(Mishnah): If a dog took (a cake with a coal... and burned the grain...)

(R. Yochanan): One is liable for fire like for an arrow that he shot.

(Reish Lakish): He is liable because it is his property.

Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish say like R. Yochanan?

Answer: One gives impetus to arrows, but not to fire.

Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan say like Reish Lakish?

Answer: Property has substance, but fire has no substance.

(Mishnah): If a dog took... it pays half-damage for the grain.

This is like the opinion that he is liable like for arrows. This is the dog's arrow.

Question: According to the opinion that it is his property, the coal is not the property of the dog's owner!

Answer: The case is, the dog threw the coal. It pays full damage for the cake, half-damage for where the coal was thrown (this is pebbles; some explain, it is Keren, for this is unusual), and it is exempt for the rest of the grain.

R. Yochanan explains that the dog placed the coal down. It pays full damage for the cake (Shen) and for where the coal was placed (fire), and half- damage for the rest (pebbles).

Question (Mishnah): If a camel laden with flax was walking in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and the flax entered a store, caught fire from the store-owner's lamp, and burned the building, the camel's owner is liable;

If the storeowner left his lamp outside, he is liable.

R. Yehudah says, if it was lit for the Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah, he is exempt.

This is like the opinion that one is liable for fire like for arrows. This is the camel's arrow.

According to the opinion that it is his property, the lamp is not the property of the camel's owner!

Answer: The case is, the camel brushed the burning flax against the entire building. (The argument about why one is liable for fire refers to damage due to spreading of the fire.)

Question (Reisha): If the storeowner left his lamp outside, he is liable. 1. If the camel brushed the burning flax against the entire building, why is the storeowner liable?

Answer: The load of flax was so big that the camel rubbed the burning flax against the entire building while standing still.

Question: All the more so, the camel's owner should be liable (for not leading his camel away)!

Answer (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): The camel stopped to urinate;

If the flax entered the shop and caught fire, the camel's owner was at fault for overloading the camel;

If the lamp was outside, the storeowner was at fault.

(Mishnah): If Reuven lit a stack of grain and there was a goat tied to it and a slave nearby, and they burned, Reuven is liable;

If there was a slave tied to it and a goat nearby, and they burned, he is exempt.

Question: This is like the opinion that one is liable for fire like for arrows (he does not pay money, because he is Chayav Misah (worthy to die) for killing the slave);

According to the opinion that one is liable for fire like for his property, why is he exempt?

This should be like when his ox gores a slave (Rashi - he must pay 30 Shekalim for the slave; Tosfos - he must pay for other damage done at the same time)!

Answer: The case is, he directly burned the slave. Because he is Chayav Misah for killing the slave, he does not pay.

Question: If so, obviously he is exempt!

Answer: The Chidush is, even thought the goat and slave belong to different people, he is exempt for both.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven sent a flame with (Shimon,) a deaf-mute, lunatic or child, Beis Din cannot force Reuven to pay, but he is liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

This is like the opinion that fire is liable like for arrows. Reuven need not pay for Shimon's arrows.

According to the opinion that it is his property, he should be liable, just like if he asked Shimon to guard his ox (and the ox damaged)!

Answer (Reish Lakish): Reuven is exempt only if he gave to Shimon a coal, and Shimon blew on it (and it flared up);

If he gave a flame, Reuven is liable.

This is because it is a clear damager.

R. Yochanan exempts Reuven even if he gave a flame. Shimon caused the damage by the way he held the flame.

Reuven is liable only for gross negligence, i.e. he gave dry wood, (small) kindling wood and a (lit) lamp.

(Rava): A verse and a Beraisa support R. Yochanan.

"When fire will go out" connotes by itself. "The one who burned will pay" (he is called one who burned).

(Beraisa): The Torah first mentioned money that damages, and concludes with one who damages. This teaches that fire is liable because it is like his arrows.