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

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)?

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

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

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 ...

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?

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.

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?

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 ...

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

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.

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:

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 ... .

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.

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 ...

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'.

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?

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'.

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.

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' ...

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

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)..

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.

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 ...

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

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.

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

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 ...

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

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'.

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

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 ...

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 ...

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

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!'.

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

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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'?

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'.

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

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 ...

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.

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?

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)

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 ... ?'

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' ...

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

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?

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 ...

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.

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'? ...

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

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.

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

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.

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.