(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


POINT BY POINT SUMMARY

Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama 56

BAVA KAMA 56 (Rosh Hashanah) - sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld in prayer that Hashem may accept our prayers, in these days of Rachamim, and speedily grant Klal Yisrael a true and complete redemption from all of their enemies, returning His Shechinah to Tziyon and His people to His service!

1) LIABILITY AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): There are 4 things for which Beis Din cannot make one pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable:
1. Breaching a fence in front of Reuven's animal;
2. Bending Reuven's crop in front of a fire;
3. Hiring false witnesses;
4. Not testifying when one knows testimony that could help Reuven.
(b) Question: What is the case of breaching a fence in front of Reuven's animal?
1. Suggestion: If the fence is strong - Beis Din can make him pay (for the fence)!
(c) Answer: Rather, the fence is weak.
(d) Question: What is the case of bending Reuven's crop in front of in a fire?
1. Suggestion: If a normal wind can cause the fire to reach where he bent it - Beis Din can make him pay!
(e) Answer #1: Rather, he bent it to where an abnormal wind can make the fire reach.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case is, Shimon's fire is standing to burn Reuven's crop; Levi covered it so it is hidden, so Shimon will not pay for it.
(g) Question: What is the case of hiring false witnesses?
1. Suggestion: If he hired them for his own case - Beis Din makes him pay what he gained through them!
(h) Answer: Rather, he hired them to testify for someone else (and we are unable to make them pay).
(i) Question: What is the case of not testifying when one knows testimony that could help Reuven?
1. Suggestion: If another witness knows - the Torah explicitly holds him accountable at the hands of Heaven (for Reuven could collect through their testimony) - "If he will not testify, he will bear his sin"!
(j) Answer: Rather, no other witness knows (had he testified, Reuven's opponent would have had to swear or pay).
(k) Question: Are there really no other cases?
1. (Beraisa): Reuven did work with Shimon's red heifer, or with his water standing to be sanctified with ashes of a red heifer (which disqualifies them) - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
2. (Beraisa): Levi put poison in front of Yehudah's animal - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
3. (Mishnah): Reuven sent a fire with a deaf person, lunatic or child - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
4. (Beraisa): Reuven scared Shimon (and he became deaf through this) - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
5. (Beraisa - R. Meir): If his jug broke and he did not clear away the fragments; his camel fell, and he did not stand it up - he is liable for damage they caused;
i. Chachamim say, Beis Din does not make him pay, but Heaven holds him accountable.
(l) Answer: Indeed, there are more cases; R. Yehoshua taught cases where one might thought that he is exempt even at the hands of Heaven.
1. Breaching the wall - (in a case where) the owners must knock it down;
2. Bending Reuven's crop in front of a fire - he can say, he did not expect an abnormal wind;
i. According to Rav Ashi, he can say that he was trying to save the crop;
3. Hiring false witnesses - he can say, they should not have obeyed me to transgress Hash-m's Mitzvos!
4. Not testifying - he can say, perhaps it would not have helped, Reuven's opponent would have sworn falsely.
5. We hear, this is not so - in all these cases, Hash-m holds him accountable.
2) ANIMALS THAT ESCAPED
(a) (Mishnah): If the wall broke at night, or if thieves broke it...(the owner is exempt).
(b) (Rabah): The case is, the wall broke due to an animal that tried to tunnel under it.
(c) Inference: Had it not tunneled, he would be liable.
(d) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: If the wall is strong, why should he be liable - what more could he do?!
(e) Answer #1: The wall is weak.
1. Question: Why is he exempt when it tunneled - he was negligent to start and Ones at the end!
i. This fits the opinion that one who is negligent to start and Ones at the end is exempt;
ii. But according to the opinion that he is liable - how can we answer?
(f) Answer #2: The wall is strong; he is exempt even if it did not tunnel; Rabah spoke on the end of the Mishnah.
1. (Mishnah): If Reuven left his flock in the sun...he is liable;
2. (Rabah): He is liable even if the animal tunneled under the wall.
i. When the animal did not tunnel, obviously he is liable, it is all due to negligence;
ii. Even if it tunneled - one might have thought, he was negligent to start and Ones at the end - we hear, this is not so, it is all due to negligence.
iii. Question: Why is this?
iv. Answer: When one leaves it in the sun, he should know that it will do anything needed to escape.
56b---------------------------------------56b

3) CAUSING AN ANIMAL TO DO DAMAGE

(a) (Mishnah): If thieves took out an animal and it damaged, the thieves are liable.
(b) Question: This is obvious - since they took it out, they are fully responsible for it!
(c) Answer #1: The case is, they did not take it out - they stood in front of it, only letting it go to where it damaged.
1. (Rabah): Reuven put Shimon's animal in front of Levi's crop - he is liable.
2. Question: This is obvious!
3. Answer #1: The case is, he did not pull it - he stood in front of it, only letting it go to Levi's crop.
4. Answer #2 (Abaye): He hit it with a stick, causing it to go to Levi's crop.
(d) Answer #2: Also regarding thieves, they hit it with a stick, in order to acquire it through Meshichah.
4) THE WATCHMAN IS LIKE THE OWNER
(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven handed his animal over to a shepherd (Shimon), Shimon is in his stead...
(b) Question: In whose stead?
1. Suggestion: If in Reuven's stead - this was already taught!
i. (Mishnah): If he gave it over to a Shomer Chinam, borrower, Shomer Sachar or renter - they are as the owner.
(c) Answer: Rather, if a watchman (Levi) handed the animal over to Shimon, Shimon is in Levi's stead, and Levi is exempt.
(d) [Version #1 - Suggestion: This refutes Rava!
1. (Rava): A watchman (Levi) handed over to another watchman - Levi is liable.
(e) Answer (for Rava): The Mishnah speaks of handing over to an apprentice shepherd - this is normal practice, so he is exempt.]
(f) [Version #2: The Mishnah says 'he handed over to a shepherd' it does not say he handed over to 'another' - this suggests, it was to his apprentice.
(g) Inference: Had he handed over to anyone else, he would be liable - this supports Rava.
1. (Rava): A watchman (Levi) handed over to another watchman - Levi is liable.
(h) Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah gave a typical case, but he is exempt even if he hands over to another.]
Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il