Bava Kamma

shavings and a light, in which case it was certainly his act that was the immediate cause. BUT IF HE SENT [IT] THROUGH A NORMAL PERSON, THE NORMAL PERSON WOULD BE LIABLE etc. IF ANOTHER PERSON CAME ALONG AND [LIBBAH] FANNED IT etc. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He who reads in the [original] text libbah  is not mistaken; so also he who reads in the text nibbah  is similarly not mistaken.  He who has in the text libbah  is not mistaken, since we find [in Scripture] be-labbath esh  [in a flame of fire], and so also he who has in the text nibbah  is not mistaken, as we find, I create nib [the movement of] the lips. IF IT WAS THE WIND THAT FANNED IT, ALL WOULD BE EXEMPT. Our Rabbis taught: Where he fanned it [along with] the wind which also fanned it, if there was enough force in his blowing to set the fire ablaze he would be liable, but if not he would be exempt. But why should he not be liable, as in the case of one winnowing [on Sabbath, who is liable] though the wind was helping him?  — Abaye thereupon said: We are dealing here with a case where e.g., he blew it up in one direction and the wind blew it up in a different direction.  Raba said: [The case is one] where e.g., he started to blow it up when the wind was only normal, [and would have been unable to set it ablaze], but there [suddenly] came on an unusual wind which made it blaze up. R. Zera said: [The case is one] where e.g., he merely increased the heat by breathing heavily on it.  R. Ashi said: When we say that there is liability for winnowing where the wind is helping, this applies to Sabbath where the Torah prohibited any work with a definite object,  whereas here [regarding damage] such an act could be considered merely as a secondary cause, and a mere secondary cause in the case of damage carries no liability. MISHNAH. IF HE ALLOWED FIRE TO ESCAPE AND IT BURNT WOOD, STONES OR [EVEN] EARTH, HE WOULD BE LIABLE, AS IT SAYS: IF FIRE BREAK OUT AND CATCH IN THORNS SO THAT THE STACKS OF CORN, OR THE STANDING CORN, OR THE FIELD BE CONSUMED THEREWITH: HE THAT KINDLED THE FIRE SHALL SURELY MAKE RESTITUTION. GEMARA. Raba said: Why was it necessary for the Divine Law to mention [both] 'thorns', 'stacks', 'standing corn' and 'field'? They are all necessary. For if the Divine Law had mentioned [only] 'thorns', I might have said that it was only in the case of thorns that the Divine Law imposed liability because fire is found often among them and carelessness in regard to them is frequent,  whereas in the case of 'stacks',  which are not often on fire and in respect of which negligence is not usual, I might have held that there is no liability. If [again] the Divine Law had mentioned [only] 'stacks', I might have said that it was only in the case of 'stacks' that the Divine Law imposed liability as the loss involved there was considerable, whereas in the case of 'thorns' where the loss involved was slight I might have thought there was no liability. But why was standing corn' necessary [to be mentioned]? [To teach that] just as 'standing corn' is in an open place, so is everything [which is] in an open space [subject to the same law].  But according to R. Judah who imposes  liability also for concealed articles damaged by fire, why had 'standing corn' [to be mentioned]? — To include anything possessing stature.  Whence then did the [other] Rabbis include anything possessing stature?  — They derived this from [the word] 'or' [placed before] 'the standing corn'.  And R. Judah? — He needed [the word] 'or' as a disjunctive.  Whence then did the [other] Rabbis derive the disjunction? — They derived it from [the word] 'or' [placed before] 'the field'. And R. Judah? — He held that because the Divine Law inserted 'or' [before] 'the standing corn' 'it also inserted 'or' [before] 'the field'. But why was 'field' needed [to be inserted]? — To include [the case of] Fire lapping his neighbour's ploughed field, and grazing his stones.  But why did the Divine Law not say only 'field',  in which case the others would not have been necessary? They were still necessary. For if the Divine Law had said 'field' only, I might have said that anything in the field would come under the same law, but not any other thing.  It was therefore indicated to us [that this is not so]. R. Samuel b. Nahmani stated  that R. Johanan said: Calamity comes upon the world only when there are wicked persons in the world, and it always begins with the righteous, as it says: If fire break out and catch in thorns.  When does fire break out? Only when thorns are found nearby. It always begins, however, with the righteous, as it says: so that the stack of corn was consumed:  It does not say 'and it would consume the stack of corn', but 'that the stack of corn was consumed' which means that the 'stack of corn' had already been consumed. R. Joseph learnt: What is the meaning of the verse, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning?  Once permission has been granted to the Destroyer, he does not distinguish between righteous and wicked. Moreover, he even begins with the righteous at the very outset, as it says:  And I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.  R. Joseph wept at this, saying: So much are they  compared to nothing!  But Abaye [consoling him,] said: This is for their advantage, as it is written, That the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. Rab Judah stated that Rab said: