ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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!
(a) We learned in the Beraisa that if Reuven bends Shimon's corn into the
path of a fire he is only liable be'Diynei Shamayim'. The Tana is speaking
when - it is an irregular wind that subsequently carried the fire to the
corn (rendering him a partial O'nes'). Had it been a regular ind, he would
have been fully liable.
(b) According to Rav Ashi, the Tana might even be speaking in the case of a
regular wind. Nevertheless, he is not fully liable to pay - because,
according to Rav Ashi, the Tana speaks when he covered the corn, making it
'Tamun', exempting the owner of the fire from liability (though the Lashon
'ha'Kofef Komaso' is unclear, according to this explanation). And this is
certainly no more than Gerama.
(c) When the Tana includes Reuven ...
1. ... hiring false witnesses in his list, he is speaking - when he hired
them on behalf of someone else, because had he hired them for himself, he
would be fully liable to repay the money that he falsely extracted by means
of the witnesses.
(d) When the Torah writes "ve'Hu Eid ... Im Lo Yagid ve'Nasa Avono", it must
be referring to two witnesses, and not just to one - a. because the Lashon
"Im Lo Yagid" implies that if he would testify, he would obligate the
defendant to pay, and b. because of the principle that wherever the Torah
writes "Eid", it means two witnesses (see Gilyon ha'Shas).
2. ... declining to testify on behalf of Shimon, he is speaking when he is
the sole witness, whose testimony might have caused Levi to pay (though he
did have the option of swearing falsely, hence the P'tur be'Diynei Adam).
Had there been another witness, in which case Levi would have had no option
other than to pay, Shimon would have been fully liable to pay.
(a) What the following cases have in common is - that they too, are all
Chayav be'Diynei Shamayim, but Patur mi'Diynei Adam: 'ha'Oseh Melachah
be'Mei Chatas u've'Paras Chatas', 'ha'Nosen Sam ha'Mavas Bisfnei Beheimas
Chaveiro', 'ha'Sholei'ach es ha'Be'eiroh be'Yad Chashu', and 'ha'Mav'is es
(b) In 'ha'Oseh Melachah be'Mei Chatas' ...
1. ... the sort of Melachah involved is - weighing something against it on
(c) The Tana of the Beraisa also includes in his list, the case of and
'Nishberah Kado bi'Reshus-ha'Rabim, ve'Lo Silkah ... ', according to the
Rabbanan. Rebbi Meir says - that he is Chayav be'Diynei Adam too (because he
holds 'Niskal Poshei'a ... '), as we learned in 'ha'Meni'ach'.
2. ... the reason that he is Patur mi'Diynei Adam is - because it is a Hezek
she'Eino Nikar' (an indiscernible damage - see Gilyon ha'Shas).
(d) Despite the fact that these five cases are also Chayav be'Diynei
Shamayim ... , Rebbi Yehoshua lists only the above four - because each one
is a Chidush, as we shall now proceed to explain.
(a) If Rebbi Yehoshua had not listed ...
1. ... ha'Poretz Geder Bifnei Bahamas Chaveiro', we would have thought -
that seeing as the wall was destined to fall down anyway (as we explained
above), he would not even be liable be'Diynei Shamayim either.
(b) And had he not specifically listed ...
2. ... 'ha'Kofef Komaso shel Chaveiro Bifnei ha'Deleikah (regarding a Ru'ach
she'Eino Metzuyah)' we would have thought - that he is Patur, because how
was he to know that an unusual wind would blow just at that moment?
3. ... regarding a 'Ru'ach Metzuyah, according to Rav Ashi - we would have
though - that he is Patur, because he was really trying to help, by
protecting the produce against the fire by covering it, and making it Tamun
was an unfortunate by-product of his efforts.
1. ... 'ha'Socher Eidei Sheker' we would have thought - that he is even
Patur mi'Diynei Shamayim, because, due to the principle 'Divrei ha'Rav
ve'Divrei ha'Talmid Divrei Mi Shom'in?' he can claim that he never expected
the false witness to listen to him and testify falsely.
2. ... 'ha'Yodei'a Eidus la'Chaveiro, ve'Eino Me'id Lo' - that he is even
Patur mi'Diynei Shamayim, because he can say that even if he would have
testified, he reckoned that the defendant would have sworn falsely to avoid
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the sheep broke out in the night, the
owner is Patur, which Rabah establishes - when the animal dug its way
underneath the wall.
