About this episode
Today's daf is sponsored by Earl Norman in honor of the first responders of the State of Israel. "Their dedication, professionalism and compassion often in the face of danger is an inspiration." Why does the word 'good' appear in the context of the commandment to respect your parents only in the ten commandments in the book of Devarim and not in the book of Shmot ("so that it will be good for you")? If one sees the letter tet in a dream, it is a sign of good things to come. Once the Mishna has established the prohibition of k'elaim (crossbreeding or coworking two animals), different rabbis bring examples where the prohibition applies to animals that are from the same species but not the same type, such as a rooster, peacock, and pheasant. The sixth chapter begins with laws regarding one who watched his animal properly but the animal escaped and ate or trampled a field. If the wall was breached at night or was broken by robbers, the owner is exempt, as are the robbers (indirect damages). If the robbers took the animals out and the animals caused damage, the robbers are liable as they are directly responsible. |If the owner gave the animal to another person to watch, is the owner no longer responsible and the liability shifts to the other person? On what does it depend? If the animal accidentally falls into another's field and damages (eats or tramples), the owner only pays the benefit they received, but if the animal went in intentionally the owner has to compensate for the damages. The Gemara explains that the level l of protection ( shmira ) mentioned in the case in the Mishna is light protection (able to withstand a regular wind). This leads to the suggestion that the Mishna corresponds only to Rabbi Yehuda's position that a shor muad is exempt if the owner safeguarded the animal by putting up a standard wall, as an animal is always considered forewarned regarding eating and trampling. However, this is rejected as perhaps the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is only relevant for keren damages where there is intent to damage, and not applicable to eating a trampling. Further proof is brought from a tannaitic source that there are four cases where the Torah required only basic safeguarding - a pit, fire, eating and trampling. The Gemara brings a source for each from the Torah. Further proof is brought from the language of the Mishna. There are four cases where one is exempt from liability in a court of law, but liable in a heavenly court - one is the case in our Mishna where one breaches a fence of another and lets out the owner's animals.