Bava Kamma 122

באגני דארעא מקרו:

should more properly be called the receptacles of the land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And should therefore not cause the fields to be considered separated from one another. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המדליק בתוך שלו עד כמה תעבור הדליקה רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר רואין אותו כאילו הוא באמצע בית כור ר"א אומר ט"ז אמות כדרך רה"ר רבי עקיבא אומר חמשים אמה ר"ש אומר (שמות כב, ה) שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה הכל לפי הדליקה:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN KINDLES A FIRE ON HIS OWN [PREMISES], UP TO WHAT DISTANCE CAN THE FIRE PASS ON [BEFORE HE BECOMES FREE OF LIABILITY]? R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAYS: IT HAS TO BE REGARDED AS BEING IN THE CENTRE OF AN AREA REQUIRING A <i>KOR</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ולית ליה לר"ש שיעורא בדליקה

OF SEED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As fire when rising in columns could not be expected to pass on to further distances. ');">³</span>

והתנן לא יעמיד אדם תנור בתוך הבית אלא אם כן יש על גבו גובה ד' אמות היה מעמידו בעלייה עד שיהא תחתיו מעזיבה שלשה טפחים ובכירה טפח ואם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק

R. ELIEZER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B. Hyrcanus. ');">⁴</span>

ר' שמעון אומר לא נאמרו שיעורין הללו אלא שאם הזיק פטור מלשלם

SAYS: [A DISTANCE OF] SIXTEEN CUBITS [SUFFICES], EQUAL TO [THE WIDTH OF] A ROAD IN A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 355, n. 10. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה הכל לפי גובה הדליקה

R. AKIBA SAYS FIFTY CUBITS. R. SIMEON SAYS: [SCRIPTURE SAYS] HE WHO KINDLED THE FIRE SHOULD MAKE RESTITUTION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 5. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' שמעון וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ש:

[WHICH SHOWS THAT] ALL DEPENDS UPON THE FIRE.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המדליק את הגדיש והיו בו כלים ודלקו ר"י אומר משלם מה שבתוכו וחכ"א אינו משלם אלא גדיש של חטין או של שעורין

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Did R. Simeon not hold that there is some fixed limit in the case of Fire?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Assuming that what R. Simeon means is that it all depends on the damage caused by the fire irrespective of the distance.] ');">⁷</span>

היה גדי כפות לו ועבד סמוך לו ונשרף עמו חייב עבד כפות לו וגדי סמוך לו ונשרף עמו פטור

Have we not learnt: 'No man shall fix<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the neighbours have the right to prevent him from doing so. ');">⁸</span>

ומודים חכמים לר"י במדליק את הבירה שהוא משלם כל מה שבתוכה שכן דרך בני אדם להניח בבתים:

an oven on a ground floor unless there is a space of four cubits from the top of it [to the ceiling]. If he fixes it on an upper floor [he may not do so]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the neighbours have the right to prevent him from doing so. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב כהנא מחלוקת במדליק בתוך שלו והלכה ואכלה בתוך של חבירו דר"י מחייב אנזקי טמון באש ורבנן פטרי אבל במדליק בתוך של חבירו דברי הכל משלם כל מה שבתוכו

unless there will be under it three handbreadths of cement; in the case, however, of a portable stove, one handbreadth will suffice. If [after all these precautions] damage has nevertheless resulted, payment must be made for the damage. R. Simeon says that these limits were only to intimate that if damage resulted [after they were observed] there should be exemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. II, 2. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל רבא אי הכי אדתני סיפא מודים חכמים לר"י במדליק את הבירה שמשלם כל מה שבתוכה שכן דרך בני אדם להניח בבתים לפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א במדליק בתוך שלו והלכה ואכלה בתוך של חבירו אבל מדליק בתוך של חבירו דברי הכל משלם כל מה שהיה בתוכו

[Does this not prove that R. Simeon maintained a minimum limit of precaution?] — R. Nahman therefore stated that Rabbah b. Abbahu said: [The meaning of R. Simeon's phrase 'all thus depends upon the fire' is that] all should depend upon the height of the fire, [and that no general limits could be fixed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But each case should be considered in accordance with its own circumstances. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אמר רבא בתרתי פליגי פליגי במדליק בתוך שלו והלכה ואכלה בתוך של חבירו דר"י מחייב אטמון באש ורבנן סברי לא מחייב ופליגי נמי במדליק בשל חבירו דר"י סבר משלם כל מה שבתוכו ואפילו ארנקי ורבנן סברי כלים שדרכן להטמין בגדיש כגון מוריגין וכלי בקר הוא דמשלם כלים שאין דרכן להטמין בגדיש לא משלם

