Guémara
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : the baraita is speaking of an unstable wall that was about to fall and break in any event, and so his action did not actually cause any loss to the owner.
בְּכוֹתֶל רָעוּעַ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Master says: With regard to the case mentioned in the baraita of one who bends another’s standing grain before a fire, what are the circumstances? If we say that the baraita is referring to a case where the fire would reach the bent grain in a typical wind, let him also be liable for the damage according to human laws. Rather, it must be a case where the fire could reach the bent grain only in an atypical wind. Therefore, he is exempt according to human laws, and, since the grain was destroyed due to his action, he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.
אָמַר מָר: הַכּוֹפֵף קָמָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ בִּפְנֵי הַדְּלֵיקָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּמָטְיָא לֵיהּ בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה, בְּדִינֵי אָדָם נָמֵי נִחַיַּיב! אֶלָּא דְּמָטְיָא בְּרוּחַ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And Rav Ashi offered an alternative explanation and said: The baraita was stated in the case of a concealed item; in other words, this person did not bend the grain toward the fire but bent it over another item in order to conceal it. One is not liable to pay restitution for concealed items damaged by fire. Therefore, when this person bent the grain over an item, he caused indirect damage to the owner of that item because he made it into a concealed item that was subsequently damaged by fire, and the owner cannot reclaim his loss.
וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: טָמוּן אִתְּמַר, מִשּׁוּם דְּשַׁוְּיַהּ טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Master says: With regard to the case mentioned in the baraita of one who hires false witnesses, what are the circumstances? If we say that he hired them for his own benefit, in order to extract payment from another, he is required to reimburse that person with money, and he is liable according to human laws for receiving money under false circumstances. Rather, the case is one where he hired false witnesses for the benefit of another. In such a case the injured party cannot sue the other litigant, since the latter did not hire the witnesses, nor can he sue the person who hired them, since that person received no personal benefit.
אָמַר מָר: הַשּׂוֹכֵר עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ – מָמוֹנָא בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי, וּבְדִינֵי אָדָם נָמֵי נִיחַיַּיב! אֶלָּא לְחַבְרֵיהּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The baraita teaches: And one who knows testimony in support of another but does not testify on his behalf is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. With what circumstances are we dealing? If we say that the case involves two people who could testify, and their evidence would render the other party liable to pay, it is obvious that each of them is liable according to the laws of Heaven; he has committed a transgression by Torah law: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1). Therefore, it is unnecessary for the baraita to mention this case.
וְהַיּוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד לוֹ. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּבֵי תְרֵי – פְּשִׁיטָא! דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא – ״אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד, וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, the case of the baraita concerns a single witness, whose testimony is not sufficient to render another liable, and to which the transgression of Torah law consequently does not apply. Nevertheless, a litigant can be forced to take an oath based on the testimony of a single witness, and refusal to take this oath would obligate the litigant to pay. Therefore, the witness has caused an indirect loss and is liable according to the laws of Heaven.
אֶלָּא בְּחַד.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else, i.e., is there no other case in which one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven? But there is such a case. And before citing several cases that are not written in the baraita the Gemara presents a mnemonic device: One who performs; with poison; and an agent; another; is broken. The Gemara returns to the first case: One who performs labor with water of purification, which was meant to be used to purify one rendered ritually impure by a corpse, thereby rendering the water unfit for use, or who performs labor with the red heifer of purification, invalidating the animal for use as an element of the purification ritual, is exempt according to human laws, since the damage he caused is not evident, but liable according to the laws of Heaven, as he caused a financial loss.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא (סִימָן: הָעוֹשֶׂה, בְּסַם, וּשְׁלִיחַ, חֲבֵירוֹ, נִשְׁבַּר.) הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּבְפָרַת חַטָּאת – פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara adds: But there is the following halakha: With regard to one who places poison before another’s animal, and the animal eats it and dies, he is exempt according to human laws, since the animal caused its own death, but liable according to the laws of Heaven.
וְהָאִיכָּא הַנּוֹתֵן סַם הַמָּוֶת בִּפְנֵי בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara adds: But there is the case of one who sends an exposed flame in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, and the fire spreads, causing damage; he is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.
וְהָאִיכָּא הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara adds: But there is the case of one who frightens another without touching him, but causes him injury; he is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.
וְהָאִיכָּא הַמַּבְעִית אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara adds: But there is the case of one whose jug broke in the public domain and he did not remove the broken pieces, or one whose camel fell and he did not stand it up again. Rabbi Meir deems the owner of jug or of the camel liable for the damage thereby caused to others, and the Rabbis say that he is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. Since there are so many other cases, why did Rabbi Yehoshua claim in the baraita that there are only four cases when one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven?
וְהָאִיכָּא נִשְׁבְּרָה כַּדּוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְלֹא סִילְּקָהּ, נָפְלָה גְּמַלּוֹ וְלֹא הֶעֱמִידָהּ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב בְּהֶזֵּיקָן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פָּטוּר בְּדִינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: Yes, there are, in any event, many other cases, but Rabbi Yehoshua held that it was necessary for him to state the halakha of these four cases. The reason he stated them is lest you say that in these cases one should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua teaches us that in these cases one is liable according to the laws of Heaven.
אִין, מִיהָא אִיכָּא טוּבָא; וְהָנֵי אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם נָמֵי לָא לִיחַיַּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.