Responsa for Bava Kamma 118:15

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מסר לו שלהבת פטור מ"ט צבתא דחרש גרמה לו ולא מחייב עד שימסור לו גווזא

R. Judah, however, says: She might still argue, 'I made the endorsement merely to gratify my husband; why therefore should you go against me?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 95a. ');">¹²</span> [The legal point where] he decided the law to be in accordance with R. Simeon was that which we learnt: R. SIMEON SAYS: IF IT CONSUMED RIPE FRUITS, THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE FOR RIPE FRUITS, IF ONE <i>SE'AH</i> [IT WOULD BE FOR] ONE <i>SE'AH</i>, IF TWO SE'AHS, [FOR] TWO SE'AHS. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN PUTS HIS STACKS OF CORN IN THE FIELD OF ANOTHER WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND THE ANIMAL OF THE OWNER OF THE FIELD EATS THEM, THERE IS NO LIABILITY. MOREOVER, IF IT SUFFERED HARM FROM THEM, THE OWNER (OF THE STACKS WOULD BE LIABLE. IF, HOWEVER, HE PUT THE STACKS THERE WITH PERMISSION, THE OWNER OF THE FIELD WOULD BE LIABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. May we say that this Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabbi? For if in accordance with Rabbi, did he not say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 47b. ');">¹³</span> that unless the owner of the premises explicitly took upon himself to safeguard he would not be liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the owner of the field be liable where the corn was stacked with his permission? ');">¹⁴</span> — R. Papa said: [Here we were dealing with] the watchman of the barns.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it was the custom to pile all the stacks of the villagers in one place and appoint a guardian to look after them. ');">¹⁵</span> For since he said, 'Enter and place your stacks', it surely amounted to, 'Enter and I will guard for you'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the custom of the place. ');">¹⁶</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SENT OUT SOMETHING BURNING THROUGH A DEAF MUTE, AN IDIOT, OR A MINOR [AND DAMAGE RESULTED] HE WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF MAN, BUT LIABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENTS OF HEAVEN. BUT IF HE SENT [IT] THROUGH A NORMAL PERSON, THE NORMAL PERSON WOULD BE LIABLE. IF ONE PERSON [FIRST] SUPPLIES THE FIRE AND ANOTHER THE WOOD, HE WHO SUPPLIES THE WOOD WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he being last is mostly to blame. ');">¹⁷</span> WHERE, [ON THE OTHER HAND], THE FIRST SUPPLIES THE WOOD AND THE SECOND THE FIRE, HE WHO SUPPLIES THE FIRE WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he being last is mostly to blame. ');">¹⁷</span> BUT WHERE ANOTHER PERSON CAME ALONG AND FANNED THE FLAME, THE ONE WHO FANNED IT WOULD BE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he being last is mostly to blame. ');">¹⁷</span> IF IT WAS THE WIND THAT FANNED IT, ALL WOULD BE EXEMPT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Resh Lakish said in the name of Hezekiah: The Mishnaic ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of exemption from the judgments of Man. ');">¹⁸</span> holds good only where he handed over a [flickering] coal to [the deaf mute] who fanned it into flame, but if he handed over to him something already in flame he would be liable, the reason being that it was his acts that were the [immediate] cause. R. Johanan, however, said: Even where he handed something already in flame to him, he would still be exempt, the reason being that it was the handling of the deaf mute that caused the damage; he could therefore not be liable unless where he handed over to him tinder,

Explore responsa for Bava Kamma 118:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.