Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan says 'Isho Mishum Chitzav', he means - that the Chiyuv of Eish is the same as someone who shoots an arrow (see Tosfos DH 'Isho').

(b) Resh Lakish says 'Isho Mishum Mamono'.

1. Resh Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan - because when all's said and done, the fire is not the result of Kocho (the force of the one who lit it), whereas an arrow is.
2. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish - because flame which comprises Eish is not tangible, whereas the Mamon of the Mazik is.

(c) Our Mishnah obligates the owner of the dog Chatzi Nezek if it set fire to a haystack. The problem with this according to Resh Lakish is - that the fire belongs to the owner of the cake (which the dog took), and not to the owner of the dog.

(d) Resh Lakish answers this - by establishing it when the dog actually threw the coal, and it is for the damage done to the spot where it landed exclusively, that he is Chayav, either because of Tzeroros, or because of Keren (since it is unusual). On the remainder of the haystack, he is Patur.

(a) The Mishnah in 'ha'Kones' obligates the owner of the camel to pay for the damage, if his camel is walking down the street, and the bail of flax that it is carrying enters a store, catches fire on a burning candle, and sets fire to the entire building. If the store-keeper placed his candle outside the store, according to ...

1. ... the Tana Kama - the storekeeper will always be liable.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - the storekeeper will be liable at all times except for Chanukah (when it is a Mitzvah to place one's Chanukah candle outside).

(b) According to Resh Lakish, even though the fire belongs to the owner of the store, the owner of the camel is liable - because the Tana is speaking by Mesachseches (when the camel brushed against the entire building, setting it all on fire [and it is clear from the Sugya that whenever the animal performs a positive action, the owner adopts liability, even according to Resh Lakish]).

(c) Initially, we ascribe the reason that the store-keeper is liable in the Seifa, to the fact that the animal stood still. Considering that we are speaking by Mesachseches, what Rav Huna bar Mano'ach in the name of Rav Ika really meant when he said 'ke'she'Amdah' is - 'that the animal stood still because it needed to urinate (making it an A'nus).

(d) In the final analysis ...

1. ... the owner of the camel is Chayav in the Reisha - because he should not have laden his animal so heavily.
2. ... the store-keeper is Chayav in the Seifa - because he should not have placed his candle outside.

3)

(a) The Mishnah in 'ha'Kones' states that if someone sets fire to a haystack next to which a kid-goat is tied and an Eved is standing, he is liable - to pay for the haystack in full, and thirty Shekalim for the Eved.

(b) In the reverse case (if the Eved is tied and the kid is standing beside the haystack), he is Patur - because he is Chayav Miysah for killing the Eved, and we have a principle 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' (any act for which one earns two punishments, one receives the more stringent punishment, and is absolved from the second more lenient one).

(a) The problem with the Seifa of the previous Beraisa, according to Resh Lakish (who holds 'Isho Mishum Mamono') is - why he should be Chayav Miysah (any more than if his ox killed an Eved).

(b) Resh Lakish therefore establishes the Mishnah - when he actually set fire to the body of the Eved.

(c) Even though we already know the principle of 'Kam Leih be'Derabah Mineih' - the Tana found it necessary to repeat it here, because he is speaking when the owner of the kid-goat is not the same person as the owner of the Eved; teaching us that even when the person whose money he destroyed is not the same as the one for whom he is Chayav Miysah, he is still Patur for paying.

(a) The Mishnah in 'ha'Kones' states 'ha'Shole'ach es ha'Be'eiroh be'Yad Chashu', Patur be'Dinei Adam, ve'Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim'. In order to differentiate between this case and that of someone who gives his ox to a 'Chashu' to look after (in which case, we have already learned, one retains the liability), Resh Lakish quoting Chizkiyah ...

1. ... establishes the Mishnah - when he gave the 'Chashu' a coal, which the latter subsequently fanned.
2. ... concedes that he is liable - if he handed him a coal which is aflame (which is bound to do damage).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that, even if he hands the 'Chashu' a flaming coal, he is Patur - because, based on the fact that he holds 'Isho Mishum Chitzav', it is the Chitzim of the 'Chashu' that cause the damage.

(c) He will agree that the owner retains the liability however - if he handed the 'Chashu' all the ingredients to make a fire (the various size twigs and the means to set them alight).

(a) Rava prove Rebbi Yochanan right from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Ki Seitzei Eish ... ha'Mav'ir es ha'Be'eiroh" - which begins with the fire spreading on its own, and ends by referring to the owner as the one who burned the fire (as if he had actually set fire to the haystack).

(b) In addition, he cites a Beraisa which (based on the same Pasuk that he himself quoted as proof for Rebbi Yochanan) specifically states 'Isho Mishum Chitzav'.