Bava Kamma 56A

בכותל רעוע.

the baraita is speaking of an unstable wall that was about to fall and break in any event, and so his action did not actually cause any loss to the owner.

אמר מר: הכופף קמתו של חבירו בפני הדליקה. היכי דמי? אילימא דמטיא ליה ברוח מצויה, בדיני אדם נמי נחייב! אלא דמטיא ברוח שאינה מצויה.

The Master says: With regard to the case mentioned in the baraita of one who bends another’s standing grain before a fire, what are the circumstances? If we say that the baraita is referring to a case where the fire would reach the bent grain in a typical wind, let him also be liable for the damage according to human laws. Rather, it must be a case where the fire could reach the bent grain only in an atypical wind. Therefore, he is exempt according to human laws, and, since the grain was destroyed due to his action, he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.

ורב אשי אמר: טמון אתמר, משום דשויה טמון באש.

And Rav Ashi offered an alternative explanation and said: The baraita was stated in the case of a concealed item; in other words, this person did not bend the grain toward the fire but bent it over another item in order to conceal it. One is not liable to pay restitution for concealed items damaged by fire. Therefore, when this person bent the grain over an item, he caused indirect damage to the owner of that item because he made it into a concealed item that was subsequently damaged by fire, and the owner cannot reclaim his loss.

אמר מר: השוכר עדי שקר. היכי דמי? אילימא לנפשיה ⁠– ממונא בעי שלומי, ובדיני אדם נמי ניחייב! אלא לחבריה.

The Master says: With regard to the case mentioned in the baraita of one who hires false witnesses, what are the circumstances? If we say that he hired them for his own benefit, in order to extract payment from another, he is required to reimburse that person with money, and he is liable according to human laws for receiving money under false circumstances. Rather, the case is one where he hired false witnesses for the benefit of another. In such a case the injured party cannot sue the other litigant, since the latter did not hire the witnesses, nor can he sue the person who hired them, since that person received no personal benefit.