Bava Kamma - Daf 56
- Four cases which are פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים
Rebbe Yehoshua taught that four cases are פטור מדיני אדם – exempt from paying under man’s laws, וחייב בדיני שמים – but liable under the laws of Heaven. After explaining the cases, the Gemara asks that many other cases share this law, and answers that in these four cases, their liability בדיני שמים is a novelty: (1) Where one breaks someone’s wall, allowing his animal to escape: one could think he is not even liable בדיני שמים for the lost animal, כיון דלמסתריה קאי – since [the weak wall] was meant to be dismantled. (2) One who bends someone’s grain towards a fire, and it was burned because of an uncommon wind: perhaps the perpetrator could say, מי הוה ידענא דאתיא רוח שאינה מצויה – Did I know an abnormal wind would come and spread the fire? If the case is where he covered grain before an oncoming fire (exempting the igniter), perhaps he can claim he was trying to protect the grain by covering it. (3) One who hires false witnesses to testify against someone: perhaps he could say the witnesses should not have listened to him to transgress testifying falsely. (4) One who withholds from testifying for his friend’s benefit, i.e., a single witness who would obligate swearing: perhaps he can say his testimony may not have caused the defendant to confess, and he may have sworn falsely.
- הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין, and המעמיד בהמת חברו על קמת חבירו
The Mishnah on Daf 55b taught: הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין – If robbers took [the animal] out of its enclosure, the robbers are liable for any damage it inflicts. The Gemara asks that this is obvious, because by pulling the animal they acquire it in theft and are responsible for its damages!? It answers that the case is: דקמו לה באפה – where they stood before it, blocking all paths except one, effectively compelling it in that direction without acquiring it. This explanation was also used to explain Rav’s statement: המעמיד בהמת חברו על קמת חבירו חייב – one who stands his fellow’s animal on his fellow’s standing grain is liable for the animal’s damages. Since his liability would be obvious if he physically brought the animal to the grain, the Gemara explains the case is where he guided it to the grain by blocking its other paths.
Alternatively, both cases are explained to be a case of הכישה – where he struck [the animal], causing it to move. This qualifies as משיכה, and makes him liable for the animal’s damages.
- Machlokes about שומר אבידה
Amoraim dispute the status of a שומר אבידה – one who watches a lost object which he found. Rabbah says: כשומר חנם דמי – he is considered like an unpaid custodian, and explains: מאי הנאה קא מטי ליה – what benefit comes to him from watching it? Rav Yosef says: כשומר שכר דמי – he is considered like a paid custodian and explains: בההיא הנאה דלא בעיא למיתבי ליה ריפתא לעניא – because of the benefit he derives that he does not need to give bread to a poor person while he is involved with caring for the lost object (because of the rule of העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה), he is considered a שומר שכר. An alternate reason is given for Rav Yosef’s ruling: כיון דרחמנא שעבדיה בעל כורחיה – since the Torah obligated him to watch the lost item against his will, he is considered a שומר שכר. The Pnei Yehoshua explains that he is rewarded for fulfilling the commandment to watch the item.
