1)

TOSFOS DH VE'KATANI CHAYAV

úåñ' ã"ä å÷úðé çééá ùäéä ìå ìäæäéø

(Summary: After reconciling our Sugya with the Sugya on Daf 32a, Tosfos discusses the difference between where the owner of the beam stops to rest and where he stops to adjust the beam.)

àò"â ãèøéã ìëúó äéä ìå ìäæäéø.

(a)

Clarification: He should have issued a warning even though he was involved with adjusting his beam.

åà"ú, åîðìéä ãîùåí ùäéä ìå ìäæäéø çééá? ãìîà îùåí ãîå÷îéðï ì÷îï ãøîé ëùìãà, åçééá îùåí ãìà ä"ì ìîéøîééä ëùìãà?

(b)

Question: How does he (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) know that it is because he should have warned that he is Chayav? Maybe it is because it speaks where it is lying across the street like a carcass, as the Gemara will establish the case (on Daf 32a)?

åé"ì, ãëùìãà ðîé ãøëå ëùîëúó.

(c)

Answer: Because placing an article like a carcass is normal when one stops to adjust it.

åà"ú, àé àåøçéä, àîàé äåä ìéä ìäæäéø ...

(d)

Question: If it is the normal thing to do, why ought he to have issued a warning ...

äà ì÷îï îåëç ãàé ìà øîé ëùìãà ôèåø, ãàéáòé ìéä ìáòì çáéú ìàñå÷é à'ãòúéä ùîà éòîåã áòì ÷åøä ...

1.

Question cont.): Since it is evident from the Gemara later (Ibid.) that if it is not lying like a carcass, he is Patur, seeing as the owner of the barrel ought to have borne in mind that the owner of the beam might stop ...

åà"ë, àôé' ëùìãà ðîé ìéôèø äëà, ãàéáòé ìéä ìáòì çáéú ìàñå÷é àãòúéä ùîà éòîåã ëùìãà, ëéåï ããøê äîëúôéï áëê?

2.

Question concl.): ... in that case, even if the barrel is lying like a carcass in this case too, the owner of the beam ought to be Patur, since the owner of the barrel should have borne in mind that he might stop 'like a carcass, seeing as it is the normal thing for people who are adjusting to do?

åé"ì, ëéåï ãìôòîéí îëúó åàéï îðéç ëùìãà, ìà àéáòé ìéä ìàæãäåøé.

(e)

Answer: Since there are times when one adjusts one's load without placing it like a carcass, the onus does not lie on him to be careful.

åà"ú, ëé îå÷é ìä ðîé ëùòîã ìôåù, àîàé çééá, äà ëéåï ãàéáòé ìéä ìàæãäåøé áîëúó, áòåîã ìôåù ðîé àéáòé ìéä ìàæãäåøé, ãîðà éãò àí òåîã ìëúó àå ìôåù, åôåùò äåà?

(f)

Question: Even if we were to establish it where he stopped to rest, why is he Chayav, seeing as he (the owner of the barrel) should have been careful where he (the owner of the beam) stopped to adjust, he must also be careful where he stops to rest, because how does he know whether he is stopping to adjust or to rest, which makes him Poshe'a?

åé"ì, ãîéðëø ùôéø àí òåîã ìôåù àå ìëúó, äìëê ëùòåîã ìôåù, àéï ìàçøåï ìéæäø îùìãà, ãìàå àåøçéä ëùìãà ëùòåîã ìôåù.

(g)

Answer: One can in fact tell whether the person in front is stopping to adjust or to rest. Consequently, where he stops to rest, the person behind does not need to be careful, seeing as it is not then normal to place his load like a carcass ...

äìëê ääåà ãòîã, ôåùò äåà àí ìà éæäéø ...

1.

Answer (concl.): ... Consequently, the one who stopped is Poshe'a if he fails to issue a warning ...

àáì ëùòîã ìëúó, àåøçéä äåà ìäðéç ëùìãà, åàéï ìå ìäæäéø.

