Bava Kamma 60a — the Talmud in English

Chips,

thin pieces of wood, and

a lamp,

a candle.

That one—certainly his action,

belonging to the sender, who gave him all these things—

caused

the fire, and he is the culpable one.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he sent it by means of a competent person, the competent person is liable

and so on: another came and fanned it, the one who fanned it is liable.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The one who teaches

in the Mishna

“fanned it”

is not in error;

this is not a textual error,

and

also

the one who teaches

in the Mishna

“caused it to flare up,”

also

is not in error.

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explains:

The one who teaches

“fanned it”

is not in error,

for we find this expression in relation to fire,

as it is written,

“in the flame of fire.”

And the one who teaches

“caused it to flare up”

is not in error,

for it is an expression of speech,

as it is written,

“Who creates the utterance of the lips.”

And when a person speaks and moves, wind comes out from his lips. The intention of the Mishna is to say that with the wind of his mouth he fanned the fire.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the wind caused it to flare up, all are exempt.

The Sages taught: If he fanned it

he

and

also

the wind fanned it,

for both of them together fanned the fire:

If there is enough in his fanning to cause it to flare up,

for his fanning alone was sufficient to cause the fire to flare up,

he is liable,

the one who fanned it.

And if not,

for the fire would not have flared up from his fanning alone, but only in combination with the fanning of the wind,

he is exempt.

And we raised a difficulty:

Why

is he exempt?

Let him be like one who winnows and the wind assists him,

like one who winnows grain in the air after threshing, in order to separate the chaff from it, for even though the wind assists him in separating the chaff, nevertheless he is considered to have performed the labor of winnowing alone, and he is liable for it on Shabbat on account of the labor of “winnowing.” And why should we not say here too that despite the wind assisting him in fanning the fire, he is nevertheless considered as though he alone fanned the fire, and we should hold him liable for it!?

Abaye said: Here, with what are we dealing?

It is

for example, he fanned

he

from one side

of the fire,

and the wind caused it to flare up from the other side

of the fire, in which case his fanning accomplished nothing.

Rava said:

The beraita is speaking

of a case where he fanned with an ordinary wind,

when he began fanning, a strong wind had not yet blown, but only an ordinary wind, and the fire did not flare up from that wind,

and the wind caused it to flare up with an extraordinary wind.

Suddenly an extraordinary wind came and caused the fire to flare up [in combination with his earlier fanning], and he is not to be held liable for this, because he should not have anticipated that an extraordinary wind would suddenly come and cause the fire to flare up.

This is unlike winnowing on Shabbat, where an ordinary wind alone suffices to assist him in winnowing, and he intended that the wind assist him in the labor; therefore he is liable.

Rabbi Zeira said:

The beraita is speaking

of a case where he merely blew gently.

He did not blow forcefully upon the fire, but merely breathed upon it as a person warms his hands with his breath; this is not considered fanning at all, and the wind alone caused the fire to flare up, and therefore he is exempt.

Rav Ashi said: When we say

“one who winnows and the wind assists him,”

that the action is attributed to the person even if it was not performed solely with the wind’s assistance,

this applies to Shabbat, for

“intentional labor”

the Torah prohibited.

It is sufficient that the person’s intention was fulfilled in order to hold him liable for the labor of Shabbat, and indeed it was his intention that the wind assist him in winnowing.

But here,

since through his fanning alone the fire would not have flared up, this is

mere indirect causation

on the part of the one who fanned it.

And indirect causation with regard to damages renders one exempt.

Mishna:

One who sends out a fire, and it consumes

and the fire burns

wood, or stones, or earth

belonging to another, scorching the plowed earth and damaging the plowing,

is liable, as it is stated,

“When a fire goes out and finds thorns, and the stack or the standing grain or the field is consumed, the one who ignited the burning shall surely pay.”

And “field” means the substance of the field itself, namely, the stones and the earth.

Gemara:

Rava said: Why do I need the Merciful One to have written

“thorns,”

“stack,”

“standing grain,”

and

“field”?

They are necessary: For if the Merciful One had written

“thorns”

alone,

I would have said that it is thorns for which the Merciful One held him liable, because fire is common near them.

People are not careful not to ignite fire near thorns, for they are ready to burn,

and negligence is common.

