Commentary for Bava Kamma 43:7

אמר לך ריש לקיש הכא במאי עסקינן דאדייה אדויי דעל חררה משלם נזק שלם ועל מקום גחלת משלם חצי נזק ועל גדיש כולה פטור

But according to the principle that Fire is chattel, [why indeed should the owner of the dog be liable?] Could the fire be said to be the chattel of the owner of the dog? — Resh Lakish may reply: The Mishnaic ruling deals with a case where the burning coal was thrown by the dog [upon the barn]: full compensation must of course be made for the cake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the law applicable to Tooth. ');">¹¹</span> but only half will be paid for the damage done to the actual spot upon which the coal had originally been thrown,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the damage to this spot is solely imputed to the action of the dog throwing there the burning coal. The liability, however, is only for half damages on account of the law of Pebbles to which there is subject any damage resulting from objects thrown by cattle: cf. supra P. 79. ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 43:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.