2.

Answer (concl.): Whereas when he stops to adjust, where it is normal to place his load like a carcass, he is not obligated to warn.

2)

TOSFOS DH AMAR RAVA RISHON CHAYAV BE'NIZKEI SHEINI

úåñ' ã"ä àîø øáà øàùåï çééá áðæ÷é ùðé

(Summary: Tosfos explains the Gemara, first, according to Rashi's second explanation, then according to his first explanation.)

ìùåï ùðé ôé' á÷åðèøñ îôé äîåøä, åëï ðøàä ìø"é òé÷ø.

(a)

Agreeing with Rashi's Second Explanation: Rashi's second explanation he quotes from his Rebbe, and that is the one that the Ri considers to be the correct one:

åäëé ôéøåùå - 'øàùåï çééá áðæ÷é ùðé áéï áðæ÷é âåôå áéï áðæ÷é îîåðå' - ãøàùåï ...

(b)

Rava: 'The first one is Chayav for the damages to the second one, whether it is the body (Nizkei Gufo) or the property (Nizkei Mamono)' of the first one ... .

åáðæ÷é âåôå îçééá àó òì îîåðå ãùðé ãäåé àãí äîæé÷, åáðæ÷é îîåðå îçééá à'ðæ÷é âåôå ãùðé åìà òì îîåðå, ã÷ãéøåú äøàùåï äåé áåø åìà îçééá à'ëìéí, ëãîôøù ...

1.

Rava (cont.): Regarding Nizkei Gufo, he is Chayav even for damaging the property of the second one, since he is Adam ha'Mazik, whereas on Nizkei Mamono he is Chayav for damaging his body but not for damaging his Mamon.

ãøàùåï åãàé ôåùò äåà, åìôéëê çééá òì ðæ÷ ùîîåðå òåùä. àáì ùðé ìà ôùò áùìéùé ëì ëê, åî"î ëùâåó äùðé äæé÷ àôé' áîîåï äùìéùé, çééá, ãäéä ìå ìòîåã åìà òîã.

2.

Rava (cont.): Because the first one is definitely Poshe'a, and that is why he is Chayav for the damage that his Mamon does. The the second person however, is not so Poshe'a with regard to the third one. Nevertheless, if his body damages even the property of the third one, he is Chayav, since he ought to have stood up ...

àáì ëùäæé÷ îîåðå ùì ùðé àôéìå âåôå ùì ùìéùé, ôèåø, ãàîø ìéä 'äàé áéøà ìàå àðà ëøéúéä', ãä"ì 'îô÷éø ðæ÷éå ìàçø ðôéìú àåðñ'.

3.

Rava (cont.): But if his property damages, even the body of the third one, he is Patur, because he can say to him 'It is not I who dug this pit!', rendering it a case of 'Mafkir Nezakav le'Achar Nefilas Oneis'.

îéúéáé, 'ëåìï çééáéï òì ðæ÷é âåôï åôèåøéï òì ðæ÷é îîåðï' - àôéìå øàùåï àí äæé÷ îîåðå àôéìå àú âåó äùðé.

(c)

Gemara's Question: The Beraisa states that all of them are Chayav for Nizkei Gufan and Patur for Nizkei Mamonan - even the first one, should his Mamon damage even the body of the second one?

åìà îöé àå÷îä ãáøééúà ëøáðï ãàîøé 'ðú÷ì àðåñ äåà' - ãäåé øàùåï ðîé 'îô÷éø ðæ÷éå ìàçø ðôéìú àåðñ', åøáà ëø"î ãàîø 'ðú÷ì ôåùò äåà' ...

1.

Refuted Answer: One cannot establish the Beraisa like the Rabanan, who hold 'Niskal Anus hu, in which case the first one too, is a case of Mafkir Nezakav le'achar Nefilas Oneis', whereas Rava holds like Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Niskal Poshe'a'.

