Bava Kamma 56 - December 28, 16 Tevet

This week's learning is sponsored by Miriam Adler in honor of their new grandson, Neta, whose family was evacuated from Kibbutz Saad. "His name symbolizes the hope that there will be rejuvenated life and growth in the otef and all of Israel." A braita lists four situations where one causes damages and yet is not liable in a court of law but is liable in a heavenly court. The Gemara defines the specific circumstances of each case. However, they ask why the list is limited to these four and does not mention others that have the same law. A distinction is made - the cases listed in this braita are all situations where one may have thought one would not even be obligated in a heavenly court. If the gate opens at night - what is the case? Did the animal try to sneak out underneath and break the wall, or did it fall on its own? What type of wall? If the robber takes the animal, the robber is liable. Isn't this obvious as a thief gains ownership over a stolen item and is responsible for damages?  There are two suggested explanations of the case. If it is given to a shepherd, the shepherd is responsible for damages. Isn't this obvious as it was taught already in a Mishna? The case is explained to be regarding a shomer who gave it to another shomer. Does this contradict a ruling of Rava in this case? Is one who watches over a lost item liable like a shomer chinam or a shomer sachar? What is the logic behind each possibility?