Comentario sobre Baba Kama 6:1
הַכּוֹנֵס צֹאן לַדִּיר, וְנָעַל בְּפָנֶיהָ כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצְאָה וְהִזִּיקָה, פָּטוּר. לֹא נָעַל בְּפָנֶיהָ כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצְאָה וְהִזִּיקָה, חַיָּב. נִפְרְצָה בַלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁפְּרָצוּהָ לִסְטִים, וְיָצְאָה וְהִזִּיקָה, פָּטוּר. הוֹצִיאוּהָ לִסְטִים, לִסְטִים חַיָּבִים:
Si uno trae una oveja a un cobertizo y cierra (la puerta) antes de que salga correctamente, y se apaga y causa daños, no es responsable. [Porque él lo guardó. "¿Qué (más) podría haber hecho?"] Si no se cierra correctamente antes y se apaga y causa daños, es responsable. Si fue violado por la noche, o si los ladrones lo violaron y salió y causó daños, él no es responsable. Si los ladrones lo sacaron, los ladrones son responsables. [Incluso si en realidad no lo sacaron, sino que se quedaron frente a él hasta que se apagó, es como si lo hubieran sacado con las manos y son responsables.]
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If the pen was broken through at night, or bandits broke through it, and the flock came out and caused damage, he is not liable. If the bandits brought out the flock, the bandits are liable. Section one teaches that if a person were to properly enclose his flock and nevertheless the flock were to escape, the person is exempt. Since he fulfilled his responsibility he is not liable for damages. However, if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he will be liable. Section two can be explained as an exception to the rule in section one that if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he is liable. Section two teaches that if the flock broke out at night (i.e. they broke the enclosed part of the or bandits broke the fence, the owner is exempt, even though he did not properly lock the fence. The owner is not liable since the animals broke out against his control, even though they could have gone out through the main gate, thereby making him liable. If, on the other hand, they were to have broken the fence during the day, and he didn’t lock it properly, he is liable. (There are other explanations to this. The final clause of the mishnah says that if the bandits physically let out the flock, they are liable if it causes damage.
At the end of chapter five we learned the laws of damages done by a pit, the second archetypal cause of damage listed in the first mishnah of the tractate. The first three mishnayoth of chapter six will deal with the third archetypal cause of damage, the crop-destroying beast.