R. Joseph, [however,] stated that Rab Judah said on behalf of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Only of this our Mishnah, but not of B.B. (Rashal).] ');">¹¹</span>

תנו רבנן המדליק את הגדיש והיו בו כלים ודלקו ר"י אומר משלם כל מה שהיה בתוכו וחכמים אומרים אינו משלם אלא גדיש של חטין או גדיש של שעורין ורואין מקום כלים כאילו הוא מלא תבואה

So also said R. Nahman, that Samuel said that the <i>halachah</i> was in accordance with R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Only of this our Mishnah, but not of B.B. (Rashal).] ');">¹¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SETS FIRE TO A STACK OF CORN IN WHICH THERE HAPPEN TO BE ARTICLES AND THESE ARE BURNT, R. JUDAH SAYS THAT PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE FOR ALL THAT WAS THEREIN, WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY THAT NO PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE EXCEPT FOR A STACK OF WHEAT OR FOR A STACK OF BARLEY. [WHERE FIRE WAS SET TO A BARN TO WHICH] A GOAT HAD BEEN FASTENED AND NEAR WHICH WAS A SLAVE [LOOSE] AND ALL WERE BURNT WITH THE BARN, THERE WOULD BE LIABILITY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the goat and for the barn, but no liability whatever for the slave, for, since he was loose, he should have escaped. ');">¹²</span> IF, HOWEVER, THE SLAVE HAD BEEN CHAINED TO IT, AND THE GOAT WAS LOOSE NEAR BY IT, AND ALL WERE BURNT WITH IT, THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the goat and even for the barn, for since the slave was chained a capital charge is involved, and all civil liabilities merge in capital charges; v. supra p. 113 and p. 192. ');">¹³</span> THE SAGES, HOWEVER, AGREE WITH R. JUDAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ordains payment even for concealed articles. ');">¹⁴</span> IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO SET FIRE TO A CASTLE THAT THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE FOR ALL THAT WAS KEPT THEREIN, AS IT IS SURELY THE CUSTOM OF MEN TO KEEP [VALUABLES] IN [THEIR] HOMES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law about hidden goods could therefore not be applicable in this case. ');">¹⁵</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Kahana said: The difference [of opinion]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the Sages and R. Judah ');">¹⁶</span> was only where the man kindled the fire on his own [premises], from which it passed on and consumed [the stack standing] in his neighbour's premises, R. Judah imposing liability for damage done to Tamun<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., something hidden; v. Glos. ');">¹⁷</span> in the case of Fire whereas, the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages. ');">¹⁸</span> grant exemption. But if he kindled the fire on the premises of his neighbour, both agreed that he would have to pay for all that was there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the act of trespass. ');">¹⁹</span> Said Raba to him: 'If so, why does it say in the concluding clause, THE SAGES, HOWEVER, AGREE WITH R. JUDAH IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO SET FIRE TO A CASTLE THAT THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE FOR ALL THAT WAS KEPT THEREIN'? Now why not draw the distinction in the same case by making the text run thus: These statements apply only in the case where be kindled the fire on his own [premises], whence it travelled and consumed [the stacks standing] in his neighbour's premises; but where he kindled the fire in the premises of his neighbour, all would agree that he should pay for all that was kept there? — Raba therefore said: They differed in both cases. They differed where he kindled the fire in his own [premises] whence it travelled and consumed [stacks standing] in his neighbour's premises, R. Judah imposing liability to pay for Tamun in the case of Fire, whereas the [other] Rabbis hold that he is not liable [to pay for <i>Tamun</i> in the case of Fire].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even for utensils which are customarily kept in stacks. ');">²⁰</span> They also differed in the case where he kindled a fire in the premises of his neighbour, R. Judah holding that he should pay for everything that was there, including even purses [of money], whereas the Rabbis held that it was only for utensils which were usually put away in the stacks, stich as e.g. threshing sledges and cattle harnesses that payment would have to be made, but for articles not usually kept in stacks no payment would have to be made. Our Rabbis taught: If a man set fire to a stack of corn in which there were utensils and they were burnt, R. Judah says that payment should be made for all that was stored there, whereas the Sages say that no payment should be made except for a stack of wheat or for a stack of barley, and that the space occupied by the utensils has to be considered as if it was full of corn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which payment will be made. ');">²¹</span>