Bava Kamma 56: Intentionality of Animals, Theives, Others

The Gemara continues to discuss our Mishna.  What does it mean that a person is liable if he bends another's standing grain?  Wouldn't we need to know the direction of the wind to determine whether or not this is a malicious crime?  And would we not need witnesses?  Perhaps this crime refers to one that requires only a single witness.  Even if this action does not meet the standard of liability, would it not be a crime according to the laws of Heaven?  

The rabbis continue to delve into the possible circumstances and meanings of this particular verse of our Mishna.  Their focus is incredibly particular, but it is simple to extrapolate.  How frequently would one be tried for his attempt to spread fire to his neighbour in this manner?  Very rarely.  But how frequently would a person do something that might seem innocuous to another person's property when that action might actually be intended to cause damage? Far, far more frequently.  And so the rabbis offer not only their specific halachot regarding this case, but their process of thought and determination.

The rabbis turn their attention to the verse regarding animals that escape their pen and cause damage, either on their own or via a bandit.  Did the animals do this themselves; tunnelling out of their pen?  Was the owner locking them in an inappropriate pen?  Who is truly responsible for damages caused by this kind of negligence or animal nature?  

The rabbis then discuss the liability of a person who is a bailee or who is otherwise compromised in his official liability.  They are always considering typical and atypical behaviours of both people and animals.  They end on the topic of lost items and when people are obligated against their wills.  A note reminds us that people are not obligated to do mitzvot when they are actively engaged in the practice of another positive mitzvah.