Musar for Bava Kamma 59:21
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא מתני' דלא כר' יהודה
[to be confined to the case] there, where the owner of the wall had no knowledge of the identity of the person who hid the thorns in the wall, and was accordingly unable to inform him of the intended pulling down of the wall, whereas in the case of the pit, where the owner of the lid very well knew the identity of the owner of the pit, [you might have argued] that it was his duty to inform him [of the intended removal of the lid].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Failing that, the sole responsibility should then fall upon him. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
Mesilat Yesharim
Our sages, of blessed memory, further said (Bava Kama 30a): "Rabbi Yehuda said: 'he who wishes to become pious, let him fulfill the matters of Berachot (blessings)' (this is for those things between man and his Maker), some say 'let him fulfill the laws of damages' (this is for those things between man and his fellow), and some say 'let him fulfill the matters of Pirkei Avot' (which include matters from all the divisions of piety).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
Another allusion to walls being perceived as preventing moral damage is found in 26,28 where G–d is described as dealing with the recalcitrant Jewish people as בחמת קרי. G–d's anger is the result of abuse of the חומה, wall, as we shall see. In all the three instances of the dual spelling of the word לא-לו, we follow the written text first. This means that if the house in question did not have a wall surrounding it לא חומה, it ought to have one, i.e. לו חומה. [It is in the nature of such spelling that the reader first notices the written text before he articulates the word when reading it. The לא therefore is seen first. Ed.] If we were to read the לו before the לא, the meaning would be that we speak about a house which first had a wall, i.e. moral inhibitions, whose moral inhibitions were removed subsequently, i.e. לא חומה. In such an instance the words in the תוכחה describing G–d's reactions as בחמת קרי are applicable. We may then see the removal of the חומה, "wall of moral inhibition," as the catalyst of G–d's anger, חמת קרי. We have three areas in which man's lifestyle is examined by G–d. We have statements by our sages relating to all these three areas. The first area is covered by the Mishnah we have quoted in Avot. The second area is covered by the statement of Rav concerning the absence of food and drink in the Hereafter. The third area is covered by the dispute about the nature of הזיק ראיה discussed in Baba Batra. The sages (Baba Kama 30a) said in very succinct language that if someone wishes to be considered as pious he should observe the various rulings pertaining to the benedictions we are to recite. Other sages say such a person should live up to the moral precepts found in the tractate Avot.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy