The document summarizes teachings from Gemara notes about four acts for which a person is exempt from punishment by a Jewish court but obligated by heavenly punishment: 1) One who breaks another's enclosure for livestock in a way that causes no monetary loss. 2) One who bends another's grain toward a fire carried by an abnormal wind, showing recklessness. 3) One who hires false witnesses to testify on behalf of someone else, causing them to lose money. 4) One who fails to testify about another when expected and could have forced them to take an oath or pay, potentially causing them to swear falsely.

1. Gemara Notes 16-19 דף נה עמוד ב – נו עמוד א

3. Gemara Notes p. 16 דף נה עמוד ב

4. It is talking about a sturdy wall that has real value, that is why he is חייב in Heaven If it is talking about a sturdy wall, why isn’t he חייב in בית דין as well? It is talking about a shaky wall that needed to be knocked down anyway. He is not חייב in בית דין because it had no value. He is חייב in Heaven for the animal which he let escape אילימא Rashi: We know it is referring to the wall and not the animal because we learned in the Mishna that robbers are not חייב for the animal they let escape What is the case of breaking open a wall that would cause him to only be חייב according to the laws of Heaven? היכי דמי

5. What is the case of bending the grain that would cause him to only be חייב under the laws of Heaven? He is חייב in Heaven because after he bent it, the fire reached it by a normal wind If it reached the grain by normal wind, why is he not חייב in בית דין as well? The fire must have reached the grain by an abnormal wind, therefore he is פטור in בית דין . He was still reckless enough to be punished by Heaven, though. אילימא היכי דמי . רב אשי : He covered the grain as the fire was approaching it, making the person who lit it פטור from paying for the damage

6. Gemara Notes p. 17 דף נו עמוד א

7. What is the case of one who hired false witnesses but is not חייב in בית דין to pay for the damage he caused? He hired witnesses to testify on his own behalf so he would win his case Won’t he have to repay the money that he wasn't supposed to win? He hired witnesses to testify on behalf of someone else. He is פטור in בית דין , but חייב in Heaven for causing someone to lose money אילימא היכי דמי

8. What is the case of not testifying about another dealing with? It is obvious that he is חייב in Heaven! The Braisa would not need to teach us that [ אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו ] He was expected to testify on his own. His testimony would have forced the defendant to take a שבועה (oath) or pay. He is חייב in Heaven because the defendant may have paid rather than swear falsely אילימא פשיטא He could have testified as part of a group of two witnesses

9. Gemara Notes 18-19 דף נו עמוד א