ã÷éí ìé' ãáøééúà åøáà ìôøù äáøééúà ã'÷ãøéï åæââéï' ÷àúå, ìäëé ìéëà ìîéîø ãôìéâé.

2.

Refutation #1: ... since we take on that both the Beraisa and Rava are coming to explain the Beraisa of 'the potters and the glass-merchants', in which case we cannot say that they are arguing.

åá÷åðè' ôéøù ãøáà ñ"ì ãáéï ìø"î åáéï ìøáðï ðú÷ì ôåùò äåà åìà ôìéâé àìà áîô÷éø ðæ÷éå ...

3.

Refutation #2: And Rashi (on Amud Beis DH 'Rishon') explains that, according to Rava, both Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan hold that 'Niskal Poshe'a', and they are only arguing about 'Mafkir Nezakav' ...

àáì îëì î÷åí, ä"ì ìàå÷îé áøééúà ëøáðï ãàéú ìäå 'îô÷éø ðæ÷éå ôèåø'?

4.

Question #1: Nevertheless, the Gemara should have established the Beraisa like the Rabanan, who hold 'Mafkir Nezakav, Patur'?

åòåã, ãáäàåîðéí (á"î ãó ôá: åùí) îùîò ãìéëà îàï ãôìéâ à'îàé ãàå÷éîðà ìòéì ôìåâúà ã'ðú÷ì ôåùò', ã÷àîø äúí 'å÷é"ì ãáðú÷ì ôåùò ôìéâé'.

5.

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara in 'ha'Umnin' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 82b & 83a) implies that nobody disagrees with the Ukimta that they are arguing over 'Niskal Poshe'a', when the Gemara says there 'And we Pasken that they are arguing about 'Niskal Poshe'a' (See Mesores ha'Shas)..

åîùðé, 'àìà àîø øáà, 'øàùåï çééá áðæ÷é ùðé áéï áðæ÷é âåôå áéï áðæ÷é îîåðå ãùðé', åäåà ãäæé÷ áâåôå, àò"â ãàðåñ, îãôèø ááøééúà ëùäæé÷ øàùåï áîîåðå, î"î çééá òì ùäéä ìå ìòîåã àå ìäæäéø åìà òîã åäæäéø.

(d)

Gemara's Answer: What Rava therefore said was that 'The first one is Chayav for the damage to the second one, whether he damages the body of the first one or his property' - provided he damaged with his body, even though he is an Oneis (seeing as the Beraisa exempts the first one from damages that his Mamon did), he is nevertheless Chayav, because he should have stood up or warned, but failed to do so.

àáì 'ùðé çééá áðæ÷é ùìéùé áðæ÷é âåôå ùì ùìéùé åìà à'îîåðå' ...

1.

Gemara's Answer (cont.): But 'The second one is Chayav for the damages that he did to the body of the third one but not for what he did to his property ...

ãâåó äùðé äåé áåø îùåí ãàðåñ éåúø îï äøàùåï, åìëê îèòí ùäéä ìå ìòîåã ìà äåé àìà áåø...

2.

Gemara's Answer (cont.): ... because the body of the second one is a Bor, since he was a bigger Oneis than the first one, in which case 'because he should have stood up' only makes him a Bor

åøàùåï ùàéï àðåñ ëì ëê, àò"â ãáàåðñ æä îôèø àãí äîæé÷ ëãîùîò áäàåîðéí, ëéåï ùäéä ìå ìòîåã åìà òîã, çùéá ìéä àãí äîæé÷.

3.

Whereas the first one, who is not such a big Oneis (even though he is sufficiently an Oneis to be Patur from being an Adam ha'Mazik, as is implied in 'ha'Umnin'), the fact that he should have stood up renders him an Adam ha'Mazik.

àò"ô ùæä ãåç÷ àéï ìçåù, ëéåï ãìà ÷àé îñ÷ðà äëé.

4.

Conclusion: Even though this is a Dochek, one needn't worry, seeing as this is not the Gemara's conclusion.

