Bava Kamma

You could hardly suggest 'a third of one's possessions,' for if so when one chanced to have three commandments [to perform at one and the same time] would one have to give up the whole of one's possessions? — R. Zera therefore said: For [performing a commandment in] an exemplary manner one should go up to a third of [the ordinary expense involved in] the observance thereof. R. Ashi queried: Is it a third from within [the ordinary expense]  or is it a third from the aggregate amount?  This stands undecided. In the West  they said in the name of R. Zera: Up to a third, a man must perform it out of his own,  but from a third onwards he should perform it in accordance with the special portion the Holy One, blessed be He, has bestowed upon him. MISHNAH. WHENEVER I AM UNDER AN OBLIGATION OF CONTROLLING [ANYTHING IN MY POSSESSION], I AM CONSIDERED TO HAVE PERPETRATED ANY DAMAGE THAT MAY RESULT.  WHEN I AM TO BLAME FOR A PART OF THE DAMAGE I AM LIABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE AS IF I HAD PERPETRATED THE WHOLE OF THE DAMAGE. THE [DAMAGED] PROPERTY MUST BE OF A KIND TO WHICH THE LAW OF SACRILEGE  HAS NO APPLICATION. THE [DAMAGED] PROPERTY SHOULD BELONG TO PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER [THE JURISDICTION OF] THE LAW.  THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE OWNED. THE PLACE [OF THE DAMAGE] IS IMMATERIAL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PREMISES OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT OR PREMISES OWNED [JOINTLY] BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT. WHENEVER DAMAGE HAS OCCURRED, THE OFFENDER IS LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY WITH THE BEST OF HIS ESTATE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: 'WHENEVER I AM UNDER AN OBLIGATION OF CONTROLLING [ANYTHING IN MY POSSESSION], I AM CONSIDERED TO HAVE PERPETRATED ANY DAMAGE [THAT MAY RESULT]. How is that? When an ox or pit which was left with a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, does damage, the owner is liable to indemnify. This, however, is not so with a fire.' With what kind of case are we here dealing? If you say that the ox was chained and the pit covered, which corresponds in the case of fire to a hot coal, what difference is there between the one and the other? If on the other hand the ox was loose and the pit uncovered which corresponds in the case of fire to a flame, the statement 'This, however, is not so with a fire,' would here indicate exemption, but surely Resh Lakish said in the name of Hezekiah: They  have not laid down the law of exemption unless there was handed over to him  a coal which he has blown up, but in the case of a flame there will be full liability, the reason being that the danger is clear!  — Still, the ox may have been chained and the pit covered and the fire likewise in a coal, yet your contention, 'Why should we make a difference between the one and the other?' could be answered thus: An ox is in the habit of loosening itself; so also a pit is in the nature of getting uncovered; but a hot coal, the longer you leave it alone, the more it will get cooler and cooler. According to R. Johanan, however, who said  that even when there has been handed over to him  a flame the law of exemption applies, the ox here would likewise be loose and the pit uncovered; but why should we make a difference between the one and the other? — There, in the case of the fire, it is the handling of the deaf-mute that causes the damage, whereas here, in the case of the ox and the pit, it is not the handling of the deaf-mute that causes the damage. Our Rabbis taught: There is an excess in [the liability for] Ox over [that for] Pit, and there is [on the other hand] an excess in [the liability for] Pit over [that for] Ox. The excess in [the liability for] Ox over [that for] Pit is that Ox involves payment of kofer  and the liability of thirty [shekels] for the killing of a slave;  when judgment [for manslaughter] is entered [against Ox] it becomes vitiated for any use,  and it is in its habit to move about and do damage, whereas all this is not so in the case of Pit. The excess in [the liability for] Pit over [that for] Ox is that Pit is from its very inception a source of injury and is Mu'ad ab initio which is not so in the case of Ox.