Bava Kamma 119

סלתא שרגא דההוא ודאי מעשה דידיה גרמו:

shavings and a light, in which case it was certainly his act that was the immediate cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 9b. ');">¹</span>

שלח ביד פקח הפקח חייב וכו': אמר ר"נ בר יצחק מאן דתני ליבה לא משתבש ומאן דתני ניבה לא משתבש

BUT IF HE SENT [IT] THROUGH A NORMAL PERSON, THE NORMAL PERSON WOULD BE LIABLE etc. IF ANOTHER PERSON CAME ALONG AND [LIBBAH] FANNED IT etc. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He who reads in the [original] text <i>libbah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (connected with [H], 'flame'), to denote blazing up. ');">²</span>

מאן דתני ליבה לא משתבש דכתיב (שמות ג, ב) בלבת אש ומאן דתני ניבה לא משתבש דכתיב (ישעיהו נז, יט) בורא ניב שפתים:

is not mistaken; so also he who reads in the text <i>nibbah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] from [H], 'to blow up' to blow a blaze'.] ');">³</span>

לבתה הרוח כולן פטורין: ת"ר ליבה ולבתה הרוח אם יש בלבויו כדי ללבותה חייב ואם לאו פטור

is similarly not mistaken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For similar textual remarks by the same sage, cf. A.Z. 2a. ');">⁴</span>

אמאי ליהוי כזורה ורוח מסייעתו

He who has in the text <i>libbah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (connected with [H], 'flame'), to denote blazing up. ');">²</span>

אמר אביי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שליבה מצד אחד ולבתו הרוח מצד אחר רבא אמר כגון שליבה ברוח מצויה ולבתו הרוח ברוח שאינה מצויה ר' זירא אמר כגון דצמרה צמורי

is not mistaken, since we find [in Scripture] <i>be-labbath esh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. III, 2. ');">⁵</span>

רב אשי אמר כי אמרינן זורה ורוח מסייעתו ה"מ לענין שבת דמלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה אבל הכא גרמא בעלמא הוא וגרמא בנזקין פטור:

[<i>in a flame of fire</i>], and so also he who has in the text <i>nibbah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] from [H], 'to blow up' to blow a blaze'.] ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השולח את הבערה ואכלה עצים או אבנים או עפר חייב שנאמר (שמות כב, ה) כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים ונאכל גדיש או הקמה או השדה שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה:

is not mistaken, as we find, <i>I create</i> nib [<i>the movement of</i>] <i>the lips</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LVII, 19. [The blaze is provided by 'the movement of the lips', i.e., by blowing with the mouth.] ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבא למה לי דכתב רחמנא קוצים גדיש קמה ושדה

IF IT WAS THE WIND THAT FANNED IT, ALL WOULD BE EXEMPT. Our Rabbis taught: Where he fanned it [along with] the wind which also fanned it, if there was enough force in his blowing to set the fire ablaze he would be liable, but if not he would be exempt. But why should he not be liable, as in the case of one winnowing [on Sabbath, who is liable] though the wind was helping him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shab. VII, 2; v. also B.B. 26a. ');">⁷</span>

צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא קוצים ה"א קוצים הוא דחייב רחמנא משום דשכיח אש גבייהו ושכיח דפשע אבל גדיש דלא שכיח אש גבייהו ולא שכיח דפשע אימא לא ואי כתב רחמנא גדיש הוה אמינא גדיש חייב רחמנא משום דהפסד מרובה הוא אבל קוצים דהפסד מועט אימא לא

— Abaye thereupon said: We are dealing here with a case where e.g., he blew it up in one direction and the wind blew it up in a different direction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the wind did not help him at all. ');">⁸</span>

קמה למה לי מה קמה בגלוי אף כל בגלוי

Raba said: [The case is one] where e.g., he started to blow it up when the wind was only normal, [and would have been unable to set it ablaze], but there [suddenly] came on an unusual wind which made it blaze up. R. Zera said: [The case is one] where e.g., he merely increased the heat by breathing heavily on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But did not actually blaze it up. ');">⁹</span>

ולר' יהודה דמחייב אנזקי טמון באש קמה למה לי לרבות כל בעלי קומה ורבנן לרבות כל בעלי קומה מנא להו נפקא להו מאו הקמה

R. Ashi said: When we say that there is liability for winnowing where the wind is helping, this applies to Sabbath where the Torah prohibited any work with a definite object,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether man did it wholly by his own body or not. ');">¹⁰</span>

ורבי יהודה או מיבעי ליה לחלק ורבנן לחלק מנא להו נפקא להו מאו השדה

whereas here [regarding damage] such an act could be considered merely as a secondary cause, and a mere secondary cause in the case of damage carries no liability.

