i was at a litvak beit midrash which is different than a yeshiva. A yeshiva is built for a certain age group 18-24; while a beit midrash is for all ages -who ever wants to come and learn Torah. so I my area there is such a place and I was there thinking about Reish Lakish in Bava Kama page 22a and three questions occurred to me. One on reish lakish. one on how Rashi explains Reish Lakish, and another on how Rabbainu Chananel explains Reish Lakish, but later on the way to the seashore an answer for Rashi occurred to me. the basic idea is this Reish Lakish said that fire is obligated in full damage because of nizkei mamon damage due to one’s property. While R Yochanan holds fire is obligated because it is like one’s arrows. To the Rif and Rashi, the idea of R Yochanan is that fire is obligated as if one himself caused damage, not hi property a would be the case if hi ox caused damage. The gemara asks a question on Reish Lakish the from the mishna. A dog has a loaf with a coal in it and goes and causes a stack to get burnt up. the damage for the loaf i full damage and payment for the stack is half damage. the question from this mishna on reish lakish is that the coal does not belong to the owner of the dog. Reish Lakish answers the case of the mishna is where the dog threw the loaf with the coal inside it on the stack. Thus, the payment for the loaf is full damage, for the place the coal landed is half damage, and he is not obligated at all for the rest of the stack. Rashi explains this statement thus. If throwing the loaf and coal is obligated either because it i a change from the normal way and thus liable in half damage like horn of a tame animal or because of pebbles. If he would have put it down on the stack, the owner of the dog would be liable in full damage. the question I have here is that the question and answer to not fit together. The question was, why should the owner of the dog be liable at all? After all, it is not his coal. Answer: The owner of the dog is liable because of change or pebbles? How does that answer the question? The coal still does not belong to him. An answer to this might be that the gemara at this point is thinking that the owner of the coal would be liable if he did not guard his coal. But to find how the owner of the dog might also be liable Reish Lakish find this scenario i where the dog threw it. In that way it is possible to explain the mishna that the payment is half damage. Later the gemara in fact holds that the owner of the coal did in fact guard his coal. Now Rabbainu Chananel said the answer of Reish Lakish is that the dog threw the coal, so the coal has not left the domain of the owner of the coal. This is in reference to Tracate shabat where (I think I recall) there is an opinion (or maybe all opinions? I forget!) is that throwing and landing are not the same thing as picking up and putting down. Normally to be obligated for carrying on shabat one needs to pick up and put down four cubits away or from one domain to another by which the domain is changed. how ever how does this answer the question on Reish Lakish? The question was why is the owner of the dog liable anything and we answer that there is a reason to make the owner of the coal liable. This does not follow. A third question is this. R Yochanan said that the obligation for fire is because of his arrows. Reish Lakih disagreed with this because his arrows move from the force of the person while fire moves on its own accord. This being so, I ask according to Reish Lakish why should the owner of the dog not have to pay for the whole stack? After all, to Reish Lakis there is no need for the obligation of force to be moving only from the direct force of the person that lite it. It is enough that he lite it, and the it moves by a common wind. ___________________________________________________________________ קמא page כ''ב ע''א . three questions occurred to me. One on ריש לקיש. one on how רש''י explains ריש לקיש, and another on how ר' חננאל explains ריש לקיש _______ the basic סוגיא is this. ריש לקיש said that fire is obligated in full damage because of damage due to one’s property. While ר’ יוחנן holds fire is obligated because it is like one’s arrows. To the רי''ף and רש''י, the idea of ר’ יוחנן is that fire is obligated as if one himself caused damage, not his property) as would be the case if his ox caused damage (. The גמרא asks a question on ריש לקיש the from the משנה. A dog has a loaf with a coal in it and goes and causes a stack to get burnt up. The damage for the loaf is full damage, and payment for the stack is half damage. The question from this משנה on ריש לקיש is that the coal does not belong to the owner of the dog. ריש לקיש answers the case of the משנה is where the dog threw the loaf with the coal inside it on the stack. Thus, the payment for the loaf is full damage, for the place the coal landed is half damage, and he is not obligated at all for the rest of the stack. רש''י explains this statement thus. If throwing the loaf and coal is obligated either because it is a change from the normal way and thus liable in half damage like horn of a קרן התם or because of צרורות. If הכלב would have put it down on the stack, the owner of the dog would be liable in full damage. The question I have here is that the question and answer Do not fit together WELL. The question was, why should the owner of the dog be liable at all? After all, it is not his coal. Answer: The owner of the dog is liable because of change or צרורות? How does that answer the question? The coal still does not belong to him. An answer to this might be that the גמרא at this point is thinking that the owner of the coal would be liable if he did not guard his coal. But to find how the owner of the dog might also be liable ריש לקיש finds this scenario where the dog threw it. In that way, it is possible to explain the משנה that the payment is half damage. )Later the גמרא, in fact, holds that the owner of the coal did, in fact, guard his coal.( Now, רבינו חננאלsaid the answer of ריש לקיש is that the dog threw the coal, so the coal has not left the domain of the owner of the coal. This is in reference to מסכת שבת where (I think I recall) there is an opinion (or maybe all opinions? I forget!) is that throwing and landing are not the same thing as picking up and putting down. Normally to be obligated for carrying on שבת one needs to pick up and put down four cubits away, or from one domain to another by which the domain is changed. However how does this answer the question on ריש לקיש? The question was why is the owner of the dog liable anything? and we answer that there is a reason to make the owner of the coal liable. This does not follow. A third question is this. ר’ יוחנן said that the obligation for fire is because of his arrows. ריש לקיש disagreed with this because his arrows move from the force of the person, while fire moves on its own accord. This being so, I ask according to ריש לקיש why should the owner of the dog not have to pay for the whole stack? After all, to ריש לקישthere is no need for the obligation of force to be moving only from the direct force of the person that lit it. It is enough that he lite it, and the it moves by a common wind.