Bava Kamma 31A

סליקוסתא!

residue from dates?

בשלמא רב אדא בר אהבה ⁠– כשמעתיה. אלא רב הונא, לימא הדר ביה?

The Talmud comments: Granted, Rav Adda bar Ahava acted in accordance with his halakhic opinion that this is the halakha, and a public ruling is issued to that effect. But with regard to Rav Huna, should we say that he retracted his prior opinion?

הנהו ⁠– מותרין הוו.

The Talmud answers: Those owners of the barley were forewarned to remove the barley from the public domain, and they did not comply. Therefore, they were penalized by Rav Huna declaring publicly that their barley was ownerless.

מתני׳ שני קדרין שהיו מהלכין זה אחר זה, ונתקל הראשון ונפל, ונתקל השני בראשון ⁠– הראשון חייב בנזקי שני.

Mishnah: In the case of two potters carrying pots who were walking one after the other in the public domain, and the first stumbled on a bump and fell, and the second stumbled over the first and fell too, the first is liable to pay for the damage incurred by the second.

גמ׳ אמר רבי יוחנן: לא תימא מתניתין רבי מאיר היא, דאמר: נתקל פושע הוא ⁠– וחייב; אלא אפילו לרבנן, דאמרי אנוס הוא, ופטור ⁠– הכא חייב; שהיה לו לעמוד, ולא עמד.

Talmud: R' Yoḥanan said: Do not say that the Mishnah is the opinion of R' Meir, who says that one who stumbles is considered negligent and therefore liable. Rather, even according to the Rabbis, who say that one who stumbles is generally a victim of circumstances beyond his control and is consequently exempt, here, in the case in the Mishnah, he is liable, since after falling he had the opportunity to stand up, and he did not stand up.