Bava Kamma - Daf 22

• אשו משום חציו או משום ממונו

Rebbe Yochanan says: אשו משום חציו – One’s fire is his responsibility for damages because it is considered his “arrows,” i.e., his direct force. Reish Lakish says: אשו משום ממונו – One’s fire is his responsibility because it is considered his property which damaged. Reish Lakish argues: חציו מכחו קאזלי – his arrows travel through his force, whereas fire travels on its own, so it cannot be considered his “arrows.” Rebbe Yochanan argues: ממונא אית ביה ממשא – Property has substance, הא לית ביה ממשא – but this fire has no substance and cannot be considered his property. Reish Lakish is challenged from the previous Mishnah, which taught that a dog which lit grain on fire with someone else’s coal pays half-damages for the grain. If fire is considered one’s force, the owner is responsible for his dog’s damages (but pays half-damages, because fire damages are צרורות), but according to Reish Lakish, he should be exempt (since the coal was not his)!? The Gemara explains that the dog tossed the coal onto the grain, and pays half-damages for the spot it landed (as צרורות), and is exempt for the remainder of the grain.

• המדליק את הגדיש והיה גדי כפות לו ועבד סמוך לו

Reish Lakish is challenged from another Mishnah: המדליק את הגדיש– One who sets fire to a heap of grain, והיה גדי כפות לו ועבד סמוך לו – and there was a goat bound to it and a slave near it, and they were all burned, he must pay for the grain and goat (for although the slave died from his fire, and one cannot be liable for murder and monetary damages from the same act, he is not responsible for the slave’s death, who could have run away). If the slave was bound and the goat was not, he is exempt from payment, because he is responsible for killing the slave, which carries the death penalty. If fire is considered one’s force, he is understandably responsible for the murder and exempt from paying, but if it is viewed as his property damaging, why should he be exempt from paying for the grain and goat?

The Gemara answers: כשהצית בגופו של עבד – the case is where he set fire directly to the slave’s body and killed him, so his liability for the murder exempts him from payment. Although this seems obvious, the Gemara explains the case is בגדי דחד ועבד דחד – where the goat belongs to one person, and the slave to another person. Although the two punishments stem from different owners, he is still exempt from paying.

השולח את הבעירה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן: a coal or a flame?

Reish Lakish is challenged from another Mishnah: השולח את הבעירה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן – One who sets a fire through a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor (i.e., he handed them a fire, and it damaged), is exempt from paying מדיני אדם – in the laws of man (i.e., Beis Din does not force him to pay), but is morally obligated to pay. If fire is considered one’s force, it is understood that he is exempt, because it is the חרש’s action which spread the fire. But if fire is considered his property, he should be liable here, just as if he would leave his ox with an incompetent person!? The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish explained that he is only exempt in this Mishnah כשמסר לו גחלת וליבה – when he handed [the חרש] a coal, which was not a ready damaging force, and he fanned it into a flame. If he handed him a flame, he would indeed be liable, because ברי היזקא – the damage is certain to occur. Rebbe Yochanan exempts him even if he gave the חרש a flame, because צבתא דחרש קא גרים – it is the חרש’s grasp (control) which caused the damage and would only be liable if he handed him fire and tinder.