A jug is placed in the public domain... And the jug broke in the public domain and someone was slipped in the water... The general rule by us, it is not the way of people to pay attention to the road, therefore, if a person comes and trups on it, he is exempt, and we do not say to him you should have noticed where you were going. And what that it says, if the jug broke and someone slipped in the water, they're obligated, the idea is that when a person damages at the time they are falling or they break another thing- the stumbler (who dropped the jug initially) is obligated to pay what he damaged. This is the opinion of Rav Meir, that he says if someone stumbles, he is negligent, but the sages say that he was not at fault at the time of the falling and he's not obligated in anything. The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that he says the stumbler is negligent, if he intended to take the shards. Therefore he is not at fault as we explain it is as if no one ever owned the shards. And the halakah is like Rabbi Yehuda and not like Rabbi Meir.

If someone pours water in the public doman and it damages another...... What that it says if someone hid thorns or glass or made a fence out of thorns and someone is damaged by them, he's obligated Because it's an established principle that it's not the way of people to rub against walls.

If a man put out his chopped straw or stubble in the public domain....

2 potmakers that were walking one after the other... This is when the faller is able to get up and he doesn't get up, rather he remains lying until the other trips over him And the halachah is like Rav Yehuda in the explanation of the accustomed ox and the halachah is like Rav Meir in the explanation of a simple ox. And therefore (he is obligated, but) if he is not able to get up and the other falls on him, he is not obligated, as we explain, if he trips it is an accident

This is all clear

Two that were going in the public domain, one was running etc... ... The idea by us is that he who is running is different and if he damages any man at the time of his running, he is obligatged Unless that time is the eve of shabbasim or the eve of holidays because people are rushing to do matters of mitzvot. And because of this, this (mishnah) is lacking, and it's appropriate to say thus, if 1 was running and 1 was walking on the eve of shabbosim or the holidays or that it was 2 were running on the other days of the year and they damage each other, they are exempt.

It lets us know that the chopper, if he damages, he is obligated, whether he is on his own property or if he is not on his own property, and whether he damages in a place where many are found, and this is a public domain, or in a place where the many are not found, and this is a private domain.

He pays the balance, that he should evaluate how much this one is obligated for what he damaged and how much the second is obligated also, and if the damages are equivalent, this one and this one go out (with nothing)... And if the damages of one of them were more, that it was appropriate for one to pay more than what is appropriate for the other to pay, he who damaged more pays the difference. And it is not necessary to give an example because this is clear. And that the pasuk says ' if it gores a minor man or woman, like this judgement should be done to it. It's a disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and the sages in the explanation of this pasuk, the sages say like the judgement of one ox to another ox so too the judgement [of an ox] to a person, meaning to say that the unaccustomed is obligated in half damages and the accustomed full damages. and this has already reached us that all agree that a man is always accustomed. And Rabbi Akiva says like this judgement refers to the accustomed cow, because the pasuk comes to speak about this matter, thus it will be in general the law of an ox that damages a man whether it is accustomed of unaccustomed And the halakhah is not like Rabbi Akiva

An ox is worth a manah (100 dinarim) gores an ox worth 200 (dinarim): An ox worth 200 that gores an ox worth 200:... It's a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir [when the carcass is increased in value]. And this is because the idea in our hands [is that] the carcass goes to the owner meaning to say to the damagee, and they evaluate it to him based on it's value. And this is what that it says in the pasuk 'and the dead one will be to him and he (the damager) will pay him half damages above if it was innocuous , or full damages if it was accustomed. Since what that it says Hashem (the torah) that they divide the money implying that he is obligated in only half damages. And this is what that they said the diminishment that the death causes- they split, and this is how it appears to one who examines it. And what that it's said and they should sell the live ox means to say that the innocuous pays half damage from itself like we said before, and there is not a dispute in these issues. But there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda when a carcass is worth near the (time of) death, for example, a dinar and increases it's value and It's worth before they appear in court 2 dinarim, Rabbi Yehuda says (the pasuk says) "and also the dead they should split" and calculate to him a dinar and a half, and pays him half damages, since the dinar it increased, they split it And Rabbi Meir says it's not for him except the dinar that it was worth at the time it died, like it's said, 'and the carcass will be to him', as if to say whatever the carcass increases in it's dead state, goes to the damage. And just like this, when the carcass is not worth anything at all at the time of death, and afterwards it becomes worth money, R. Meir says, 'it's not calculated that money, rather pay him half damages, and this is what it says that we say 'and they should sell the living ox and divide the money. And R. Yehuda says 'calculate for half of the value of the carcass since it's value is all profit since it was not worth anything at the time of death. And this is what R. Yehuda says to disagree with him, keeps 'sell the live ox' he does not keep 'and also the dead they divide'. And the halakhah is like R. Yehuda

Further it will be explained to you since someone who embarrasses you, and even a man is not obligated for embarrasing until there was intentention. All the more so if an ox embarrasses he is exempt. And it's already known that the principle by us is that a man does not die and pay, and this is explained in the 3rd chapter of kesubos. And what that it says that he blinded the eye of a slave and knocked out his tooth that he is obligated wants to imply that the slave goes out free like is explained in the pasuk. This is the obligation he is obligated in.

All this is explained and clear and what that it says... that one who takes (restitution) from his friend on him is the onus, if he doesn't bring proof, there is nothing to him. And even the matter he admits to him he damages is not to him, when he says an innocuous ox damaged or a small animal damaged because the principle in our hand with that he claimed wheat and he acknowledged to him barley, he is exempt even from the value of barley, but if the damagee seized the portion of what he acknowledged to him barley, he is exempt even from the value of barley, but if the damagee seized the portion what the damager acknowledged to him, he gets to keep it, and we do not take it from his hand. and so too if it came into the domain of the claimant of wheat the portion what was acknowledged to him of barley we don't take it from his hand