Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/418

Paragraph 1- Fire is a primary category of damage, as the verse states, “when fire goes out and discovers thorns.” It refers to a case where one’s possessions go far and damage via the wind that carries it. Thus, anything comparable to fire, in that it is one’s possession and it goes out and damages, is a subcategory of fire-damage, and would have the rule of fire-damage that one is exempt for damage to hidden-objects.

Paragraph 2- The Torah states, “when a fire goes out,” which means even on its own, where one lit a fire in his own property and it went and lit his friend’s property. Even if he only burnt his wood or stones or he lit his candle, he would be liable to pay for everything unless he distanced the appropriate amount. If he distanced the appropriate amount and the fire still went out and damaged, however, he would be exempt. This is all in a case where one lit in his own property. If he lit in another’s property, however, even if the fire traveled many mil, he would be liable.

Paragraph 3- What is the appropriate amount of distancing? It all depends on the height of the fire. If one did not distance appropriately, and the fire and traveled and damaged, he would be required to pay for the full damage.

Paragraph 4- If one distanced appropriately, but the fire still damaged, he is exempt, because that is a heavenly blow. Similarly, if the fire passed a river or pool that has water and is eight amos wide, he is exempt. There are those who say that if the river is eight amos wide, even if there is no water, and in the case of a channel with any amount of water, he would be exempt. If the fire passed a fence, we would estimate the height of the fence and the height of the fire and the wood and thorns that are located there. If it should not have passed, he would be exempt. If it should have passed, he would be liable.

Paragraph 5- When is this true? In a flame that goes straight up. If it was a large blaze that goes up and bends due to the height of the blaze, and there was wood there, however, no estimation is made. Rather, he would be liable even if it spread 1,000 amos.

Paragraph 6- If a fire broke out in one’s courtyard and the fence fell down for reasons other than the fire, and the fire passed through to another courtyard, and he was able to rebuild the fence that fell but did not do so, he would be liable. What is this comparable to? To one’s ox that goes out and damages, in that he should have guarded it but did not do so.

Paragraph 7- If one sent a flame with a deaf-mute, a fool or a minor, he would be exempt under human law and liable under heavenly law. When is this true? Where he gave them a coal and it lit because it is typical for a coal to extinguish before it lights. If he gave them a flame, however, he would be liable because his actions caused the damaged.

Paragraph 8- If one sends a fire with a sane person, such sane person that lit would be liable to pay, and the sender would be exempt. Similarly, if he left the fire with a watchman to watch, the watchman would be liable.

Paragraph 9- If one person brought the fire and one subsequently brought the wood, the one that brought the wood would be liable. If one brought the wood and one subsequently brought the fire, the one that brought the fire would be liable. If another person came and fanned, he would be liable. If an unusual wind fanned it, they would all be exempt. If the wind was typical, the last person would be liable. Similarly, if an atypical wind was blowing when the last one came, the last one would be liable. If he and the wind fanned the flames, he would be liable. There are those who say that one who fans would not be liable unless his fanning alone would have been enough, but the wind alone would not have. If neither would have been enough on their own, however, or if each one would have been enough on their own, he would be exempt. There are those who say that the same is true where two fanned and neither would have been enough alone, and they both would be exempt.

Paragraph 10- If one person created the fire, and another came along and added to it, and the first person did enough to allow it to reach its ultimate destination, he would be liable. If not, he would be exempt and the second person would be liable.

Paragraph 11- If one bends another’s standing grain in front of a fire so that the fire would reach it, and he bent it to a place where the fire could reach with a typical wind, he would be liable to pay. If the fire cannot reach there in a typical wind, he would be exempt under human law and liable under heavenly law. If the atypical wind was already blowing and he then bent the grain, he would be liable in all cases.

Paragraph 12- If a camel was laden with flax, passed through the public domain and brought its flax into a store, and the flax caught fire from the storekeeper’s candle and lit up the entire building, the owner of the camel is liable, because he put too much of a load on the camel, whether or not the animal stopped. If the storekeeper place his candle outside, he would even liable to pay for the value of the flax to the camel-owner, even if it was Chanukah-candles, because he should have sat and guarded it from damaging. There are those who say that if the fire was in one location and spread to another location, the owner would be liable for the full damage on the location of the fire and only half-damage on the rest. If the camel was moving around the fire to whole building, the owner would be liable for the full damage of the entire building. See above Siman 392 for these distinctions.

Paragraph 13- One is exempt from paying for damage by fire to hidden items, in that if one lit another’s haystack and there were items hidden in there, he would be exempt, even if there were threshing tools or yokes which people typically hide in a haystack. We view the area where the vessels were hidden as if they were filled with wheat or barley, depending on what the stack was, and that’s what the tortfeasor pays. When is this true? Where one lit in his own possession and the fire went and lit another’s possession, and his arrow had completed, such as where the fence between them fell down for reasons other than the fire and he could have rebuilt it but did not do so. If he lit in another’s property, however, or even if he lit in his own but his arrow did not complete, such as where the fence fell because of the fire, he would be liable for items that are typically hidden in a stack, such as threshing tools and yokes, as was discussed in Siman 90. In the case of a house, he would be liable for everything that a person typically leaves in the house. He would liable for the owner’s vessels and items. The owner would swear while grasping a holy item on whatever he claims was in the house, and he would collect, so long as he makes a claim on something he is profiled to own or that people would typically deposit with him. See above Siman 90.

Paragraph 14- If one lends an area to another to stack, and he stacked and hid vessels, and the owner of the area lit the stack, meaning he created a fire which went out and burnt, and burnt the stack and the vessels inside, he would only pay for the value of the stack.

Paragraph 15- If one loaned another an area to stack wheat, and he stacked barley, or he loaned for him to stack barley, and he stacked wheat, or if the stacked wheat and covered it with barley, or stacked barley and covered it with wheat, the owner would only pay for the value of barley.

Paragraph 16- If one saw a fire getting close to another’s standing grain and he covered the grain, although he has caused a loss because he made the grain hidden, he would be exempt under human law and liable under heavenly law.

Paragraph 17- If a fire was travelling and damaged and injured a person, the person that lit the fire is liable for the damage, lost work, medical bills, pain and embarrassment, as if he damaged the victim with his own hands. Although fire is one’s possession, it is still as if he damaged with his arrow, assuming the fire should have reached the place it damaged at the time he lit it. If the fire should not have reached there, however, such as where there was a fence between them that fell for reasons other than the fire, even if it was possible for him to build the fence, his arrow has completed, and the fire has the status of his possession that damages a person and he would only be liable for damage, but he is exempt from the four other categories.

Paragraph 18- If one placed a coal on another’s heart and it burnt him, he would be exempt, even if the victim warned him because he didn’t think the victim would not remove the coal given that it is not typical practice for one to allow himself to burn in order to have the other killed. If he placed the coal on another’s garment and it burnt, however, he would be liable, because the victim did not care to remove it given that the tortfeasor would be required to pay him. One’s slave has the status of his body and one’s ox has the status of his garment. There are those who say that a minor slave has the status of an ox. There are those who say that this is only where an ox was tied. If the ox was not tied, however, he would be exempt.