Bava Kamma 55: On Animal Behaviour and Exceptions to Liability

The first part of our daf finishes Perek V.   The rabbis discuss the word too, and then the letter tet, and other words that might represent different ideas.  Coming out of this is a discussion of the word hesped, eulogy.  If one sees that word written in their dreams, or even dreams about a eulogy, that person's eulogy will be delayed.  Further, the rabbis discuss the undomesticated and domesticated animals that were mentioned in our last Mishna.  The rabbis spend some time defining different species.  They also remind us that species cannot be interbred, and yet different species are permitted to travel together. 

We begin Perek VI with a new Mishna.  It share a number of cases that suggest a general rule: the owner of animals are liable for any damage that those animals do if their behaviour is beyond the owner's control.  If thieves let the sheep out at night and they do damage, the thieves are liable, not the owner of the sheep.  If a field is damaged by stray animals, it is assessed based on its value before and after the damage was done.  Rabbi Shimon suggests that if a ripe fruit is eaten by an animal, the value of a ripe fruit is paid for by the animal's owner.  If one se'a is eaten, the payment is for one se'a.

The Gemara begins with what it means to lock the sheep into their pen appropriately.  What does it mean to safeguard or secure an animal? How should reins be tied up?   We learn that there are four matters where the Torah limits the required standard of safeguarding: Pit, Fire, Eating and Trampling.  

For Pit, a person is liable if he digs a pit and does not cover it (Exodus 21:33).  The rabbis decide that he is exempt if he covers the pit even though it will become uncovered int he future.  For Fire, one who starts the fire is liable (Exodus 22:5), which is taken to mean that one is exempt if unless he acts in a manner similar to one who kindles a fire in his neighbour's home.  For Eating, we learn that one is liable if his animal feeds in someone else's field, but the owner is exempt unless he behaves negligently so as to allow this to happen.  Finally, for Trampling, the same verse is used to suggest that a person must set his animal loose to be liable for damages caused by damages done to another's field (Exodus 22:4).

Is this about reduced supervision?  About how the animals behave?  The rabbis discuss implications of these matters.

We are told that Rabbi Yahoshua taught that there are four matters where a person who transgresses is exempt based on our laws but is liable according to the laws of heaven.  These are:
1) one who breaks a fine allowing another's animal to escape
2) one who bends another person's grain so that it catches fire
3) one who hires false witnesses to testify
4) one who refrains from testifying though he knows testimony supporting another person

We learn that these people should be fined.

Our Mishna mentioned one point that I found particularly poignant.  It is the case of a person who leaves his animal out in the sun, causing the animal to suffer.  This transgression of animal cruelty is mentioned in our Mishna; it is a significant error in judgement. How wonderful to know that our Sages considered animals to be worthy of consistent compassion and care.