מתני׳ ארבעה אבות נזיקין השור והבור והמבעה וההבער
MISHNA: There are four primary categories of damage: The category of Ox; and the category of Pit; and the category of Maveh, which, based on a discussion in the Gemara refers either to the tooth of an animal that causes damage or to a person who causes damage; and the category of Fire.
אתמר ר' יוחנן אמר אשו משום חציו וריש לקיש אמר אשו משום ממונו
With regard to damage caused by a fire lit by one person spreading to a location other than where it was lit, the Gemara cites a dispute among the amora’im: It was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: His liability for damage caused by his fire is due to its similarity to his arrows, meaning that damage caused by a fire in a location other than where it was lit is comparable to damage caused by an arrow shot at a distant target. And Reish Lakish says: His liability for the damage caused by his fire is due to its similarity to his property; he is responsible for this damage just as he is responsible for damage caused elsewhere by any of his possessions, e.g., one of his animals.
וריש לקיש מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי יוחנן אמר לך חציו מכחו קאזלי האי לא מכחו קאזיל ורבי יוחנן מאי טעמא לא אמר כריש לקיש אמר לך ממונא אית ביה ממשא הא לית ביה ממשא
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Reish Lakish did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that fire is not comparable to an arrow, as an arrow proceeds as a result of his direct force, while this fire does not proceed as a result of his direct force, but requires a wind to carry it from the location where it was lit to the location of the damage. The Gemara asks about the other opinion: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that one’s fire is not comparable to his possessions, as property is a tangible substance but this fire is not a tangible substance.
אמר רבא קשיא ליה לאביי למ"ד אשו משום חציו טמון באש דפטר רחמנא היכי משכחת לה וניחא ליה כגון שנפלה דליקה לאותו חצר ונפלה גדר שלא מחמת דליקה והלכה והדליקה והזיקה בחצר אחרת דהתם כלו ליה חציו
Rava said that Abaye raised a difficulty: According to the one who says that one’s liability for the damage caused by his fire is due to its similarity to his arrows, how can you find that the Merciful One exempted one from liability for concealed items damaged by a fire? If one caused damage by shooting an arrow, he would be equally liable for damaging both exposed and concealed items. Consequently, if one’s liability for the damage caused by his fire is due to its similarity to his arrows, he should similarly be liable for concealed items damaged by a fire. And it was satisfactory for him, i.e., Abaye resolved the difficulty. He explained that the exemption from liability for concealed items damaged by a fire applies in a case where a fire broke out in that same courtyard, and afterward the fence separating this courtyard from the neighbor’s courtyard collapsed, but not due to the fire, and therefore the fire spread and ignited items and caused damage in another courtyard. In such a circumstance he would be exempt because there, in this case, it is as if his arrows were depleted, i.e., he bears responsibility for the fire that he had started, which initially was confined to his courtyard alone. The fire that spread to the neighboring courtyard is not similar to his arrows, and therefore he is exempt.
אחד הביא את האור ואחד הביא את העצים המביא את העצים חייב אחד הביא את העצים ואחד הביא את האור המביא את האור חייב בא אחר וליבה המלבה חייב ליבתה הרוח כולן פטורין:
If one person brought the fire, and one other person subsequently brought the wood, causing the fire to spread, the one who brought the wood is liable for any damage caused. Conversely, if one person first brought the wood, and subsequently one other person brought the fire, the one who brought the fire is liable, since it was he who actually kindled the wood. If another came and fanned the flame, and as a result the fire spread and caused damage, the one who fanned it is liable, since he is the proximate cause of the damage. If the wind fanned the flames, all the people involved are exempt, since none of them actually caused the damage.
אמר אביי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שליבה מצד אחד ולבתו הרוח מצד אחר רבא אמר כגון שליבה ברוח מצויה ולבתו הרוח ברוח שאינה מצויה ר' זירא אמר כגון דצמרה צמורי
Abaye said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he fanned the fire from one side and the wind fanned it from the other side, and the fire was blown in the direction the wind was blowing. Therefore, it is clear that his fanning did not help the fire spread, so he is exempt. Rava says: We are dealing with a case where he fanned it along with a typical wind, and this was not sufficient to cause the fire to spread, and suddenly an atypical wind came and fanned it. Therefore, he is exempt since he could not have anticipated this. Rabbi Zeira said: We are dealing with a case where he only heated [detzamera tzamurei] the fire by breathing on it, rather than fanning it properly.
לבתה הרוח כולן פטורין - ... וכן משמע בירושלמי דמתניתין איירי ברוח שאינה מצויה דגרסינן התם ליבתו הרוח כולן פטורין תמן אמרינן ברוח של אנוסים אבל ברוח שהעולם מתנהג בו חייב ר' יוחנן ור"ל תרוייהו אמרי אפי' ברוח שהעולם מתנהג בו שפעמים הוא בא ופעמים אין בא:
If the wind fanned the flames... So it seems from the Talmud Yerushalmi that this Mishna is in reference to an uncommon wind (that isn't expected). As it says there "in a wind that is within the norm of the world Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree since it does occur sometimes" that they are held responsible.
סוף חמה לבא כו' - .... נראה דחייב למ"ד אשו משום חציו דלענין מיתה נמי מחייבין באשו משום חציו....ואש נמי שלא המיתה אלא ברוח מצויה פטור ממיתה אלא דלענין ממון חייב נזק שלם.
If it will get hot...It seems that acording to the opinion that 'Fire' is because it is his arrow..... indeed, the fire that killed someone with a common wind, yet the one who started the fire is not liable for murder. Only regarding financial damages is he responsible for the full damages.
אמר רבינא קא סברי רבנן על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו מכלל דר' יוסי סבר על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו אי על הניזק אפי' משדה וירקא נמי
Ravina said that the explanation is as follows: The Rabbis hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself. The one who has the potential to cause damage must act to prevent the damage from occurring. This is the halakha even if his initial placement was done in accordance with halakha, as in the case where one bought part of a field. The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yosei, who disagrees with the ruling of the Rabbis, holds that that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself; i.e., to avoid being damaged? But if the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one whose property was damaged, even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables the owner should also not have to distance himself. Why does Rabbi Yosei distinguish between that situation and the case of bees and mustard?
מתני׳ מרחיקין את הסולם מן השובך ארבע אמות כדי שלא תקפוץ הנמייה ואת הכותל מן המזחילה ד' אמות כדי שיהא זוקף את הסולם:
MISHNA: One must distance his ladder four cubits from a neighbor’s dovecote so that a mongoose will not be able to jump from the ladder to the dovecote and devour the birds. And one must distance his wall four cubits from a roof gutter, so that the neighbor can lean a ladder in the empty space to clean and repair the gutter.
אפילו תימא ר' יוסי הא אמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי רב כהנא הוה אמר מודי רבי יוסי בגירי דידיה ה"נ זמנין דבהדי דמנח ליה יתבא בחור וקפצה והא גרמא הוא א"ר טובי בר מתנה זאת אומרת גרמא בניזקין אסור
The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as didn’t Rav Ashi say: When we were studying in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he would say to us that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to his arrows, i.e., he concedes that one must distance himself if his actions will cause damage to his neighbor. Here too, sometimes when he places the ladder, the mongoose might be sitting in a hole and will immediately jump up and climb the ladder to the dovecote. The Gemara challenges: But that is indirect damage, as he is not the immediate cause. Rav Tovi bar Mattana said: That is to say that it is prohibited to cause even indirect damage.