à"ð é"ì, ãøáà ñáéøà ìéä ãðú÷ì ôåùò ëø"î, åìëê äøàùåï äåé àãí äîæé÷ åìà áåø, î"î ôèø ìéä ááøééúà à'ðæ÷é îîåï, îùåí ãñáø 'îô÷éø ðæ÷éå ôèåø' - àôéìå àçø ðôéìú ôùéòä ...

(e)

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, Rava holds 'Niskal Poshe'a' like Rebbi Meir, and that is why the first one is Adam ha'Mazik and not Bor. Nevertheless, the Beraisa declares him Patur from Nizkei Mamon, because the Tana holds 'Mafkir Nezakav Patur' - even after Nefilas Peshi'ah ...

àò"â ãøáà ñáø ëø"î, áäà ìà ñáø ëø"î.

1.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): And even though Rava holds like Rebbi Meir (regarding Niskal Poshe'a), in this point he does not hold like him.

åôøéê 'äðéçà ìùîåàì ... àìà ìøá àîàé çùéá ìéä ìäàé ùðé áåø? úøâîä øá àãà ëâåï ùäåæ÷å ëìéí áëìéí'.

(f)

Gemara's Conclusion: The Gemara then asks that it is fine according to Shmuel ... but according to Rav why is the second one considered a Bor? And Rav Ada finally establishes it where 'Keilim damaged Keilim'.

åäùúà äãø áéä, åáà ìééùá äáøééúà ììéùðà ÷îà ãøáà ...

(g)

Retraction: Now the Gemara retracts, and comes to explain the Beraisa according to the original Lashon of Rava ...

åëåìï çééáéï òì ðæ÷é âåôå - ùâåôå äæé÷ àú îîåðå, åôèåøéï òì ðæ÷é îîåðå, áùîîåï äæé÷ àú äîîåï.

1.

Clarification: All of them are Chayav for Nizkei Gufo - where their bodies damaged the other one's Mamon, but are Patur for Nizkei Mamono - where their Mamon damaged his Mamon ...

åàò"â ãðú÷ì ôåùò äåà, î"î äåé îîåðå áåø åôèåø òì ëìéí ãùðé ...

2.

Clarification (cont.): ... because even though Niskal is Poshe'a, nevertheless his Mamon is considered a Bor, and is therefore Patur for the damages of the second one's Keilim ...

àáì ëùäæé÷ îîåðå àú äâåó, äøàùåï çééá åäùðé ôèåø.

3.

Clarification (concl.): ... but where his Mamon damaged the next one's body, the first one is Chayav and the second one, Patur.

åâøñ áøéùà 'äàé áéøà ìàå àðà ëøéúéä', åáàìà àîø øáà âøñéðï 'ä"ì áåø, åìà îöéðå áåø ùçééá áå àú äëìéí'.

4.

Clarification of Text: In the original text, the Gemara reads 'It is not I who dug this pit!', whereas in the 'Ela Amar Rava', the text reads 'It is a Bor, and we do not find a Bor that is Chayav for Keilim!'.

åìùåï øàùåï ô"ä, åäéà âéøñú ø"ç ...

(h)

Rashi's First Explanation: The first Lashon of Rashi follows the text of Rabeinu Chananel ...

'àîø øáà, øàùåï çééá áéï áðæ÷é âåôå áéï áðæ÷é îîåðå ãùðé' - ëùäåæ÷å áâåôå ùì øàùåï ëãîôøù - ãøàùåï åãàé ôåùò äåà ìø"î, ãîðôùéä ðôéì, åäåé 'àãí äîæé÷', åìøáðï îùåí ùäéä ìå ìòîåã åìäæäéø.

1.

Rava: 'Rava said that the first one is Chayav for both Nizkei Gufo and Nizkei Mamono of the second one' - if they were damaged by the first one's body, as the Gemara explains, since the first one is definitely a Poshe'a, according to Rebbi Meir, seeing as he fell by himself, in which case he is 'Adam ha'Mazik', and according to the Rabanan, because he should have stood up or because he should have warned.

