I would like to ask a question on Tosphot page 29 side b in Bava Kama. The Braita said if one is walking by the road and his jar is broken or his camel fell and he did not pick them up before they did damage, R. Meir said he is liable, and R. Judah said he is not liable. But if he put his knife on a roof top, and it fell because of a normal wind, he is liable according to everyone. But if he put small jars on a rooftop, and they fell in an unusual wind, he is not liable. R Jochanan said they disagree only about the time after the fall. The Gemara asks, “Then what would they say at the time of the fall? Perhaps that he would not be liable? But that would go against what R. Jochanan said about a later Mishna about people carrying jars and the first one slipped and caused the second one to slip, and he in turn caused the third one to slip. The first one is liable. R. Jochanan said that Mishna is according to both R. Meir and R. Judah. Now Tosphot asks why did the Gemara not ask from the Braita itself. For, after all, the Braita said the jars that fell from a rooftop in an unusual wind are not liable. That goes against what R. Jochanan said here that if one falls and breaks his jar, that he is liable. That clearly is a fall by accident, and yet R. Meir said he is liable. The difficulty I see in this Tosphot is that it brings a contradiction in R. Jochanan, but does not answer our question what would R Meir and R. Judah say about the time of the fall. The case of the jar falling from the roof tells us only about the time after the fall. But if it would tell us also about the time of the fall, it is not a difficulty, but rather it supports our contention that at the time of the fall everyone agrees he is not liable. And the most difficult of all questions that I have on Tosphot is that perhaps the Gemara did not want to bring a question that has an obvious answer. The jar falling from the roof broke and so he abandons them and is not liable. But if he is walking on the road and his jar broke or his camel fell, there is no reason to think he abandoned them.---------------------------------------------I would like to ask some questions on תוספות page כ''ט ע''ב in בבא קמא. The ברייתא said if one is walking by the road and his jar is broken or his camel fell and he did not pick them up before they did damage, ר’ מאיר said he is liable, and ר’ יהודה said he is not liable. But if he put his knife on a roof top, and it fell because of a normal wind, he is liable according to everyone. But if he put small jars on a rooftop, and they fell in an unusual wind, he is not liable. R Jochanan said they disagree only about the time after the fall. The גמרא asks, “Then what would they say at the time of the fall? Perhaps that he would not be liable? But that would go against what ר’ יוחנן said about a later משנה about people carrying jars and the first one slipped and caused the second one to slip, and he in turn caused the third one to slip. The first one is liable. ר’ יוחנן said that משנה is according to both ר’ מאיר and ר’ יהודה. Now תוספות asks why did the גמרא not ask from the ברייתא itself. For, after all, the ברייתא said the jars that fell from a rooftop in an unusual wind are not liable. That goes against what ר’ יוחנן said here that if one falls and breaks his jar, that he is liable. That clearly is a fall by accident, and yet ר’ מאיר said he is liable. The difficulty I see in this תוספות is that it brings a contradiction in ר’ יוחנן, but does not answer our question what would ר’ מאיר and ר' יהודהsay about the time of the fall. The case of the jar falling from the roof tells us only about the time after the fall. But if it would tell us also about the time of the fall, it is not a difficulty, but rather it supports our contention that at the time of the fall everyone agrees he is not liable. And the most difficult of all questions that I have on תוספות is that perhaps the גמרא did not want to bring a question that has an obvious answer. The jar falling from the roof broke and so he abandons them and is not liable. But if he is walking on the road and his jar broke or his camel fell, there is no reason to think he abandoned them.