Question: What is the case of bending Reuven's crop in front of in a fire?

If a normal wind can cause the fire to reach where he bent it, he is liable b'Yedei Adam !

Answer #1: Rather, he bent it to where an abnormal wind can make the fire reach.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case is, Shimon's fire was destined to burn Reuven's crop, and Levi covered it so it is hidden, and Shimon was exempt for it.

Question: What is the case of hiring false witnesses?

If he hired them for his own benefit, Beis Din makes him return what he improperly gained through them!

Answer: Rather, he hired them to testify for Ploni (someone else, and we cannot make Ploni pay).

Question: What is the case of not testifying when he knows testimony that could help Reuven?

If another witness knows, the Torah explicitly holds him accountable b'Yedei Shamayim (for Reuven could collect through their testimony) - "if he will not testify, he will bear his sin"!

Answer: Rather, no other witness knows. (Had he testified, Reuven's opponent would have needed to swear or pay. Perhaps he would have paid to avoid swearing.)

Question: There are other cases!

(Beraisa): If Reuven did work with Shimon's red heifer, or with his water destined to be sanctified with ashes of a red heifer (this disqualifies them), he is exempt b'Yedei Adam, but liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

(Beraisa): If Levi put poison in front of Yehudah's animal, he is exempt b'Yedei Adam, but liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

(Mishnah): If Reuven sent a fire with a Cheresh, lunatic or child, he is exempt b'Yedei Adam, but liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

(Beraisa): If Reuven scared Shimon (and Shimon became deaf through this), he is exempt b'Yedei Adam, but liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

(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 that they caused;

Chachamim say, he is exempt b'Yedei Adam and liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

Answer: Indeed, there are more cases. R. Yehoshua taught these cases, for one might thought that he is exempt even b'Yedei Shamayim:

He breached (in front of an animal) a wall that (was prone to fall, so) the owner was obligated to knock it down;

One who bent Reuven's crop in front of a fire can say that he did not expect an abnormal wind;

According to Rav Ashi, he covered the crop in an attempt to save it;

One who hired false witnesses can say 'they should not have obeyed me to transgress Hash-m's Mitzvos!'

One who did not testify can say 'perhaps it would not have helped, and your opponent would have sworn falsely.'

R. Yehoshua teaches that this is not so. In all these cases, he is liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

(Mishnah): If the wall broke at night, or if thieves broke it... (the owner is exempt).

(Rabah): The case is, the animal tunneled under it (and broke the wall and left through the opening).

Inference: Had it not tunneled, he would be liable.

Question: What is the case?

If the wall is strong, why should he be liable? What more could he do?!

Answer #1: The wall is weak.

Question: Why is he exempt when it tunneled? He was negligent at the beginning, and Ones at the end!

This is like the opinion that exempts one who was negligent at the beginning and Ones at the end;

According to the opinion that obligates, how can we answer?

Answer #2: The wall is strong. He is exempt even if it did not tunnel. Rabah discussed the Seifa.

(Seifa): If Reuven left it in the sun... he is liable;

(Rabah): He is liable even if the animal tunneled under the wall.

When the animal did not tunnel, obviously he is liable. It is all due to negligence;

When it tunneled, one might have thought that he was negligent to start and Ones at the end (and is exempt according to one opinion). Rabah teaches that this is not so. It is all due to negligence.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: When one leaves it in the sun, it will do anything needed to escape.

(Mishnah): If thieves took out an animal and it damaged, the thieves are liable.

Question: This is obvious! Since they took it out, they are fully responsible for it!

Answer #1: The case is, they did not take it out. They stood in front of it, and let it go only to the place where it damaged.

(Rabah): If Reuven put Shimon's animal in front of Levi's crop, he is liable.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer #1: The case is, he did not pull it. He stood in front of it, and let it go only to Levi's crop.

Answer #2 (Abaye): He hit it with a stick, causing it to go to Levi's crop.

Answer #2: The thieves hit it with a stick, in order to acquire it through Meshichah.

(Mishnah): If Reuven handed his animal over to a shepherd (Shimon), Shimon is in his stead...

Question: In whose stead is he?

If he is in Reuven's stead, another Mishnah already teaches this!

(Mishnah): If he gave it over to a Shomer Chinam (one who guards a deposit for free), a borrower, a Shomer Sachar (he is paid to guard it), or renter, the Shomer is like the owner.

Answer: Rather, if a Shomer (Levi) handed the animal over to Shimon, Shimon is in Levi's stead, and Levi is exempt.

Version #1 - Suggestion: This refutes Rava!

(Rava): If a Shomer (Levi) handed over to another Shomer, Levi is liable.

Answer (for Rava): The Mishnah discusses handing over to an apprentice shepherd. This is normal practice, so he is exempt.

Version #2: The Mishnah says 'he handed over to a shepherd.' It does not say he handed over to 'another.' This suggests that he gave to his apprentice.

Inference: Had he handed over to anyone else, he would be liable. This supports Rava.

(Rava): If a Shomer (Levi) handed over to another Shomer, Levi is liable.

Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah gave a typical case, but he is exempt even if he hands over to another.