Bava Kamma 56a

בבא קמא נ״ו ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 56a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 56a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

רבי יהושע's four cases of פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים, and רבה on a breached sheep pen

Overview

The amud continues a ברייתא in which רבי יהושע lists four acts that are exempt in a human court but liable before Heaven. These are breaking a fence in front of an animal, bending someone's grain toward a fire, hiring false witnesses, and knowing testimony but not testifying. For each act, the גמרא narrows the case so that a human court could not make the person pay: a shaky wall, an unusual wind (or, for רב אשי, a hidden item), witnesses hired for someone else, and a single witness. The גמרא then points to five more cases with the same ruling and asks why the list stops at four. It answers that the list is selective. These four were taught because each comes with an excuse that might seem to free the person even before Heaven, and the גמרא shows the excuse for each one. Next the גמרא returns to the משנה about a sheep pen whose wall was breached. רבה's comment about an animal that dug its way out raises the question of negligence followed by accident. So the גמרא moves רבה's words to the later case of an animal left in the sun: the owner is liable even if it dug, because a suffering animal will try any way out. Finally the גמרא quotes the next line of the משנה: if bandits took the animal out, the bandits are liable.

Opening lines

The steps (28)

1. ResponseBreaking a fence: the case is an unstable wall
2. QuestionWhat is the case of bending grain before a fire?
3. ResponseThe fire would reach it only with an unusual wind
4. Resolutionרב אשי: the case is about a hidden item
5. QuestionWhat is the case of hiring false witnesses?
6. ResponseHe hired the witnesses for someone else
7. QuestionWhich witness does the ברייתא mean?
8. ResponseIt means a single witness
9. ChallengeWhy doesn't the list include working with מי חטאת?
10. ChallengeAnother missing case: poison in front of an animal
11. ChallengeMissing case: sending fire with a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor
12. ChallengeMissing case: one who frightens his fellow
13. ChallengeMissing case: a broken jug or a fallen camel left in the public street
14. ResolutionYes, there are many cases, but these four needed to be taught
15. ResolutionWhy the case of breaking a fence was needed
16. ResolutionWhy the case of bending a friend's grain was needed
17. ResolutionThe covered item case according to רב אשי
18. ResolutionWhy the case of hiring false witnesses was needed
19. ResolutionWhy teach the case of a witness who does not testify
20. Statementרבה explains the משנה: the animal dug under the wall
21. ChallengeIf the animal did not dig, why would he be liable with a strong wall?
22. ChallengeWith a weak wall, why is he exempt even if the animal dug?
23. ChallengeThe challenge is strongest for the view that holds the owner liable
24. Resolutionרבה's statement belongs to the later case of the משנה
25. StatementWhy רבה needed to say "even if it dug"
26. QuestionAsking why digging still counts as negligence
27. ResponseThe owner should have known a suffering animal would escape any way it could
28. StatementNext line of the משנה: bandits who took the animal out