OPINIONS: The Mishnah teaches that when a potter trips and falls and causes his friend to trip over him, he is responsible to pay for any damage that results. The Gemara cites several opinions as to why he is responsible. Rebbi Yochanan explains that the Mishnah follows not only the view of Rebbi Meir who maintains "Niskal Poshe'a" -- "one who trips is negligent," but even the view of the Rabanan who, although they maintain that tripping is considered an accident and not negligence, agree that in this case he is obligated to pay for the damages because he should have risen immediately and he did not do so (and thus he caused the second person to trip).

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that even if he is not obligated to pick himself up immediately, he at least is obligated to warn others volubly not to trip over him, and he did not do so. Rebbi Yochanan argues that if he is not obligated to arise immediately, it must be because he is involved in recouping from his fall. Accordingly, he also is not obligated to warn others. The obvious difference between Rebbi Yochanan's explanation and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's is a case in which the person who tripped did not warn the oncoming person of his fall. According to Rebbi Yochanan he is exempt, and according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak he is liable.

Does the Halachah follow the view of Rebbi Yochanan or the view of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak?

(a) The RIF rules that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yochanan, in accordance with the Gemara's understanding of Rebbi Yochanan as quoted later. The Mishnah teaches that when a person carrying a beam stops in the middle of the public domain and a person carrying a barrel behind him collides with the beam which causes the barrel to break, the beam carrier is obligated to pay for damages. Presumably, he is obligated to pay because he should have warned the person in back of him that he was going to stop. This is problematic according to Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that a person is not liable for failing to warn passers-by. The Gemara answers that he is obligated to pay only when he stopped to rest in the middle of the public domain. However, if he merely stopped to adjust his load and continue, he indeed is exempt. The Gemara then asks that the end of the Mishnah explicitly states that if he warns the person behind him he is exempt. Why does the Mishnah itself not state that if he stopped to adjust his load, he is exempt? The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah's intent is to teach that although it is unusual for a person carrying a beam to rest in the public domain, if he warns others of a potential collision he is exempt from paying for damages.

The ROSH questions the Rif's ruling for two reasons. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is a later Amora who was a student of Rabah, and generally the Halachah follows the view of the later Amora (who had the opportunity to analyze the opinions of the earlier Amora'im and nevertheless disputed them). Moreover, the Rosh understands that the way the Gemara understands the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yochanan is problematic. Would one really have thought, without the Mishnah, that if a person carrying a barrel collides with a beam, the beam owner must pay for the barrel even though he warned passers-by that he had stopped? It seems obvious that the beam owner is exempt. Why does the Mishnah need to teach that he is exempt in such a case?

(b) The TUR (CM 413) writes that the Rosh rules like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Therefore, if a potter who tripped had time to warn the second potter and did not do so, he is obligated to pay for the damages.

OPINIONS: The Gemara earlier (31a) quotes a Beraisa which discusses a case in which one potter fell, another fell on him, and a third person fell on the second person. The first one is responsible for the damages suffered by the second person, and the second one is responsible for the damages suffered by the third. However, if all of them fell because of the first one, the first one is obligated for everyone's damages.

The Gemara questions what the Beraisa means when it says that everyone fell because of the first one. Rav Papa explains that the first person fell across the width of the public domain like the carcass of a dead animal. Rav Zevid explains that the first person who fell was like the stick of a blind man.

Do Rav Papa and Rav Zevid disagree with each other?

(a) TOSFOS (DH k'Chutra) writes that they indeed disagree. Tosfos seems to understand that Rav Papa maintains that since the second and third potters physically tripped on the first potter when he blocked the road, he is obligated to pay for everyone's damages. Rav Zevid, however, asserts that in such a case the third person should have seen the second person fall and taken measures to avoid falling. If he also falls, the first person is not responsible. However, if the first person fell like a blind man's stick -- which means that he is sprawled diagonally across the public domain -- it is possible that the second person and third person can trip over him at the same time. At the moment the second person trips on the top part of the diagonal (for example, his head), the third person trips on the other end of the diagonal. The third person had no more warning time than the second person in this case, and thus the first person is obligated for the damages of both.

The ROSH agrees with Tosfos but writes that he is unsure whose opinion should be codified as the Halachah. The TUR and REMA (CM 413:3) quote Rav Zevid's opinion as stated by Tosfos and the Rosh as a requirement to obligate the first person in damages. (This presumably is because it is unclear whether or not the law follows Rav Zevid. Accordingly, Beis Din cannot take money away from the first person unless they know that he is obligated to pay.)

(b) The RIF, RAMBAM (Hilchos Nizkei Mamon 13:11), and others seem to understand that there is no argument between Rav Papa and Rav Zevid. The Rif does not even quote Rav Zevid, but rather he cites his statement merely as an alternative case. This opinion is the simple understanding of the SHULCHAN ARUCH (CM 413:3). (Y. Montrose)