בָּאגְנֵי דְּאַרְעָא מִקְרוּ.

are simply called pools of the land, and are not considered significant enough to divide the field.

מתני׳ הַמַּדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, עַד כַּמָּה תַּעֲבוֹר הַדְּלֵיקָה? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא בְּאֶמְצַע בֵּית כּוֹר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה״ – הַכֹּל לְפִי הַדְּלֵיקָה.

In a case of one who kindles a fire on his own premises, up to what distance may the fire travel within his property for him to still bear liability for damage caused? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: The court views his location where he kindled the fire as if it were in the center of a beit kor. Therefore, if the fire spreads and causes damage farther away than half a beit kor, the one who kindled the fire is exempt, since he could not anticipate that the fire would spread so far. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable up to a distance of sixteen cubits, like the width of a public thoroughfare. Rabbi Akiva says: One is liable up to a distance of fifty cubits. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: “The one who kindled the fire shall pay [shallem yeshallem] compensation” (Exodus 22:5), to teach that everything is according to the fire.

גמ׳ וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שִׁיעוּרָא בִּדְלֵיקָה?

Rabbi Shimon appears to hold that there is no maximum distance which would exempt one from liability for the spreading of a fire. The Gemara asks: But isn’t Rabbi Shimon of the opinion that there is a maximum limit concerning liability for a fire, beyond which one is exempt?

וְהָתְנַן: לֹא יַעֲמִיד אָדָם תַּנּוּר בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ עַל גַּבּוֹ גּוֹבַהּ דְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, הָיָה מַעֲמִידוֹ בַּעֲלִיָּיה – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא תַּחְתָּיו מַעֲזִיבָה שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, וּבַכִּירָה – טֶפַח, וְאִם הִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק;

But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bava Batra 20b): A person may not stand an oven inside the house unless there is a height of four cubits to the ceiling above it, out of concern that the ceiling might catch fire. Similarly, if he stood it in the attic, he should not do so unless there is plaster [ma’aziva] underneath it, above the ceiling of the floor below, three handbreadths in thickness, out of concern that the floor might catch fire. And in the case of a stove, which is smaller and does not reach temperatures as high as those of an oven, a thickness of one handbreadth is sufficient. And even though he may place his oven or stove in this manner, if the fire from the oven or stove causes damage, he must pay for what it damaged.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ שִׁיעוּרִין הַלָּלוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הִזִּיק – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם!

The mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon says: These measurements were stated only to teach that if the fire from the oven or stove causes damage after the owner takes these precautions, he is exempt from paying compensation. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does have a maximum distance beyond which one is not liable for fire.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַכֹּל לְפִי גּוֹבַהּ הַדְּלֵיקָה.

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is how Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the mishna should be understood: Everything is according to the height of the fire he initially kindled. If it was a small fire he is not liable to pay for damage caused by it if it traveled far, whereas if he started a large fire, he is liable even if it traveled a great distance.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And so Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

מתני׳ הַמַּדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ וְהָיוּ בּוֹ כֵּלִים וְדָלְקוּ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא גָּדִישׁ שֶׁל חִטִּין אוֹ שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין.

With regard to one who kindles a stack of wheat or barley and there were vessels concealed inside the stack and they caught fire and burned together with the stack, Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who kindled the fire also pays compensation for what was inside the stack, but the Rabbis say: He pays compensation only for the stack of wheat or barley, as the case may be, and he is not responsible for that which was concealed within it.

הָיָה גְּדִי כָּפוּת לוֹ וְעֶבֶד סָמוּךְ לוֹ וְנִשְׂרַף עִמּוֹ – חַיָּיב, עֶבֶד כָּפוּת לוֹ וּגְדִי סָמוּךְ לוֹ וְנִשְׂרַף עִמּוֹ – פָּטוּר.

