Commentary for Bava Kamma 69:1

אף הוא נמי דלא קבעי ליה וקתני פטור מפני שהוא נדון בנפשו

so also the owner similarly had no intention to satisfy thereby any need, and yet it is stated THERE WOULD BE NO [CIVIL] LIABILITY AS HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CAPITAL CHARGE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would show that setting fire on Sabbath even for purely destructive purposes is a violation of the Sabbath, supporting thus the view of R. Abbahu and contradicting that of R. Johanan. ');">¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 69:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.