(b) We extrapolate from Rabah that if the sheep had not dug under the wall
(but the wall collapsed) he would be liable. This cannot be speaking about a
strong wall - because then why would he be liable (since he cannot be blamed
for the wall having collapsed).
(c) The problem if we then establish it by a rickety one is - why he should
then be Patur even if the animal escaped, seeing as this is a case of
'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah, ve'Sofo be'O'nes' (which some maintain is Chayav).
(a) We are therefore forced to conclude - that Rabah was not referring to
the Reisha (which is speaking about a strong wall, and is Patur whether the
animal dug or not), but to the Seifa 'Hinichah be'Chamah, O she'Masrah
le'Chashu, ve'Yatzsah ve'Hizikah, Chayav'.
(b) What Rabah is coming to teach us is - that even if the sheep dug under
the walls, he is Chayav. This is because, due to having left it in the sun,
he should have realized that it would go to superhuman lengths to break out
and find shade.
(c) Even those who hold 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'O'nes' is Patur'
will agree that he is Chayav in this case - because, due to the previous
S'vara, it is really a case of 'Techilaso ve'Sofo bi'Peshi'ah'.
(a) We ask why the Tana of our Mishnah needs to tell us that if the robbers
took the animal from the pen (and from the owner's Reshus), they are liable.
It is obvious that they are - on the basis of the Kinyan Meshichah together
with Shinuy Reshus, which acquires completely.
(b) We answer this in two ways, one of them, based on a statement by Rabah
Amar Rav Masna Amar Rav, who said 'ha'Ma'amid Behemas Chaveiro al Kamas
Chaveiro, Chayav'. What he meant was that if someone stood in front of the
animal, blocking its path and forcing it to move towards his friend's corn,
which it subsequently ate, he is Chayav.
(c) Abaye reminded Rav Yosef that he had established Rav (and therefore our
Mishnah) differently. According to him, Rav (and our Mishnah) speaks when he
caused the animal to move by striking it with a stick (and the Chidush is
that one can perform Meshichah through hitting the animal).
(a) Our Mishnah also states that if he handed the sheep to a shepherd, the
shepherd takes his place. The Tana cannot be teaching us that it is the
*owner's* place that the shepherd takes - because he has already taught us
this in a Mishnah in 'Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah ve'Chamishah'.
(b) It is the place of the first Shomer that he takes over.
(c) This seems to clash with Rava however, who said that if one Shomer hands
over an animal to another Shomer - he is liable.
(d) It is incorrect to say that the first Shomer is only Chayav for stheft
and loss, but for O'nes, the second Shomer swears, absolving himself and the
first Shomer from liability - because the owner has the right to decline to
accept any Shevu'ah of the man to whom he did not hand his animal in the
(a) Rava therefore establish our Mishnah - when the Shepherd to whom the
Shomer handed the sheep was his own apprentice (to whom one commonly hands
the sheep to look after, and which the owner therefore tends to permit).
(b) Others infer from the fact that the Tana says specifically 'Masrah
*le'Ro'eh'* - that it is only to one's apprentice that one may hand it, but
not to anyone else.
(c) This is not a clear proof for Rava however - since the Tana might
mention 'Ro'eh' (not to exclude others, but) because it is more common.
(a) Rabah considers a Shomer Aveidah a Shomer Chinam. Rav Yosef considers
him - a Shomer Sachar.
We learn from the Pasuk in the Sh'ma "u've'Lechtecha ba'Derech" - that
'ha'Osek be'Mitzvah, Patur min ha'Mitzvah'.
(b) If Rabah's reason is because the finder gains nothing by looking after
the article, Rav Yosef's is - because should a poor man arrive at the door
while he is busy with the article, he is Patur from giving him Tzedakah.
(c) Others attribute to Rav Yosef the reason - that since the Torah is
strict with the finder, obligating him to return the lost article against
his will, it probably makes him a Shomer Sachar rather than a Shomer Chinam.
(d) The ramifications of the Machlokes are - whether he is liable for theft
and loss (Rav Yosef) or not (Rabah).