If there was a goat tied to the stack of grain, and there was a Canaanite slave nearby who was not tied to it, and both the goat and the slave were burned together with the stack and killed, the one who kindled the fire is liable to pay compensation for both. Conversely, if the slave was tied to the stack and there was a goat nearby that was not tied to it, and they were both burned together with it, the one who kindled the fire is exempt from payment for damage because he is liable to receive capital punishment for murder, and he is punished only for the greater transgression.

וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַבִּירָה, שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ, שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַנִּיחַ בַּבָּתִּים.

And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and exempt one from payment for vessels concealed inside the stack in the field, concede to Rabbi Yehuda that if one sets fire to a building, he pays compensation for everything that was burned inside it, since it is the normal way of people to place items in houses.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת – בְּמַדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְאָכְלָה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב אַנִּזְקֵי טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ, וְרַבָּנַן פָּטְרִי. אֲבָל בְּמַדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ.

Rav Kahana says: This dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda concerning vessels concealed in a stack is referring specifically to a case where one kindled a fire on his own premises and the fire spread and consumed the stack on another’s property. In that case, Rabbi Yehuda deems the one who kindled the fire liable for damage to concealed articles damaged by a fire, but the Rabbis exempt him. But in a case of one who kindles a fire on another’s premises, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that is contained within it.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַבִּירָה שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם כָּל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ, שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַנִּיחַ בַּבָּתִּים – לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידָהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּמַדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְאָכְלָה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲבָל מַדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל מַה שֶּׁהָיָה בְּתוֹכוֹ!

Rava said to him: If so, that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of one who kindles the fire on the premises of another, then rather than teaching the latter clause that states: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda that if one sets fire to a building he pays compensation for everything that was burned inside it, since it is the normal way of people to place items in houses, let the tanna instead distinguish and teach the concession of the Rabbis in the context of the same case of one setting fire to a stack: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where he kindled the fire on his own premises and it spread and consumed a stack on the premises of another. But if he kindled the fire on property belonging to another, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that was contained within it. Since the mishna is not worded in this manner, it seems that this is not the opinion of the Rabbis.

אֶלָּא אֲמַר רָבָא: בְּתַרְתֵּי פְּלִיגִי, פְּלִיגִי בְּמַדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְאָכְלָה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב אַטָּמוּן בָּאֵשׁ, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא מִחַיַּיב; וּפְלִיגִי נַמִי בְּמַדְלִיק בְּשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ וַאֲפִילּוּ אַרְנָקֵי, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כֵּלִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַטְמִין בַּגָּדִישׁ, כְּגוֹן מוֹרִיגִין וּכְלֵי בָקָר – הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם, כֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהַטְמִין בַּגָּדִישׁ – לֹא מְשַׁלֵּם.

Rather, Rava said that the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to two issues: They disagree with regard to the case of one who kindles a fire on his own premises and it then spreads and consumes a stack on property belonging to another, as Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable even for a concealed article damaged by a fire, but the Rabbis hold that he is not liable. And they disagree also in the case of one who kindles a fire on premises belonging to another, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that he must pay compensation for everything within it, even a purse of money if it was concealed within the stack, but the Rabbis hold that it is only for vessels that are typically concealed inside a stack, such as threshing tools or yokes for cattle, that he must pay compensation, but for vessels or other items that are not typically concealed inside a stack he is not liable to pay compensation.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּדְלִיק אֶת הַגָּדִישׁ וְהָיוּ בּוֹ כֵּלִים וְדָלְקוּ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל מַה שֶּׁהָיָה בְּתוֹכוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא גָּדִישׁ שֶׁל חִטִּין אוֹ גָּדִישׁ שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין, וְרוֹאִין מְקוֹם כֵּלִים כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מָלֵא תְּבוּאָה.

The Sages taught: With regard to one who kindles a stack and there were vessels inside it that were burned, Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who kindled the fire pays compensation for everything that was inside it, but the Rabbis say: He pays compensation only for the value of a stack of wheat or a stack of barley, and he does not pay compensation for the vessels. And the court views the place where the vessels were as if it were filled with grain, and calculates the amount of compensation accordingly.