| 56a. בכותל רעוע,אמר מר הכופף קמתו של חבירו בפני הדליקה היכי דמי אילימא דמטיא ליה ברוח מצויה בדיני אדם נמי נחייב אלא דמטיא ברוח שאינה מצויה,ורב אשי אמר טמון אתמר משום דשויה טמון באש:,אמר מר השוכר עדי שקר ה"ד אילימא לנפשיה ממונא בעי שלומי ובדיני אדם נמי ניחייב אלא לחבריה,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו במאי עסקינן אילימא בבי תרי פשיטא דאורייתא הוא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו,אלא בחד,ותו ליכא והאיכא (סימן העושה בסם ושליח חבירו נשבר) העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא הנותן סם המות בפני בהמת חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא השולח את הבערה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא המבעית את חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא נשברה כדו ברה"ר ולא סלקה נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה ר"מ מחייב בהזיקן וחכ"א פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,אין מיהא איכא טובא והני אצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הפורץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו מהו דתימא כיון דלמסתריה קאי מה עביד בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הכופף קמתו של חבירו נמי מהו דתימא לימא מי הוה ידענא דאתיא רוח שאינה מצויה ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,ולרב אשי דאמר נמי טמון איתמר מהו דתימא אנא כסויי כסיתיה ניהלך ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והשוכר עדי שקר נמי מהו דתימא לימא דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו נמי מהו דתימא מי יימר דכי הוה (אתינא) מסהדינא ליה הוה מודה דלמא הוה משתבע לשקרא ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל:,נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה לסטים כו': אמר רבה והוא שחתרה,אבל לא חתרה מאי חייב היכי דמי אילימא בכותל בריא כי לא חתרה אמאי חייב מאי ה"ל למעבד אלא בכותל רעוע כי חתרה אמאי פטור תחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס הוא,הניחא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס פטור אלא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב מאי איכא למימר,אלא מתני' בכותל בריא ואפילו לא חתרה וכי איתמר דרבה אסיפא איתמר הניחה בחמה או שמסרה לחרש שוטה וקטן ויצתה והזיקה חייב אמר רבה ואפי' חתרה,לא מבעיא היכא דלא חתרה דכולה בפשיעה הוא אלא אפי' חתרה נמי מהו דתימא הויא לה תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס קמ"ל דכולה פשיעה היא,מ"ט דאמר ליה מידע ידעת דכיון דשבקתה בחמה כל טצדקא דאית לה למיעבד עבדא ונפקא:,הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין: | 56a. the i baraita /i is speaking b of an unstable wall /b that was about to fall and break in any event, and so his action did not actually cause any loss to the owner., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who bends another’s standing /b grain b before a fire, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the fire would b reach /b the bent grain b in a typical wind, let him /b also b be liable /b for the damage according to b human laws. Rather, /b it must be a case b where /b the fire could b reach /b the bent grain only b in an atypical wind. /b Therefore, he is exempt according to human laws, and, since the grain was destroyed due to his action, he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And Rav Ashi /b offered an alternative explanation and b said: /b The i baraita /i b was stated /b in the case of b a concealed /b item; in other words, this person did not bend the grain toward the fire but bent it over another item in order to conceal it. One is not liable to pay restitution for concealed items damaged by fire. Therefore, when this person bent the grain over an item, he caused indirect damage to the owner of that item b because he made it into a concealed /b item that was subsequently damaged by b fire, /b and the owner cannot reclaim his loss., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who hires false witnesses, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that he hired them b for his own /b benefit, in order to extract payment from another, b he is required to reimburse /b that person with b money, and he is liable according to human laws /b for receiving money under false circumstances. b Rather, /b the case is one where he hired false witnesses b for /b the benefit of b another. /b In such a case the injured party cannot sue the other litigant, since the latter did not hire the witnesses, nor can he sue the person who hired them, since that person received no personal benefit.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And one who knows testimony in support of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. b With what /b circumstances b are we dealing? If we say /b that the case b involves two /b people who could testify, and their evidence would render the other party liable to pay, it b is obvious /b that each of them is liable according to the laws of Heaven; he has committed a transgression b by Torah law: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1). Therefore, it is unnecessary for the i baraita /i to mention this case., b Rather, /b the case of the i baraita /i b concerns a single /b witness, whose testimony is not sufficient to render another liable, and to which the transgression of Torah law consequently does not apply. Nevertheless, a litigant can be forced to take an oath based on the testimony of a single witness, and refusal to take this oath would obligate the litigant to pay. Therefore, the witness has caused an indirect loss and is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara asks: b And is there nothing else, /b i.e., is there no other case in which one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven? b But there is /b such a case. And before citing several cases that are not written in the i baraita /i the Gemara presents b a mnemonic /b device: b One who performs; with poison; and an agent; another; is broken. /b The Gemara returns to the first case: One b who performs labor with water of purification, /b which was meant to be used to purify one rendered ritually impure by a corpse, thereby rendering the water unfit for use, b or /b who performs labor b with the /b red b heifer of purification, /b invalidating the animal for use as an element of the purification ritual, is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the damage he caused is not evident, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven, /b as he caused a ficial loss.,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the following i halakha /i : With regard to b one who places poison before another’s animal, /b and the animal eats it and dies, he is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the animal caused its own death, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who sends /b an exposed b flame in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b and the