'åùðé çééá áðæ÷é âåôå ùì ùìéùé àáì ìà áðæ÷é îîåðå ùì ùìéùé' - ëãîñé÷ ãà'âåôå ùì ùìéùé îçééá, ãäéä ìå ìòîåã åìà òîã, à'îîåðå ôèåø, ãä"ì áåø åìà îöéðå áåø ùçééá áå àú äëìéí'.

2.

Rava (cont.): 'Whereas the second one is Chayav for Nizki Gufo of the third one but not for Nizkei Mamono' - as the Gemara concludes - he is Chayav on the third one's body, because he should have stood up and didn't, but Patur on his property because it is a Bor, and we do not find a Bor that is Chayav for Keilim'.

åôøéê 'øàùåï ðîé ðçùåá âåôå áåø åéôèø òì îîåï äùðé?'

3.

Question: The Gemara then asks that the body of the first one too, should be considered a Bor, and that he should therefore be Patur on the Keilim of the second one?

åîùðé - 'øàùåï îðôùéä ðôéì åä"ì ôåùò ìø"î, åìøáðï îùåí ãä"ì ìäæäéø, ìøá ðçîï åìøáé éåçðï äéä ìå ìòîåã.

4.

Answer: And it answers that 'The first one fell by himself and is therefore a Poshe'a, according to Rebbi Meir, and according to the Rabanan, because he ought to have warned - according to Rav Nachman, and according to Rebbi Yochanan, because he ought to have stood up.

àò"â ãìøáðï ùðéäí àðåñéï, î"î äøàùåï ùàéï àðåñ ë"ë, äåé àãí äîæé÷ îèòí ùäéä ìå ìòîåã àå ìäæäéø, åäùðé ùäåà àðåñ éåúø, àéï ðçùá îèòí æä ë"à áåø...

5.

Answer (cont.): ... even though according to the Rabanan, they are both Oneis, nevertheless the first is a lesser Oneis, and is therefore considered 'Adam ha'Mazik' because he ought to have stood up or warned, whilst the second one, who is more of an Oneis, is only considered a Bor.

åìôé' æä äå"î ìîôøê äùúà 'äðéçà ìùîåàì ... ?' ëãôøéê ì÷îï.

(i)

Implied Question: According to this explanation, the Gemara could have asked 'That is fine according to Shmuel ... ?', like it asks later.

îéúéáé, 'ëåìï çééáéï òì ðæ÷é âåôï, åôèåøéï òì ðæ÷é îîåðï ùì ðæé÷éï'?

(j)

Gemara's Question: The Beraisa says that 'They are all Chayav for Nizkei Gufan of the Nizak) but Patur on Nizkei Mamonan'.

åçåæø áå øáà îúåê ÷åùéà æå.

1.

Rava Retracts: And it is on account of this Kashya that Rava retracts.

åúéîä, ãìéùðé ã'âåôå' å'îîåðå' à'îæé÷éï ÷àé åçééáéï à'ðæ÷é âåôå ãøàùåï îèòí àãí äîæé÷ åâåôå ùì ùðé îùåí áåø, åôèåø à'ðéæ÷éï ùîîåðå äæé÷ ëøáðï ãàîøé 'ðú÷ì ìàå ôåùò äåà' - åäåé 'îô÷éø ðæ÷éå ìàçø ðôéìú àåðñ'?

(k)

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that 'Gufo' and 'Mamono' refer to the Mazik, and that they are Chayav for the damages of the body of the first one because of Adam ha'Mazik, and of the body of the second one because of 'Bor', and that he is Patur from the damage that his Mamon damaged, like the Rabanan who say that 'Niskal is not Poshe'a', in which case it is a matter of 'Mafkir Nezakav le'achar Nefilas Oneis'?

'àìà àîø øáà, øàùåï çééá áéï áðæ÷é âåôå áéï áðæ÷é îîåðå ãøàùåï àí äæé÷ áâåó äùðé'.

