Study Bava Kamma folio 56B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud questions the need for this ruling: It is obvious that this is the halakha, as once they removed the animal, it is now in their custody for all purposes, including responsibility for any ensuing damage.
The Talmud answers: No, this statement is necessary in a case where they stood before the animal and encouraged it to leave the enclosure but did not lead it out directly. This case is like the case in this statement that Rabba says that Rav Mattana says that Rav says: With regard to one who stand
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You told us when explaining the statement of Rav Mattana in the name of Rav that it is referring to a case where he hit the animal with a stick, and similarly, the Mishnah can also be explained as referring to a case where the bandits hit it with a stick and did not lead it.
§ The Mishnah teaches that if the owner conveyed the animal to a shepherd to care for it, the shepherd enters in his place and is responsible for all damage. The rabbis say in clarification: The shepherd enters in place of whom? If we say that the shepherd is in place of the owner of the animal, di
The Talmud asks: If so, this Mishnah indicates that the first bailee exempts himself completely by conveying the sheep to a shepherd, the second bailee, and he bears no further responsibility. Shall we say that Mishnah is a conclusive refutation of the ruling of Rava, as Rava says: A bailee who conv