Gemara Notes 16-19

דף נה עמוד ב – נו עמוד א

:taught רבי יהושע.There are four acts for which a person is פטור from

being punished by בית דין, but חייב punishment from Heaven…

1. One who breaks down the wall that encloses another’s animal

2. One who bends another’s grain toward a fire3. One who hires false witnesses to testify4. One who knows testimony about another but

does not testify

תניא

Gemara Notes p. 16

דף נה עמוד ב

It is talking about a sturdy wall that has real value, that is why he is חייב in Heaven

If it is talking about a sturdy wall, why isn’t he ?as well בית דין in חייב

It is talking about a shaky wall that needed to be knocked down anyway. He is not חייב in בית דין because it had no value. He is חייב in Heaven for the animal which he let escape

אילימא

Rashi: We know it is referring to the wall and not the animal because we learned in the Mishna that robbers are not חייב for the animal they let escape

What is the case of breaking open a wall that would cause him to only be חייב according to the laws of Heaven?

היכי דמי

What is the case of bending the grain that would cause him to only be חייב under the laws of Heaven?

He is חייב in Heaven because after he bent it, the fire reached it by a normal wind

If it reached the grain by normal wind, why is he not ?as well בית דין in חייב

The fire must have reached the grain by an abnormal wind, therefore he is He was still reckless .בית דין in פטורenough to be punished by Heaven, though.

אילימא

היכי דמי

:רב אשי.He covered the grain as the fire was approaching it, making the person who lit it from paying for the פטורdamage

Gemara Notes p. 17

דף נו עמוד א

What is the case of one who hired false witnesses but is not חייב in בית דין to pay for the damage he caused?

He hired witnesses to testify on his own behalf so he would win his case

Won’t he have to repay the money that he wasn't supposed to win?

He hired witnesses to testify on behalf of someone else. He is פטור in בית דין, but חייב in Heaven for causing someone to lose money

אילימא

היכי דמי

What is the case of not testifying about another dealing with?

It is obvious that he is חייב in Heaven! The Braisa would not need to teach us that

[אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו]

He was expected to testify on his own. His testimony would have forced the defendant to take a שבועה (oath) or pay. He is חייב in Heaven because the defendant may have paid rather than swear falsely

אילימא

פשיטא

He could have testified as part of a group of two witnesses

Gemara Notes 18-19דף נו עמוד א