And it is possible that he was negligent in burning the thorns; therefore the Torah held him liable for this.

But a stack, near which fire is not common,

people are careful that the fire should not burn the stack,

and negligence is not common,

and presumably this was an accident on the part of the one who ignited the fire,

I would say not

that the Torah held him liable for burning a stack.

Therefore the Torah also wrote “stack.”

And if the Merciful One had written

“stack”

alone,

I would have said

that only for burning

a stack did the Merciful One hold him liable, because

it is a great loss.

But thorns, whose loss is small,

is

I would say not

that the Torah held him liable for them.

Therefore the Torah also wrote “thorns.”

“Standing grain,”

why do I need it?

It comes to tell you:

Just as

“standing grain”

is

exposed,

for it is visible to everyone,

so too everything

for which one is liable in fire damages is specifically something that is

exposed,

but if the fire burned something that was hidden and covered, one is not liable for it.

And we raised a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Judah, who holds one liable for damages involving

hidden

property in a fire,

for even if it was hidden one is liable for it,

“standing grain”

why do I need it?

And we answer:

To include all creatures of stature,

for one is liable for fire even for animals and trees [which are not included among those listed in the verse].

And we raised a difficulty:

And the Rabbis,

who expound “standing grain” to exempt hidden property, this exposition of

“to include all creatures of stature”—from where do they derive it?

And we answer:

They derive it from

“or the standing grain.”

From the superfluous “or,” they expound the inclusion of all creatures of stature.

And we raised a difficulty:

And Rabbi Judah,

what does he expound from “or”?

And we answer:

“Or”

is needed for division.

For had “or” not been written, we would have said that he is not liable until he burns thorns, a stack, and standing grain together; therefore “or” is written to divide among them, that he is liable for any one of them alone.

And we raise it:

And the Rabbis

who expound “or” to include all creatures of stature,

“to divide,”

from where do they derive it?

And we answer:

They derive it

from the second “or” of

“or the field.”

And we raise it:

And Rabbi Judah—

what does he expound from the second “or”?

And we answer: The second “or” does not come for an exposition. Rather,

since the Torah wrote

“or the standing crop,”

it wrote

also

“or the field.”

And Rava continues:

“Field”

why do I need it?

To include

including

“it scorched its furrow and scorched its stones,”

that one is also liable for burning the plowed ground and the stones.

And we raise it:

And let the Torah write only

“field”

alone,

and it would not need these,

and it would not need to write all the rest, since “field” includes everything: thorns, a stack, and standing crop?

And we answer:

It is necessary: for if the Torah had written

only

“field,”

I would have said: That which is in the field, yes,

that one is liable only for burning the produce that is in the field, but

something else,

for burning the ground itself,

not

would one be liable.

It teaches us

the verse that explicitly wrote “standing crop,” so that “field” remains superfluous, to learn from it about burning plowed ground.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Calamity comes into the world only when the wicked are in the world.

And it begins only with the righteous first.

As it is stated,

“For when fire goes forth and finds thorns.”

And we expound:

When does fire go forth,

when calamity comes into the world?

When thorns are found by it,

when the wicked are in the world.

And it begins only with the righteous first, as it is stated,

“And a stack is consumed.”

“And it consumes a stack”

in the present tense

was not stated, but rather

“And a stack is consumed,”

in the past tense. And it implies

that a stack was already consumed

before the burning of the thorns, for the calamity began with the righteous, who are likened to a stack.

Rav Yosef taught: What is the meaning of that which is written

regarding the plague of the firstborn,

“And you shall not go out, each man from the opening of his house, until morning”?

The verse teaches that

once permission has been given to the destroyer, it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked,

and therefore Israel were commanded not to go out from the opening of their houses until morning, lest the destroyer strike them as well.

And furthermore, it begins with the righteous first, as it is stated

(Ezekiel 21:8)

“And I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked,”

implying the righteous before the wicked.

Rav Yosef wept: Is all this also for those who are deemed nothing!

That is, are the righteous considered nothing, such that to this extent they even precede the calamity before the wicked?

Abaye said to him: It is a benefit for them.

It is good for them that they die first, so that they will not see the evil that is destined to come,

as it is written

(Isaiah 57:1)

“For because of the evil the righteous is gathered.”