Commentary for Bava Kamma 43:12

עמדה וסכסכה כ"ש דחנווני פטור ובעל גמל חייב אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב איקא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעמדה להטיל מימיה

But [it is immediately objected] if the camel stood still and yet managed to set fire to every bit of the building, is it not still more fitting that the shopkeeper should be free but the owner of the camel fully liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For not having instantly driven away the camel from such a dangerous spot. ');">²⁰</span> — R. Huna b. Manoah in the name of R. Ika [thereupon] said: The rulings apply to [a case where the camel] stood still to pass water;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And while it was impossible to drive it away quickly from that spot, the camel meanwhile managed to set every bit of the building on fire. ');">²¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 43:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.