Clarification: The Gemara establishes the case where it was stretched across the street like a carcass; otherwise, he is Patur, because the owner of the barrel should have noticed when the owner of the beam stopped, and moved to the other side in order not to be damaged.

Clarification (cont.): But since it was 'like a carcass', the owner of the barrel was not negligent, since he did not realize that it was stretched across the street.

Clarification (cont.): Even though he did notice when he stopped, he did not notice that it was stretched across the street.

Question #1: Why, in the Seifa, is the owner of the barrel Chayav, if he stopped? Seeing as it is unlikely that the barrel, which is small, stretched across the street, the owner of the beam should have moved to the other side so as not to cause damage to the owner of the barrel?

Question #1 (cont.): Because if, when the owner of the barrel is walking behind, the onus lies on him to move across in order to avoid being damaged, how much more so ist the owner of the beam who is walking behind obligated to move across in order not to cause damage!

Precedent: Tosfos explained above (on Daf 3a DH 've'Lechayav') in connection with 'A dog that took a cake'?

Question #2: Furthermore, it is also a Dochek to say that someone sees when the man in front of him stops, but not that the beam that he is carrying stretches across the street?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that it is normal, when the owner of a barrel and the owner of a beam are walking one behind the other, that the one at the back is not able to watch the one in front all the time ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, when the beam is not stretched ... like a carcass, it is up to the one walking behind to initially walk on the other side to avoid damaging or being damaged by the one in front stopping ...

Answer (concl.): But when he is carrying the beam like a carcass, then, irrespective of whether the one behind owns the beam or the the barrel, he does not need to move to the other side, in which case it is the one in front who stops who is Poshe'a.

Clarification: And both the Reisha and the Seifa are speaking where the beam is stretched across the street like a carcass.

Clarification: Since the owner of the barrel was a partner in the breaking, seeing as it was whilst walking that he bashed into his friend's beam.

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara need to establish the case where both parties have the right to walk'? Why, by the same token, is the owner of the beam not Patur, even if neither has the right to walk there?

Answer #1: It (where both have the right ...) comes to preclude where the owner of the beam is running and the owner of the barrel, walking, in which case, since he did not have permission to run, he is Chayav, even though the owner of the barrel himself bashed his barrel (into the beam).

Implied Question: Even though the Mishnah declares Patur, where 'One is running and one is walking'?

Answer #1: That is because he holds that one is permitted to run in the street, but that is not the case where he is carrying a beam on his shoulders.

Answer #2: Alternatively, th Mishnah where 'One is running and one is walking' is speaking on Erev Shabbos, as Rebbi Yochanan establishes it.

Answer #2 (to main question): Alternatively, it comes to preclude a location where one does not have permission to walk at all - such as the Chatzer of the owner of the beam

Reason: Because, since the owner of the beam does not have permission to walk there, the owner of the barrel does not need to beware of him.

Answer #2 (cont.): There where the owner of the barrel stopped, the owner of the beam is Chayav (in a case where they are walking towards each other) even if both of them have permission to walk there, since he did all the damage ...

Reason: Because it is only when they are both equal (regarding the damage) that the Gemara declares him Patur.

Implied Question: And it is not comparable to 'where the owner of the barrel stopped' in the Mishnah ...

Answer #1: Because, since he knew that the owner of the beam that he is carrying like a carcass is walking behind him, he is Poshe'a when he stops, as Tosfos explained in the Mishnah.

Answer #2: The question is also answered if thd Mishnah speaks where the barrel was stretched across the street like a carcass.

Clarification: Regarding Chatas and Malkos however, the woman is Chayav, too

Reason: Because the Torah considers the pleasure an act.

Question: In the case of the potters that we learned earlier (on Daf 31a), where the Mishnah declares the first one Chayav when the second one tripped over him, and where we did not say that 'He should have moved across to the other side' ...

Question (cont.): And it is not speaking there in a case of 'Ramya ke'Shalda', since the Gemara only establishes 'Paskah le'Urcha ke'Shalda' the case where they all fell on account of the first one?

Answer: It speaks there where the second one did not see the first one falling, in which case, he (the one who fell) cannot say to him 'You should have move to the other side'.

Clarification: So as not to be damaged.

Question: But is he not permitted to walk over it even if it damages it in the process?

Answer: (The reason that one is Patur there is) because it is a case of 'Regel bi'Reshus ha'Rabim' ...

Answer (cont.): Nor is he Chayav if it kicks it, because of the principle 'Kol ha'Meshaneh u'Ba acher ve'Shinah bo, Patur'.

Question: What does the Gemara currently think? Does it really believe that if he deliberately breaks the barrel, he will be Patur ...

Source: When, at the beginning of the Perek (27b), it took for granted that he is Chayav ...

Reason: Because 'Kol ha'Meshaneh ... ' does not apply by Adam?

Answer: The Gemara thinks that just as in the Mishnah, the owner of the beam is Patur, since the owner of the barrel caused the damage by stopping ...

Answer (cont.): Because the owner of the beam is not obligated to watch out in case the owner of the barrel stops, so too, the crouching cow caused the cow that was walking to kick it, and it is not up to its owner to watch out for crouching cows in the R'shus ha'Rabim, because his cow might kick it.

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara answers that the animal crouching does not cause the passing animal to kick it, because the owner can say 'Granted, you are entitled to tread on me, but you have no right to kick me!'

Reason: Since each one was responsible for his own damage.

