Bava Kamma 057

1:
Our present mishnah consists of three clauses. The first clause is concerned with liability for damage caused incidentally: a workman is using a hammer and a spark is generated. That spark ignites a conflagration. The person using the hammer is liable.

2:
One might question why the person wielding the hammer should be held liable, since he had no intention of causing damage. However, we must view this ruling through a wider lens, as it were. In his magnum opus on halakhah, Mishneh Torah [Ḥovel 6:10], Rambam rules as follows:

Therefore, even though the damage caused by the spark from the hammer in our present mishnah was unintentional and indirect the hammerer is liable for the damage caused.

3:
We now turn our attention to the second clause of our mishnah. David is leading his camel through the street of the village, taking his flax to market. The street is very narrow and the camel is very heavily loaded. As the camel passes by Sara's shop a bundle of flax protrudes through the entrance to the shop. Unfortunately, Sara has a candle alight just inside the doorway. The flame of the candle ignites the bundle of flax and in the ensuing conflagration the whole building goes up in flames. Our mishnah rules that David is liable for compensation: it is David's negligence and carelessness that are the true cause of the fire. David should have been more careful when loading up his camel, to make sure that the load was of proportions that could negotiate the narrow street safely. The situation is very similar to one we have already described [BK011]:

4:
What we have written concerning this clause is based on the assumption that Sara did nothing untoward. She had a candle burning inside her shop and this is her privilege. It was the unwieldy load on David's camel that caused the damage. However, our mishnah adds a rider: if Sara had left her burning candle outside her shop for some reason or other then her candle is the contributing cause of the conflagration, not David's negligence.

5:
Since a candle burning outside a building has been mentioned, Rabbi Yehudah, in the last clause of our mishnah, is of the opinion that if Sara's candle is a Ḥhanukah candle then she should not be held liable because she was fulfilling a mitzvah, performing a religious ritual.

6:
As is well known, during the festival of Ḥanukah we light candles in honour of the victory of the Hasmonean forces led by Judah the Macabee over the Syrian forces of Antiochus. A minimum of two candles must be lit on each of the eight nights of the festival, but custom has beautified the ritual by adding one more light on each night of the festival.

7:
The purpose of this mitzvah is to "publicize the miracle". Therefore, the best way to perform it is to set up the lights outside the building where they will be seen by passers-by. (For more information concerning the festival of Ḥanukah please use this link) The Gemara [Shabbat 21b] rules in a barayta:

Therefore, in our present mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah holds that if Sara's candle, outside her shop, was a Ḥanukah light she should not be held responsible for any damage it causes. However, the rest of the sages disagree! Even when performing a religious ritual one must make sure that it will not cause any foreseeable damage to innocent parties!

8:
This concludes our study of Chapter Six of Tractate Bava Kamma. It also concludes the very long exposition of the rules concerning the four major causes of damage detailed in the Torah: animals, pits, grazing and arson. But the human animal is quite capable of causing other kinds of damage too! So, God willing, in our next shiur, we shall begin our study of Chapter Seven which is concerned with theft and robbery.

This (Monday) evening begins the fast of Tish'a b'Av. You may like to read an article that I wrote about this day a few years ago. You can access the article here.