Reference for Bava Kamma 195:11

ואמר רבה השורף שטרו של חבירו פטור דאמר ליה ניירא קלאי מינך מתקיף לה רמי בר חמא היכי דמי

Now surely this is so only where mere work was done with it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 56a. ');">²⁰</span> in which case the damage [done to it] is not noticeable, whereas in the case of splitting where the damage is noticeable there would also be liability according to the judgments of Man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contradicting the view of Rabbah. ');">²¹</span> — It may, however, be said that the same law would apply in the case of splitting, where he would similarly be exempt [according to the judgments of Man], and that what we are told here is that even in the case of mere work where the damage is not noticeable there would still be liability according to the judgments of Heaven. Rabbah further stated: If one destroyed by fire the bond of a creditor he would be exempt, because he can say to him, 'It was only a mere piece of paper of yours that I have burnt.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 33b. ');">²²</span> Rami b. Hania demurred: What are the circumstances?

Explore reference for Bava Kamma 195:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.