Commentary for Bava Kamma 18:15

And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: even [if] one transferred a flame to [him, he is] exempt, etc. The Braita stated that one who hands over a shor or a bor to a deaf mute is liable. This is not so of aish. When one gives an aish to a deaf mute he is exempt. The Gemara is searching for the risk level at which one is exempt by aish and will then determine the comparable level of shor and bor for which one is liable. The Gemara proves that Resh Lokish holds that one is liable for giving a flame to a deaf mute. If so, the case that one is exempt by aish is when one gives a coal that has a relatively lower risk level to a deaf mute. The comparable case of shor and bor is when the shor is tied and the bor is covered.
Why is one liable for the shor and bor in that case? The Gemara answered that the shor and bor owners are liable because although they are considered low level risks if the deaf mute were not involved, now that the owner gave them to a deaf mute to guard them, it is to be expected that they will cause damage.
Risk level
Shor Tied - liable
Bor Covered – liable
Aish Coal – exempt
According to Tosafot’ understanding of Resh Lokish: shor and bor will become untied and uncovered when they are given to a deaf mute to guard them, therefore the owner is liable. The coal aish will routinely be extinguished and the owner is exempt.
The Gemara now turns to R’ Yochanan who holds that one is exempt even when handing over a flame to a deaf mute. If so, the Gemara asks, the comparable level of security is an untied shor and an uncovered bor.
Risk level
The Gemara’s conclusion according to R’ Yochanan:
Shor Untied- liable
Bor Uncovered-liable
Aish Flame – exempt
If so, why is one exempt for the flame and liable for the shor and bor? It seems that the Gemara does not have a problem understanding that one is exempt for giving a flame to a deaf mute. Tosafot assumes that the Gemara held that according to R’ Yochanan, just as a coal is a low level risk because it grows weaker and weaker and eventually extinguishes, so too, a flame is also a low level risk because if it is not fanned it will grow weaker and weaker and extinguish.
The Gemara can accept this conclusion. It seems to have a problem with the comparison of this risk level to shor and bor, when it argues that the comparable level of shor and bor is an untied shor and an uncovered bor. Why is one exempt for handing over a flame to a deaf mute and liable for handing over an untied shor and an uncovered bor?
Risk level
According to Tosafot question:
Shor Tied – liable
Bor Covered – liable
Aish Flame – exempt^*Because it becomes constantly weaker
Tosafot’ question assumes that the reason the Gemara accepts R’ Yochanan’s ruling as logical is because he considers the risk level of a flame equal to the risk level of a coal. Hence, the Gemara that says that a flame is comparable to an untied shor and an uncovered bor is problematic. The risk level of a flame should be comparable to a tied shor and a covered bor.
This is bewildering. What is the Gemara asking when it says that a flame is comparable to an untied shor and an uncovered bor? But it would seem that a flame according to R’ Yochanan is a low level risk, equivalent to a coal according to Resh Lokish. Just as Resh Lokish holds that a coal is likely to be extinguished, so to according to R’ Yochanan a flame is likely to be extinguished. If so, the Braita that compares the shor and bor to aish can be set up as speaking about a tied ox and a covered bor which are low level risks and the reason for the liability when handing them over to a deaf mute is because the deaf mute is likely to untie the ox and uncover the bor, exactly as was said according to Resh Lokish. Why does the Gemara need to say that the comparable risk level for the shor and bor is an untied shor and an uncovered bor which are high level risks?¹See Maharsho who asks: according to Tosafot hypothesis that R’ Yochanan holds that a flame is equal to a coal because they both grow weaker, why did the Gemara not understand that there is an inherent difference between an untied shor and a flame? The flame will automatically extinguish, whereas the untied shor remains a potential damager.
To solve this problem, we must depart from the original assumption that a flame is equal to a coal and find another reason why the Gemara understands R’ Yochanan’s ruling that one is exempt for handing a flame to a deaf mute.
And we can answer: That it seemed to the Gemara that the reason R’ Yochanan exempts one for handing over a flame to a minor is because the minor guards it and the minor does not cause damage. Rather, to the contrary, he provides protection. The flame per se is as hazardous as an untied shor and an uncovered bor, but it is the protection provided by the minor that exempts the owner. The Gemara then correctly asks if the minor’s efforts are considered proper security for a flame even though the risk level of the flame is high, why are his efforts not considered proper security for an untied shor and an uncovered bor?
Tosafot has now concluded that R’ Yochanan holds that a flame is a high risk level but the minor provides a suitable amount of protection to render the owner exempt. There are additional benefits in understanding the Gemara with this approach. And now, with the understanding that a flame is a high risk level, but one is exempt because of the security provided by the minor, the meaning of the Gemara is uncomplicated. Because we will not have a difficulty with R’ Yochanan, who set up the Braita with an untied ox and an uncovered bor; why is it necessary for the Braita to mention that he handed them over to a deaf mute, an idiot and a minor? He would certainly be liable even if he had not handed the ox and bor over to the minor. The reason that the Braita mentioned that he handed them over to a deaf mute, an idiot and a minor is to teach us a greater novelty, that even though he provided some security by handing over the untied ox and the uncovered bor to a minor he is still liable.
And about this idea, whether the handing over to the minor is reason to exempt as R’ Yochanan holds or it is reason for liability, R’ Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lokish, who holds that involving a minor in guarding a tied shor or a covered bor is reason for liability as Tosafot concluded earlier.
The conclusion of the Gemara, differentiating between bor and shor for which one is liable when he gives them to a minor and aish for which he is not, requires additional explanation according to Tosafot. Tosafot Rabbeinu Peretz says that the Gemara is essentially differentiating between the need to provide active or passive security. In the case of aish it is a positive action of the deaf mute that may cause a fire. If the flame is left as is, no damage will occur. For this, the passive security provided by handing over the flame to the minor and entrusting him with it is sufficient. If the minor then decides to cause damage with the flame the owner is not responsible. With shor and bor the opposite is true. If not actively guarded the shor and bor will cause damage on their own, the efforts of the minor are not necessary to cause the damage. The minor must prevent the ox and bor from causing damage and this he is not capable of doing. Handing over the ox and the bor to a minor is not providing aggressive security and the owner is liable for any damage that his shor or bor cause.