Study Bava Kamma folio 29B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And R' Yoḥanan says: The dispute is with regard to a situation where the damage occurred after the fall.
The Talmud asks: But at the time of the person’s fall, according to this statement, what is the halakha? Does everyone agree that the owner of the jug is exempt from liability? But from the fact that R' Yoḥanan says later (31a), with regard to another Mishnah in this chapter: Do not say that the Mi
Rather, what is the halakha in this case? Does he say that everyone agrees that he is liable? But from the fact that R' Yoḥanan says later: Do not say that the Mishnah is the opinion of R' Meir, who says that one who stumbles is considered negligent, by inference it is clear that he holds that the R
The Talmud answers: Rather, this is what R' Yoḥanan teaches us: That the circumstance in which the Rabbis deem one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property exempt is only the situation stated here, i.e., where he stumbled, as he is the victim of circumstances beyond his control. But in the
§ It was stated: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property that he left in the public domain, there is a dispute between the amora’im R' Yoḥanan and R' Elazar. One said that he is liable, and one said that he is exempt.