If Shimon stopped, he must pay. If he told Reuven 'stop!', he is exempt.

If Shimon was walking in back of Reuven, and the beam broke the jug, Shimon must pay;

If Reuven stopped, Shimon is exempt. If he told Shimon 'stop!', Shimon must pay.

The same applies if Reuven was carrying a lit lamp, and Shimon was carrying flax (and it caught fire).

(Gemara - Rabah bar Nasan) Question: If one damaged his wife through Bi'ah (marital relations), must he pay?

Since he may have Bi'ah with her, he is exempt;

Or, perhaps he should have been more careful, and he must pay.

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): We learn from (the Reisha of) our Mishnah. Since each has permission to walk, the damager is exempt.

Answer #2 (Rava): A Kal va'Chomer shows that he must pay!

Everyone may enter a forest, yet if one accidentally kills someone while chopping wood, it is as if he entered the victim's domain, and he is exiled;

A man enters his wife's body during Bi'ah. All the more so, he is liable!

Question (Mishnah): (He is exempt, because) each of them is entitled to walk.

Answer: In the Mishnah, both men participated in the damage. In Bi'ah, he acts, and she is passive.

Question: "They (who transgress Arayos, i.e. forbidden relations) will get Kares (excision), the souls that do" shows that both do an action!

Answer: Both are punished because both enjoy the act; but only he does an action.

(Mishnah): If Shimon (the one holding the beam) was first...

(Reish Lakish): If a cow was crouching in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and another cow was walking and it kicked the crouching cow it is exempt;

If the crouching cow kicked the walking cow, it is liable.

Suggestion: Our Mishnah supports Reish Lakish.

(Mishnah): If Shimon was in front, and the jug broke on the beam, Shimon is exempt;

If Shimon stopped, he must pay.

This is like a crouching cow kicking a walking cow, and the damager must pay.

Question: That part of Reish Lakish's law is obvious. The Mishnah opposes what may be inferred from Reish Lakish!

Reish Lakish obligated the crouching cow when it kicked. Had it passively damaged, it would be exempt!

In the Mishnah, Shimon is liable for passive damage!

Answer: In the Mishnah, Shimon's beam blocked the entire road, making it impossible for Reuven to pass;

Regarding the cows, there was room to walk to the side of the crouching cow.

Rather, the Reisha supports Reish Lakish.

(Mishnah): If Shimon was walking in back of Reuven, and the beam broke the jug, Shimon must pay;

If Reuven stopped, Shimon is exempt.

This is like the walking cow damaging the crouching cow, and the Mishnah says, he is exempt!

Rejection: In the Mishnah, Shimon walked normally. In Reish Lakish's case, the walking cow should not have kicked.

(Mishnah): If Reuven was running in a Reshus ha'Rabim and Shimon was walking, or both were running, and they damaged each other, they are exempt.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah is unlike Isi ben Yehudah.

(Beraisa - Isi ben Yehudah): The one running is liable, for this is abnormal.

Isi admits that Erev Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos (the beginning of Shabbos), he is exempt, for he is allowed to run.

(R. Yochanan): The Halachah follows Isi.

Question: R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah follows a Stam (anonymous) Mishnah. Our Mishnah is unlike Isi!

Answer: Our Mishnah is like Isi. It discusses Bein ha'Shemashos of Erev Shabbos.

Question: What is the source to say so?

Answer: The Reisha says if both were running, they are exempt;

Question: Why is this needed? Even if one runs and the other walks, he is exempt. All the more so, if both are running they are exempt!

Answer: Rather, the Mishnah teaches that if Reuven was running and Shimon was walking, Reuven is exempt. This refers to Erev Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos. At any other time, Reuven is liable;

If both were running, even during the week they are exempt.

(Beraisa): Isi admits that Erev Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos (the beginning of Shabbos), he is exempt, for he is allowed to run.

Question: Why is he allowed?