(l)

Rava's Retraction: 'What Rava therefore said was - that the first one is Chayav for both Nizkei Gufo and Nizkei Mamano if he wounded the body of the second one'.

éù ñôøéí ùëúåá áäï áäãéà 'áéï àéúæ÷ îâåôå áéï àéúæ÷ îîîåðå'.

1.

Rava's Retraction (cont.): In fact, some texts specifically insert 'whether it was his body that was damaged or his Mamon'.

'ùðé çééá áðæ÷é ùìéùé áðæ÷é âåôå ãùðé, îùåí ùäéä ìå ìòîåã, àáì ìà áðæ÷é îîåðå ãùðé, ãà"ì "äàé áéøà ìàå àðà ëøéúéä" - ãàðåñ äéä ùäøàùåï âøí ìå ìéôåì; àáì øàùåï åãàé ôåùò äåà ...

2.

Rava's Retraction (cont.): 'The second one is Chayav for the damages to the body of the third one, because he should have stood up, but not for the damages to his Mamon, because he can say 'It is not I who dug this pit!' - because he was an Oneis since it was the first one who caused him to fall; whereas the first one was certainly Poshe'a ...

åìäëé ÷úðé ááøééúà 'åëåìï ôèåøéï òì ðæ÷é îîåðï' ôé' ùì ðéæå÷éï, ùâåó äøàùåï ðîé ðçùá áåø, ëéåï ùìà äæé÷å áéãéí.

3.

Rava's Retraction (cont.): ... and the reason that the Beraisa says that they are all Patur on the damage of their Mamon (of those who were damaged) is because the body of the first one is also considered a Bor, seeing as he did not actively damage.

å÷ùä, ëéåï ãôåùò äåà, àîàé ôèåø ëùâåôå äæé÷ îîåï äùðé? åàò"ô ùàéï îæé÷ áéãéí, àéï ìå ìéçùá áåø?

(m)

Question: Since he was Poshe'a, why is he Patur when his body damages the Mamon of the second one? Even if he did not actively do the damage, he should not be considered a Bor?

ãäúðï 'àí òîã áòì ÷åøä, çééá áçáéú ùì çáéøå' - àìîà çùéá àãí äîæé÷ àò"ô ùàéðå îæé÷ áéãéí?

1.

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah (later, on Daf 32a) 'If the owner of the beam stopped, he is liable to pay for his friend's barrel', from which we see that a person is considered 'Adam ha'Mazik' even if he does not actively damage? (Continued on the next Amud)

31b----------------------------------------31b

(àãí äîæé÷ àò"ô ùàéðå îæé÷ áéãéí?) 'åëåìï çééáéï òì ðæ÷é âåôï' ëîå 'àîø îø äåà' äðéçà ìùîåàì ... ?' åîùðé 'ëâåï ùäåæ÷å ëìéí áëìéí'.

(n)

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): 'Ve'Chulan Chayavin al Nizkei Gufan' - It is as if the Gemara had introduced this with 'Amar Mar' (according to Rabeinu Chananel's explanation, and continued) ... 'ha'Nicha li'Sh'muel ... ?'

åäùúà 'ëåìï çééáéï òì ðæ÷é âåôï åôèåøéï òì ðæ÷é îîåðï' ò"ë ìàå òì ðéæ÷éï ÷àé, ãàé ÷àé àðéæ÷éï ëãñ"ã òã äùúà, à"ë îééøé ëùäåæ÷å áîîåï äîæé÷éï - ëãîå÷é 'ëùäåæ÷å ëìéí áëìéí' ...

1.

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): And now, 'Kulan Chayavin al Nizkei Gufan u'Peturin al Nizkei Mamonan' cannot refer to the Nizakin, because if it did - as we thought until now, then ie would be speaking where they were damaged by the Mamon of the Mazikin, as the Gemara just established - 'ke'she'Huzku Keilim be'Keilim' ...

ãàé áâåó äîæé÷éï, àîàé ÷àîø ã'ôèåøéï òì ðæ÷é îîåðï'?

