of them.'

But if it means all other than the first, let it just say 'the injured'!

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);

Shimon pays only damage to Levi's body, but not to Levi's property.

Question: Why is Shimon exempt for damage to Levi's property?

Answer: Shimon's body is an obstacle. It is considered a pit (he is even less negligent than Reuven, who tripped by himself). One does not pay for Kelim damaged by a pit (only for people and animals).

Question: This is like Shmuel, who says that every obstacle is like a pit;

According to Rav, who says that an obstacle is like a pit only if the owner made it Hefker (ownerless), how can we answer?

Answer: Really, it is like we said above (a).

Note: Reuven pays to Shimon damages due to Reuven's body and property; Shimon pays only damage that his own body caused to Levi, but not what his property caused.

Answer #2 (to question (d) - Rav Ada bar Minyomi): 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 discusses damage to Kelim. (One is liable for all damage caused by his own body. He is exempt for damage caused by his property to Kelim. Reuven's property is like a pit. Shimon's property is not liable even like a pit.)

(Beraisa): If they all fell due to Reuven, he pays all the damages.

Question: How is it that they all fell due to Reuven?

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Reuven fell across the width of the road.

Answer #2 (Rav Zvid): He fell like a blind man's stick (diagonally, covering the width of the road). (Tosfos - if he fell horizontally, like Rav Papa said, he would be liable only for damage to Shimon. The latter victims were negligent for not being careful, even after they saw others fall before them.)

(Mishnah): If Reuven was walking, carrying a jug, and Shimon is walking towards him, carrying a beam, and the jug collided with the beam and broke, Shimon is exempt. Both of them have the right to walk.

If Reuven was walking in back of Shimon, and the jug broke on the beam, Shimon is exempt.