Answer: This is like R. Chanina;

On Erev Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos, R. Chanina would say 'come, let us go out to greet the bride, the queen.'

Some say that he explicitly said '... to greet Shabbos, the bride, the queen.'

R. Yanai would cloak himself, stand and say 'come bride, come bride'.

(Mishnah): If a man was chopping wood in a Reshus ha'Rabim and damaged in a Reshus ha'Yachid, or vice- versa, or was chopping in a Reshus ha'Yachid and damaged in a different Reshus ha'Yachid, he is liable.

(Gemara): The Mishnah must teach all three cases.

Had it taught only when he was in a Reshus ha'Yachid and damaged in a Reshus ha'Rabim, one might have thought only there he is liable, for many people frequent the Reshus ha'Rabim;

Had it taught only when he was in a Reshus ha'Rabim and damaged in a Reshus ha'Yachid, one might have thought that only there he is liable, for he was not allowed to chop there;

Had it taught only these cases, one might have thought that they are liable because in one case many people frequent there Reshus ha'Rabim, and in the other case he was not allowed to chop there, but from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Yachid, he would be exempt. The Seifa teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): If a man entered Reuven's carpentry shop without permission, and a piece of wood flew off and killed him, Reuven is exempt;

If he had permission to enter, Reuven is liable.

Version #1 - Question: What is his liability?

Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is liable in the four payments, and exempt from exile, for this does not resemble a forest.

In a forest, each enters his own domain. Here, the victim entered Reuven's domain.

Question (Rava): In a forest, (the victim did not ask permission, yet) we consider it as if he had the damager's permission to enter. Here, where he had explicit permission, all the more so Reuven should be exiled!

Answer (Rava): He is exempt from exile, i.e. he does not merit refuge (the Go'el ha'Dam can kill him anywhere).

R. Yosi bar Chanina taught that he is not exiled because he is Shogeg close to Mezid.

Question (Mishnah): If the Shali'ach of Beis Din (to lash people) gave an extra lash and killed the person, he is exiled.

This is close to Mezid, for he should realize that an extra lash can kill someone!

Answer #1 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): The case is, he erred in the count.

Objection (Rava): The one who whips does not count!

(Beraisa): The greatest of the judges reads (the verses), the second counts, and the third says 'strike him'.

Answer #2 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): Rather, the judge erred in the count.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven threw a stone to a Reshus ha'Rabim and killed someone, he is exiled.

This is close to Mezid, for he should realize that many people are in a Reshus ha'Rabim!

Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak): The case is, Reuven was destroying his wall.

Question: He should look (that no one is coming)!

Answer #1: He was destroying it at night.

Question: Even at night, he should look!

Answer #2: He was destroying it during the day into a waste-heap.

Question: What sort of waste-heap is this?

Suggestion: If people frequent it, he is (close to) Mezid!

Suggestion: If people don't frequent it, he is (close to) Ones!

Answer (Rav Papa): People normally frequent it at night. Occasionally they frequent it by day.

Version #2 - Rav Papa citing Rava (Beraisa): If a man entered Reuven's carpentry shop without permission, and a piece of wood flew off and killed him, Reuven is exempt.

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is exempt from exile, but is liable to pay four payments.

Version #1 exempts from exile even when the victim had permission to enter. All the more so, it exempts when the victim had no permission!

Version #2 exempts from exile when the victim had no permission to enter. If he had permission, Reuven would be exiled.

Question (Beraisa): If a man entered a smith's shop, and a spark flew off and killed him, the smith is exempt, even if the victim entered with permission.

Answer: That Beraisa discusses an apprentice.

Question: Are apprentices destined to be killed?!

Answer: The teacher was asking him to leave, and he refused.

Question: Is he destined to be killed because he refused to leave?

Answer: The teacher thought that he had left.

Question: If so, even if he was not an apprentice, the smith is exempt!

Answer: Other people do not fear the smith, so he should check that they left. An apprentice fears the smith, so he could assume that he left.