Clarification: 'Hiziku' does not mean that they deliberately damaged each other, but that were damaged by knocking into one another ...

Source: As the Gemara says in 'ha'Parah' (later, Daf 48b & 49a, Tosfos DH 'Sheneihem') 'In a case where both of them acted with permission or without permission, if they damaged each other, they are Chayav, whereas if they were damaged by each other, they are Patur' (See Hagahos ha'Gra).

Establishing Text: We do not have the text 'and he died' ...

Reason: Seeing as the Gemara establishes the case in connection with the four things.

Inference: This implies that he actually saw him entering.

Question: If that is so, then why, in the case of she'Lo bi'Reshus, is he Patur?

Source: Bearing in mind that the Gemara in Perek ha'Parah (later, Daf 48a and 48b. See also Tosfos, DH 'Hiziku') that 'If Reuven enters Shimon's Chatzer without permission, even if the owner wounds him he is Chayav, if he knew that he was there ...

Source (cont.): And even if he wounds him unintentionally - similar to where he did not know that he was there, in which case the Gemara there declares him Patur.

Answer #1: When the Reisha days 'Patur', it means from the four things, but he is Chayav Nezek.

Support: And that is also how Rashi explains it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the entire Beraisa is speaking where he did not see him, yet it is considered with Shimon's knowledge, since he (Shimon) ought to have known that Reuven did not seek permission to enter in vain, but that he actually wanted to enter.

Question: We learned in the Mishnah in 'Eilu hein ha'Golin' (Makos, 8a) that 'If Reuven throws a stone into his Chatzer and kills Shimon, then, if Shimon had permission to be there, he (Reuven) must go into Galus, otherwise, not.

Question (cont.): Why must Reuven go into Galus if Shimon had permission to be there?

Answer: It speaks there where Shimon had acquired the right to pass through the field, either through purchase, a gift, or borrowing or rental, and that the owner of the courtyard was therefore unable to stop him from passing through ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here it speaks about a person who sought permission to pass through his Chatzer, just this once, where he (the owner) knew that he would pass through immediately, seeing as he asked for permission; and that is why it is close to Meizid.

Sugya in Makos: At the beginning of 'Eilu hein ha'Golin' (Makos, Daf 7b) the Gemara Darshens "bi'Shegagah", 'P'rat le'Meizid' - and it establishes it by Omer Mutar, which it calls Meizid, because Omer Mutar is close to Meizid,

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara there did not cite the current Mishnah is ...

Answer: Because it does not consider this Karov le'Meizid similar to the one there.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the case mentioned above (in our Sugya) is not more Karov le'Meizid than the current one.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks in Makos on the Mishnah there 'But is that not Meizid?', and answers that it is speaking where he is demolishing his wall', etc., just like the Sugya here ...

Answer: It is relying on what the Gemara here declares Patur Karov le'Meizid.

Conclusion: And the Sugya there does not go according to the opinion that learns the statement of Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina on the Reisha.

Clarification: Rashi explains that, since he saw him enter, he should have been careful.

Question: If he saw him, asks the Riva, then he ought to be Chayav Galus, even though he did not grant him permission to enter ...

Proof: Like the case of the blacksmith, who, we will learn shortly, is Chayav Galus in a case where he is pressing someone who is not his apprentice to leave, even though he entered the smithy with permission ...

Proof (cont.): Because, since he is pressuring him to leave, it is akin to she'Lo bi'Reshus.

Answer: It is different there, since he initially entered with permission. Consequently, regarding someone who is not his apprentice, he must suspect that he may well not leave, in which case it is more similar to 'a forest' ...

Answer (cont.): Because, since he received permission to enter, he feels that he does need to leave immediately, and the blacksmith should have checked to see whether he left or not.

Answer (concl.): But in our case, where he entered initially without permission, the carpenter does not need to check to the same extent, and it is not similar to 'a forest'.

Proof: And he brings a proof from the Yerushalmi (Halachah 8) which, quoting Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina, states that if someone is standing in his courtyard and chopping wood when a laborer enters and claims his wages, and a block of wood shoots up and wounds him, he is Chayav, but that, if he dies, he is not Chayav Galus, since it is not similar to 'a forest ...

Proof (cont.): But did Rebbi Chiya not cite a Beraisa that renders him Patur?

Proof (cont.): Perhaps they do not argue, because Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina speaks where he saw him, whilst the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya speaks where he did not'?

Proof (concl.): This implies that even where he sees him enter, he is Patur from Galus if he entered without permission. even though where he presses him to leave, we render him Chayav, in the case of the blacksmith, where he entered with permission.

Conclusion: And when the Yerushalmi refutes the suggestion and establishes Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina where he tells him to enter, we will be forced to establish it where he did not see him ..

Reason: To avoid the Kashya from the blacksmith on the ruling that exempts him from Galus.

Inference: This implies that the Reisha is closer to Oneis than the Seifa is to Meizid.

Question: If (in the Reisha) he is Patur from Galus because it is an Oneis, then how much more ought he to be Patur from the four things

Source: As is evident above at the end of the second Perek (Daf 6b), where, in the case where 'He knew about the stone and subsequently forgot about it, he is Patur from the four things but Chayav Galus'?

Answer: In the current case, he is not Patur because of Oneis, but because it is not similar to a forest, since he entered without permission.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara adds 'Kol-she'kein in the Reisha' ...

Answer: It is because the Seifa is more similar to a forest.

Support: And that is also how Rashi explains it.