1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a fire crosses a stone-wall, a street or a river the one who lit it is Patur from paying.

(b)To render him Patur the wall must be at least four Amos tall.

(c)We learn that the street must be at least sixteen Amos wide from the wagons in the desert.

(d)The Beraisa, which holds the Mazik liable if his fire crossed a wall that is four Amos tall is reckoning from the bottom upwards (one Amah two Amos or three, is Chayav, and so is up to four); whereas our Mishnah is reckoning from the top downwards (six Amos is Patur, so is five and so is four).

(e)The basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Ad' is inclusive (the Tana of our Mishnah), or not (the Tana of the Beraisa).

2)

(a)In a case where a wall of four Amos separates between the fire and the field of corn, our Mishnah exempts the owner of the fire even if the field with the fire is full of thorns ...

(b)... though one would then need to measure the four Amos from the top of the thorns.

(c)Rav restricts our Mishnah to a fire that is 'Kolachas', but in the case of one that is Nichfefes, even a wall of a hundred Amos will not suffice. If 'Kolachas' is a regular fire, then, if the hundred Amos mentioned by Rav is in contrast to ...

1. ... the four Amah high wall in our Mishnah 'Nichfefes' is a fire which is held low by the wind and which leaps into the air whenever the wind abates.

2. ... the sixteen Amah road then it is a low fire that creeps along the ground.

(d)According to Shmuel our Mishnah is confined to 'Nichfefes', but as far as a 'Kolachas' is concerned, any wall will suffice to exempt the owner.

3)

(a)In the previous Machlokes, we rule like Rav because he has the support of a Beraisa.

(b)Instead of the hundred Amos of Rav the Tana of the Beraisa mentions a hundred Mil (a Mil is the equivalent of one kilometer).

(c)For a river or a Shlulis the Tana requires a width of eight Amos.

4)

(a)According to Rav, the river in our Mishnah is literal. According to Shmuel it is a small canal from which one draws water to water the fields.

(b)The ramifications of their Machlokes are where the 'river'-bed contains no water, in which case, according to Rav it will nevertheless exempt the owner of the fire from paying, whereas according to Shmuel if the canal contains no water, he will be Chayav.

(c)When the Mishnah in Pe'ah says 've'Eilu Mafsikin l'Pe'ah', it means that if any of the following serve to partition a field, then the field is counted as two fields regarding Pe'ah.

(d)Besides a Nachal and a Shlulis, the two other things that divide a field into two, are a Derech ha'Yachid and a Derech ha'Rabim.

5)

(a)A Nachal is a deep valley between two fields.

(b)The definition of a 'Derech ha'Yachid' is a private path that is four Amos wide.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel translates 'Shlulis' as a place where the rain-water collects. According to Rav Bibi Amar Rebbi Yochanan it is a stream of water that sends water to its tributaries, which in turn, is used to water the fields.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel because he considers places where rain-water collect as no more than 'basins of the land', which cannot be considered as separate entities that divide a land into two.

6)

(a)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah exempts someone who lights a fire in his own domain, as long as it is surrounded by half a Beis Kor (almost eight hundred and seventy Amos in all directions. He is talking specifically about a fire that is 'Kolachas'; when it comes to a 'Kofefes', he renders him Chayav even if the fire traversed a hundred Mil.

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer, if the fire traversed sixteen Amos (see Tosfos Yom Tov), like the width of a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Patur Rebbi Akiva requires the fire to travel fifty Amos, in order to exempt the person who lit it.

(c)Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "Shalem Yeshalem ha'Mav'ir Es ha'Be'eirah" that everything depends on the size of the fire (which will be explained shortly).

7)

(a)The Mishnah in Bava Basra discusses the safety measures of an oven. The minimum space that one should leave between the top of an oven and the ceiling is four Amos.

(b)If the oven is situated in an upstairs room, one must place between the base of the oven and the ground, a layer of cement ...

1. ... of three Tefachim for a Tanur (a small rhombus-shaped oven [and therefore exceptionally hot]).

2. ... of one Tefach for a Kirah (a large rectangular-shaped one [which is not as hot]).

8)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Bava Basra, even after fulfilling the specified requirements, the owner is still held responsible, should his oven cause damage. Rebbi Shimon maintains that the purpose of the specifications is to exempt those who adhere to them from liability.

(b)Rebbi Shimon says in our Mishnah 'ha'Kol Lefi ha'Deleikah', which we initially interpret to mean that we assess the payment according to the damage (see Tosfos DH 've'Leis leih'), and not according to the size of the fire.

(c)We reconcile that statement with his opinion in the Mishnah in Bava Basra, where he does give a specific Shi'ur when it comes to fire by interpreting 'ha'Kol Lefi ha'Deleikah' to mean that the Mazik's obligation to pay is assessed by the size of the fire.

(d)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Shimon. Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel corroborates Rav Yehudah's ruling.

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, if someone sets fire to a haystack and the vessels that are inside it get burned too, he is Chayav to pay for those vessels as well as for the haystack. The Rabanan say that he pays for the entire haystack (including the space that contained the vessels, as if it was all wheat or barley (depending on the haystack), but not for the vessels.

(b)We have already discussed the case in our Mishnah where there is a kid-goat tied to the haystack and an Eved standing next to it. The reason that the Mazik is Chayav to pay for the kid-goat (and is not Patur because of 'Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih') is because the Eved, who is untied, should have run away, absolving the owner of the fire from liability.

(c)If the goat was ...

1. ... standing beside the Eved untied he would still be liable for its death (though there are some who maintain that the goat too, should have run away instinctively, and that he would therefore be Patur).

2. ... untied, and it was the Eved who was tied to the haystack he would be Patur from paying for the goat, because of the principle 'Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih'.

3. ... in this latter case, but assuming that the man who set fire to the Eved received no warning (in which case he cannot be sentenced to death) he would still be Patur, because we rule like Chizkiyah, who holds 'Chayavei Misos Shogegin, Peturin'.

(d)The Chachamim concede that if someone sets fire to a house, he must pay for the contents of the house (even though they are Tamun) as well as for the house because (as opposed to a haystack, where one does expect vessels to be hidden inside it) one expects to find a variety of vessels inside a house (this will be discussed further shortly).

10)

(a)Rav Kahana restricts the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan to someone who lights a fire inside his own Reshus, and it spreads to that of his neighbor, burning his haystack. But if he were to actually set fire to his neighbor's haystack directly, he maintains the Rabanan will agree that he would be Chayav to pay for Tamun, too.

(b)Based on the Seifa of our Mishnah ('u'Modim Chachamim ... b'Madlik Es ha'Birah ... '), Rava objects to Rav Kahana's Chidush because why did the Tana then switch from a haystack to a house (regarding the Din of Tamun). He should rather have taught us that if the Mazik entered the Nizak's Reshus and set fire to the haystack, he is Chayav.

(c)Rava therefore concludes that our Mishnah actually presents two Machlokos; one when someone's fire spreads from his own domain to the Nizak's, in which case the Rabanan exempt Tamun altogether, whilst Rebbi Yehudah does not (as we explained earlier in the Perek); and the other, when he sets fire to the Nizak's haystack directly, in which case, even the Rabanan will agree that Tamun is Chayav in principle ...

(d)... though their ruling is confined to 'Morigin' (wooden boards with nails for threshing the wheat) and other accessories that are used with the oxen (which one would expect to find inside a hay-stack), but not to other objects (see Tosfos DH 'Ela Amar Rava').