Bava Kamma 44

רישא בעל גמל חייב דלא איבעי ליה לאפושי בטעינה סיפא חנווני חייב דלא איבעי ליה לאנוחי נרו מאבראי

[so that] in the commencing clause the owner of the camel is liable, for he should not have overloaded [his camel],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the extent that the flax should penetrate the shop. ');">¹</span> but in the concluding clause the shopkeeper is liable for leaving his candle outside [his shop].

תא שמע המדליק את הגדיש והיה גדי כפות לו ועבד סמוך לו ונשרף עמו חייב עבד כפות לו וגדי סמוך לו ונשרף עמו פטור

Come and hear: In the case of a barn being set on fire, where a goat was bound to it and a slave [being loose] was near by it, and all were burnt, there is liability [for barn and goat].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not for the slave, who should have quitted the spot before it was too late; cf. infra 27a. ');">²</span> In the case, however, of the slave being chained to it and the goat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether chained or loose. ');">³</span>

בשלמא למ"ד אשו משום חציו משום הכי פטור אלא למאן דאמר אשו משום ממונו אמאי פטור אילו קטל תוריה עבדא הכי נמי דלא מיחייב

near by it and all being burnt, there is exemption [for barn and goat].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 43b and 61b. For all civil actions merge in capital charges and the defendant in this case is charged with murder (since the slave was chained and thus unable to escape death), and thus exempt from all money payment arising out of the charge; cf. infra 70b. ');">⁴</span> Now this is in accordance with the view maintaining the liability for Fire to be based upon human agency: there is therefore exemption here [since capital punishment is attached to that agency].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 43b and 61b. For all civil actions merge in capital charges and the defendant in this case is charged with murder (since the slave was chained and thus unable to escape death), and thus exempt from all money payment arising out of the charge; cf. infra 70b. ');">⁴</span>

אמר לך רבי שמעון בן לקיש הכא במאי עסקינן כשהצית בגופו של עבד דקם ליה בדרבה מיניה

But, according to the view that Fire is chattel, why should there be exemption? Would there be exemption also in the case of cattle killing a slave?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 32, where the liability of thirty shekels is imposed upon the owner. ');">⁵</span> — R. Simeon b. Lakish may reply to you that the exemption refers to a case where the fire was actually put upon the body of the slave<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The defendant has thus committed murder by his own hands. ');">⁶</span>

אי הכי מאי למימרא לא צריכא בגדי דחד ועבד דחד

so that no other but the major punishment is inflicted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 113. n. 8. ');">⁷</span> If so, [is it not obvious?] Why state it at all? — No; it has application [in the case] where the goat belonged to one person and the slave to another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the capital charge is not instituted by the owner of the goat, no damages could be enforced for the goat, since the defendant has in the same act also committed murder, and is liable to the graver penalty. ');">⁸</span>

ת"ש השולח את הבעירה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים

Come and hear: In the case of fire being entrusted to a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not bear responsibility before the law. ');">⁹</span> [and damage resulting], no action can be instituted in civil courts, but there is liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Upon the person who entrusted the fire to the deaf-mute, etc. Mishnah, infra 59b. ');">¹⁰</span>

בשלמא למ"ד אשו משום חציו חציו דחרש הוא אלא למאן דאמר אשו משום ממונו אילו מסר שורו לחרש שוטה וקטן הכי נמי דלא מיחייב

according to divine justice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 38. ');">¹¹</span> This again is perfectly consistent with the view maintaining that Fire implies human agency, and as the agency in this case is the action of the deaf mute [there is no liability]; but according to the [other] view that Fire is chattel, [why exemption?] Would there similarly be exemption in the case of any other chattel being entrusted to a deaf-mute, an idiot, or a minor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 36; infra 59b. ');">¹²</span>

הא אתמר עלה אמר ריש לקיש משמיה דחזקיה לא שנו אלא כשמסר לו גחלת וליבה אבל מסר לו שלהבת חייב מאי טעמא ברי היזיקא

— Behold, the following has already been stated in connection therewith:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 9b. ');">¹³</span> Resh Lakish said in the name of Hezekiah that the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 38. ');">¹¹</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו שלהבת פטור קסבר צבתא דחרש קא גרים לא מיחייב עד דמסר ליה גווזא סילתא ושרגא

applies only to a case where it was a [flickering] coal that had been handed over to [the deaf-mute] who fanned it into flame, whereas In the case of a [ready] flame having been handed over there is liability on the ground that the instrument of damage has been fully prepared. R. Johanan, on the other hand, stated that even in the case of a ready flame there is exemption, maintaining that it was only the handling by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the tongs of'. ');">¹⁴</span> the deaf-mute that caused [the damage]; there could therefore be no liability unless chopped wood, chips and actual fire were [carelessly] given him.

אמר רבא קרא ומתניתא מסייע ליה לרבי יוחנן קרא דכתיב (שמות כב, ה) כי תצא אש תצא מעצמה ישלם המבעיר את הבערה ש"מ אשו משום חציו

Raba said: [Both] Scripture and a Baraitha support [the View of] R. Johanan. 'Scripture': For it is written, If fire break out;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 5. ');">¹⁵</span> 'break out' implies 'of itself' and yet [Scripture continues], He that kindled the fire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The damage that resulted is thus emphatically imputed to human agency. ');">¹⁶</span>

מתניתא דתניא פתח הכתוב

shall surely make restitution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII 5. ');">¹⁷</span> It could thus be inferred that Fire implies human agency. 'A Baraitha': For it was taught. The verse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII 5. ');">¹⁷</span> though commencing with damage