fire spreads, causing damage; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who frightens another /b without touching him, but causes him injury; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of one b whose jug broke in the public domain and he did not remove /b the broken pieces, or one b whose camel fell and he did not stand it up /b again. b Rabbi Meir deems /b the owner of jug or of the camel b liable /b for the damage thereby caused to others, b and the Rabbis say that /b he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b Since there are so many other cases, why did Rabbi Yehoshua claim in the i baraita /i that there are only four cases when one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven?,The Gemara answers: b Yes, there are, in any event, many /b other cases, b but /b Rabbi Yehoshua held that it b was necessary for him /b to state the i halakha /i of b these /b four cases. The reason he stated them is b lest you say /b that in these cases b one should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in these cases one is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara explains why one might have thought that there is no liability at all for each case in the i baraita /i : Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who breaches a fence /b that stood b before another’s animal, /b thereby allowing the animal to escape, is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Since /b the fence b is about to collapse /b even without this person’s intervention, b what did /b he really b do? /b Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who bends another’s standing /b grain is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Let /b the one who bent the grain b say /b to the owner: b Did I know that an atypical wind would come /b and cause the fire to spread? Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And according to Rav Ashi, who said /b that Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling b was stated /b with regard to the case of b a concealed /b item, Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned liability according to the laws of Heaven b lest you say /b that the one who concealed the item could say: b I covered it for you /b in order to protect it from the fire. Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And /b Rabbi Yehoshua taught that there is liability b also /b in the case of b one who hires false witnesses, lest you say: Let /b the one who hired them b say: /b If the witnesses hear b the statement of the teacher, /b i.e., God, Who prohibited giving false testimony, b and the statement of the student, /b i.e., the one who hired them, b to whose statement /b should they b listen? /b Although the one who hired them encouraged these witnesses to sin, ultimately it was they who transgressed by not adhering to the instructions of God. b And /b based on this logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Finally, Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who knows testimony /b in support b of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say /b that the witness could claim: b Who says that had I come forward /b and b testified on behalf of /b one litigant, the other litigant b would admit /b liability? b Perhaps he would have /b chosen to b take a false oath /b and absolve himself. Based on that logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,§ The mishna teaches: If the pen b was breached at night, or bandits breached it, /b and sheep subsequently went out and caused damage, the owner of the sheep is exempt. b Rabba says: And this /b first instance of a pen that was breached is referring specifically to a case b where /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall of the pen and by doing so caused the wall to collapse. In that case, the owner is completely blameless and therefore exempt from liability for any damage that ensues.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Would the owner be b liable? What are the circumstances? If we say /b that the pen had b a stable wall, /b then even b if /b the animal b did not tunnel, why /b is the owner b liable? What should he have done? /b Clearly, he cannot be held liable for the damage. b Rather, /b the pen had b an unstable wall. /b The Gemara asks: Even b if /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall and knocked it down, b why /b is he b exempt? /b The damage in this case is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident. /b , b This works out well according to the one who said /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b he is b exempt /b from liability, since the ultimate cause of the damage was not his fault. b But according to the one who says /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident /b he is b liable, /b as even without the accident his negligence could have caused damage, b what is there to say? /b , b Rather, /b the case of b the mishna concerns a stable wall, and even /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall the owner is exempt. b And when /b the statement b of Rabba was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna that says: If the owner b left /b the animal b in the sun or conveyed it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, and /b the animal b went out and caused damage, /b the owner is b liable. /b Concerning this b Rabba stated: And /b the owner is liable b even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out under the wall of the pen.,The Gemara explains: b It is not necessary /b for the mishna to mention the case b where the animal did not tunnel /b its way out. In that case the owner is clearly liable, since b the entire /b incident occurred due to his b negligence /b of leaving the animal in the sun, thereby causing it distress and leading it to attempt escape by any possible means. b But even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out, the owner is liable, and this is the novelty in this ruling: b Lest you say /b that b this is /b a case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b because animals do not typically tunnel their way out of a pen, the mishna b teaches us that /b it is considered as though b the entire /b damage resulted from the owner’s b negligence. /b , b What is the reason /b that the owner is liable? It is b that /b the one who suffered the damage b can say to /b the owner of the sheep: b You should have known that since you left it in the sun, it would utilize any means [ i tatzdeka /i ] available for it to use and /b it would b escape, /b so you are ultimately responsible for the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: If the b bandits /b themselves b took /b the sheep b out, the bandits are liable. /b |