ורבי יהודה איידי דכתב רחמנא או הקמה כתב או השדה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF HE ALLOWED FIRE TO ESCAPE AND IT BURNT WOOD, STONES OR [EVEN] EARTH, HE WOULD BE LIABLE, AS IT SAYS: IF FIRE BREAK OUT AND CATCH IN THORNS SO THAT THE STACKS OF CORN, OR THE STANDING CORN, OR THE FIELD BE CONSUMED THEREWITH: HE THAT KINDLED THE FIRE SHALL SURELY MAKE RESTITUTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 5. ');">¹¹</span>

שדה למה לי לאתויי לחכה נירו וסכסכה אבניו ולכתוב רחמנא שדה ולא בעי הנך צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא שדה הוה אמינא מה שבשדה אין מידי אחרינא לא קמ"ל

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Raba said: Why was it necessary for the Divine Law to mention [both] 'thorns', 'stacks', 'standing corn' and 'field'? They are all necessary. For if the Divine Law had mentioned [only] 'thorns', I might have said that it was only in the case of thorns that the Divine Law imposed liability because fire is found often among them and carelessness in regard to them is frequent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As thorns are usually worthless and nobody minds them. ');">¹²</span>

אר"ש בר נחמני א"ר יונתן אין פורענות באה לעולם אלא בזמן שהרשעים בעולם ואינה מתחלת אלא מן הצדיקים תחלה שנאמר כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים אימתי אש יוצאה בזמן שקוצים מצוין לה ואינה מתחלת אלא מן הצדיקים תחלה שנאמר ונאכל גדיש ואכל גדיש לא נאמר אלא ונאכל גדיש שנאכל גדיש כבר:

whereas in the case of 'stacks',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are of great value and are usually looked after. ');">¹³</span>

תאני רב יוסף מאי דכתיב (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר כיון שניתן רשות למשחית אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים ולא עוד אלא שמתחיל מן הצדיקים תחלה שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, ח) והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע

which are not often on fire and in respect of which negligence is not usual, I might have held that there is no liability. If [again] the Divine Law had mentioned [only] 'stacks', I might have said that it was only in the case of 'stacks' that the Divine Law imposed liability as the loss involved there was considerable, whereas in the case of 'thorns' where the loss involved was slight I might have thought there was no liability. But why was standing corn' necessary [to be mentioned]? [To teach that] just as 'standing corn' is in an open place, so is everything [which is] in an open space [subject to the same law].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excluding thus hidden articles. ');">¹⁴</span>

בכי רב יוסף כולי האי נמי לאין דומין א"ל אביי טיבותא הוא לגבייהו דכתיב (ישעיהו נז, א) כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק

But according to R. Judah who imposes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 5b. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב

liability also for concealed articles damaged by fire, why had 'standing corn' [to be mentioned]? — To include anything possessing stature.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 5b. ');">¹⁵</span> Whence then did the [other] Rabbis include anything possessing stature?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., living objects and plants [Though the latter, unlike 'stacks' are still attached to the ground. Tosaf.] ');">¹⁶</span> — They derived this from [the word] 'or' [placed before] 'the standing corn'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 311, and also Tosaf. Hul. 86b. ');">¹⁷</span> And R. Judah? — He needed [the word] 'or' as a disjunctive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 311, and also Tosaf. Hul. 86b. ');">¹⁷</span> Whence then did the [other] Rabbis derive the disjunction? — They derived it from [the word] 'or' [placed before] 'the field'. And R. Judah? — He held that because the Divine Law inserted 'or' [before] 'the standing corn' 'it also inserted 'or' [before] 'the field'. But why was 'field' needed [to be inserted]? — To include [the case of] Fire lapping his neighbour's ploughed field, and grazing his stones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 347. n. 5. ');">¹⁸</span> But why did the Divine Law not say only 'field',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes everything. ');">¹⁹</span> in which case the others would not have been necessary? They were still necessary. For if the Divine Law had said 'field' only, I might have said that anything in the field would come under the same law, but not any other thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the field itself. ');">²⁰</span> It was therefore indicated to us [that this is not so]. R. Samuel b. Nahmani stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Having stated 'standing corn', the Torah must have added 'field' to indicate the field itself.] ');">²¹</span> that R. Johanan said: Calamity comes upon the world only when there are wicked persons in the world, and it always begins with the righteous, as it says: If fire break out and catch in thorns.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 5. ');">²²</span> When does fire break out? Only when thorns are found nearby. It always begins, however, with the righteous, as it says: so that the stack of corn was consumed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used metaphorically to express the righteous. ');">²³</span> It does not say 'and it would consume the stack of corn', but 'that the stack of corn was consumed' which means that the 'stack of corn' had already been consumed. R. Joseph learnt: What is the meaning of the verse, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 22. ');">²⁴</span> Once permission has been granted to the Destroyer, he does not distinguish between righteous and wicked. Moreover, he even begins with the righteous at the very outset, as it says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XXI, 8. ');">²⁵</span> <i>And I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus mentioning first the 'righteous' and then the 'wicked'. ');">²⁶</span> R. Joseph wept at this, saying: So much are they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the righteous. ');">²⁷</span> compared to nothing!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are punished even for the wicked. ');">²⁸</span> But Abaye [consoling him,] said: This is for their advantage, as it is written, That the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LVII, 1. ');">²⁹</span> Rab Judah stated that Rab said: