I have been thinking about the argument between R. Meir and R Judah in Bava Mezia 82 and Bava Kama 29. According to Abaye, they disagree about two things. One, if tripping is an accident or negligence. Two, when one abandons his property after it has fallen to the ground, if that is still considered to be his in order to be liable for damage that it might cause, or not. The way the Maharccsha understands Tosphot on pg 29a is that R Judah considers either letting go (abandoning) or if the fall is a case of accident, then either one can release him from obligation for damage. To R. Meir, either tripping by negligence or abandoning one’s property after it has fallen by negligence can make him liable. To the Tiferet Shmuel (Rav Aaron Shmuel from Kaidan) the proper approach to this Tosphot is that at during the fall, only if the fall is considered by negligence or not matters. So, to this approach, even if he abandons his property during the fall, that would not excuse him. and to R Meir even if a fall was clearly by accident, still if he does not abandon his property, he is still liable. The normal case of tripping is when one is carrying a barrel for someone, and he trips and the barrel is broken. To R. Meir that is by negligence; to R. Judah that is by accident. But even R. Judah agrees at there can be a case of falling by negligence, for example if one places a stone, knife, or bundle on a roof, and they fall by a common wind. Also, to R Meir, there can be a case of a falling by accident, for example of one places jars on the roof, and they fall during an uncommon wind._________________________ I have been thinking about the argument between ר’ מאירand ר' יהודה in בבא מציעא 82 and בבא קמא 29. According to אביי, they disagree about two things. One, if tripping is an accident or negligence. Two, when one abandons his property after it has fallen to the ground, if that is still considered to be his in order to be liable for damage that it might cause, or not. The way the מהרש''א understands תוספות on 29a is that ר' יהודה considers either letting go (abandoning) or if the fall is a case of accident, then either one can release him from obligation for damage. To ר' מאיר, either tripping by negligence or abandoning one’s property after it has fallen by negligence can make him liable. To the תפארת שמואל the proper approach to this תוספות is that at during the fall, only if the fall is considered by negligence or not matters. So, to this approach, even if he abandons his property during the fall, that would not excuse him. And to ר' מאיר even if a fall was clearly by accident, still if he does not abandon his property, he is still liable. The normal case of tripping is when one is carrying a barrel for someone, and he trips and the barrel is broken. To ר’ מאיר that is by negligence; to ר' יהודה that is by accident. But even ר' יהודה agrees at there can be a case of falling by negligence, for example if one places a stone, knife, or bundle on a roof, and they fall by a common wind. Also, to R Meir, there can be a case of a falling by accident, for example of one places jars on the roof, and they fall during an uncommon wind.