Reference for Bava Kamma 18:13
לעולם בשור קשור ובור מכוסה ודכוותה גבי אש גחלת ודקא אמרת מאי שנא הכא ומ"ש הכא
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: 'WHENEVER I AM UNDER AN OBLIGATION OF CONTROLLING [ANYTHING IN MY POSSESSION], I AM CONSIDERED TO HAVE PERPETRATED ANY DAMAGE [THAT MAY RESULT]. How is that? When an ox or pit which was left with a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, does damage, the owner is liable to indemnify. This, however, is not so with a fire.' With what kind of case are we here dealing? If you say that the ox was chained and the pit covered, which corresponds in the case of fire to a hot coal, what difference is there between the one and the other? If on the other hand the ox was loose and the pit uncovered which corresponds in the case of fire to a flame, the statement 'This, however, is not so with a fire,' would here indicate exemption, but surely Resh Lakish said in the name of Hezekiah: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Rabbis of the Mishnah, v. infra 59b. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Jastrow
Jastrow
Jastrow
Jastrow
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
When the Gemara says that comes to include regel or keren the Gemara does not mean the first that appears in the Mishna on 2a. Rather, the Gemara is referring to the other mentioned on 9b. It is from that Mishna that regel or keren is included.1Rashi on 9b explains that the first is used to teach us other forms of damaging as mentioned in the Gemara on 6a. It is only the second of 9b that is available to teach us keren or regel.