(o)

Proof: ...because if it was referring to the bodies of the Mazikin, why does the Tana say 'Peturin al Nizkei Mamonan'?

åëéåï ãäåæ÷å áîîåï îæé÷éï àééøé, àîàé çééá ùðé ëùäæé÷ âåó ùìéùé áîîåðå, åäà 'äàé áéøà ìàå àéäå ëøééä'?

1.

Proof (cont.): And since it is speaking where the damage was caused by the Mamon of the Mazikin, on what basis is the second one Chayav when his Mamon damaged the Mamon of the third one, seeing as he is not the one who dug the pit?

àìà à'îæé÷éï ÷àé 'åëåìï çééáéï' à'ðæ÷éï ùäæé÷ âåôï áéï áîîåï áéï áâåó, ùàôé' âåó ùðé çééá òì îîåï ùìéùé ...

(p)

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): It ('Kulan Chayavin ... ') must therefore be referring to the Nizakin, that the Mazik damaged, whether he damaged their bodies or their Mamon ...

ãîèòí ùäéä ìå ìòîåã åìäæäéø äåé àãí äîæé÷ åçééá òì äëìéí àó ìùîåàì.

1.

Reason: ... because, based on the fact that he should have stood up and warned them, he is considered Adam ha'Mazik, and is therefore Chayav for Keilim even according to Shmuel.

åäùúà ìà ÷ùä îä ùä÷ùúé î'àí òîã áòì ÷åøä', ãëéåï ùéúçééá ìôé äîñ÷ðà, àéï ìçåù àí éëåì ìåîø 'åìèòîéê - åìùîåàì îé ðéçà?' ...

(q)

Answer to Earlier Question: And now, the Kashya that Tosfos asked a little earlier from 'Im Amad Ba'al ha'Koreh' is no longer difficult, because, since, according to the Maskana, he is Chayav, it is of no consequence that the Gemara could have retorted 'And according to you, will it be in order even according to Sh'muel'? ...

ãéù î÷åîåú ùàéï äù"ñ î÷ôéã.

1.

Answer to Earlier Question: (cont.): ... since there are times that the Gemara is not particular (to counter 'u'le'Ta'amech')

'åôèåøéï òì ðæ÷é îîåðï' ôéøåù ùîæé÷ îîåðå àú äëìéí - àôé' øàùåï ãôåùò äåà - ãäåä ìéä îîåðå áåø, åôèåø òì äëìéí.

(r)

Clarification of Sugya (concl.): 'u'Peturin al Nizkei Mamonan' - refers to where his Mamon damages the Nizak's Keilim - even thr first one, who is Poshe'a, since his Mamon is a 'Bor', which is Patur from Keilim.

3)

TOSFOS DH KE'CHUTRA DE'SAMYUSA

úåñ' ã"ä ëçåèøà ãñîéåúà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies Rav Z'vid's opinion.)

à'øá ôôà ôìéâ.

(a)

Clarification: He (Rav Z'vid) argues with Rav Papa.

åñ"ì ìøá æáéã ãëé ôñ÷ä ìàåøçà ëùìãà, ìà äéä øàùåï çééá áðæ÷é ùìéùé, ùäéä ìå ìéæäø ëùøàä äùðé ùðôì.

(b)

Explanation: In his opinion, even if the beam takes up the entire road like a carcass, the owner would not be liable for the damage of the third one, who should have been carefuf when he saw the second one fall.

àáì áçåèøà ãñîéåúà ãäåé áàìëñåï, ëùðú÷ì äøàùåï áøàù äçåèøà, àåúå ùáà àçø ëê åðú÷ì áñåó äçåèøà, ìà øàäå.

1.

Explanation (concl.): ... whereas in the case of a blind man's stick, where the beam is placed at an angle, when the first one (to fall over the stick) stumbled at one end of the stick, the one who followed him (the third one) fell over the other end of the stick, and did not see the one who preceded him.