Commentary for Bava Kamma 43:11

אי הכי אימא סיפא אם הניח חנווני נרו מבחוץ חנווני חייב ואי במסכסכת אמאי חייב בשעמדה

Now this accords well with the view that Fire implies human agency: the agency of the camel could thus be traced in the setting alight of the whole building. But according to the view that Fire is chattel, [why should the owner of the camel be liable?] Was the fire in this case the chattel of the owner of the camel? — Resh Lakish may reply that the camel in this case [passed along the entire building and] set every bit of it on fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The damage done to every bit of the building is thus directly attributed to the action of the camel. ');">¹⁸</span> If so, read the concluding clause: If, however, the shopkeeper left his candle outside [his shop] he is liable. Now, if the camel set the whole of the building on fire, why indeed should the shopkeeper be liable? — The camel in this case stood still [all of a sudden].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 4. ');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 43:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.