The Mishna brings a case that a dog carried a loaf with a burning coal in it to a stack and the stack is burnt up. The payment for the loaf is full damage, and the payment for the stack is half damage. so why does the Rambam hold that there is no liability for the whole stack, but only the path the coal took as the dog dragged it along? One problem with the opinion of the Rambam about the dog with the loaf and coal is that it is hard to see how it corresponds to the Gemara. The Gemara does say that R Yochanan holds that fire is also obligated because of arrows or money, but it is hard to see how that helps the Rambam. If the Rambam would hold directly and only like Reish Lakish, then we would have an answer, but he does not. He holds fire is obligated because of "his arrows". Let me explain why if he would hold by Reish Lakish that would help him. Reish Lakish said fire is obligated when it is one's property. Then the Gemara asks on him from the Mishna with the dog, loaf, and coal. The coal does not belong to the owner of the dog, so why is he liable to pay for the stack? Reish Lakish answers because the dog threw the loaf with the coal onto the stack. That means it is not liable for fire at all, but rather because of horn of a tame ox (that became wild) or because of pebbles. This is certainly like the Gemara on page 18 where Gemara holds the liability is from pebbles or horn of a tame ox. And to Reish Lakish, the liability is only on the place of the coal, not the whole stack because the fire did not belong to the owner of the dog, and the owner of the coal is not liable because he guarded his coal. But the Rishonim (medieval authorities) all decided the law is like R Yochanan, and therefore there is the possibility of being liable for either when the fire belongs to one or it is a case of "his arrows". so why does the Rambam hold that there is no liability for the stack, but only the path the coal took as the dog dragged it along. In any case, why does it make a difference to Reish Lakish if the dog threw the coal? Even if he put it down gently, it is still horn of an ox or pebbles. Furthermore, how does R Yochanan explain the Mishna, that the dog put the coal down gently, so the owner of the dog is liable half damage for the whole stack. But why? It still is not “his arrows” but arrows of his dog and the coal does not belong to him. In order to answer this question on the Rambam I think it is necessary to look aback on page 18 where the issue of force of a force comes up. We can see that the gemara there considers the question of Rava about if you go by the beginning or the end of the causes of damage to be the same question as pebbles. There also is the case if the chicken that chewed on the string which held a vessel that fell and broke another vessel is force of force. Though the gemara there does not arrive at an answer about force of a force [because the chicken might have pushed the vessel until it broke on a stone], the Rambam [monetary damage ch. 2 law 17] and the Tosphot here on page 22 do arrive at an answer. The fact that R. Yochanan requires that the dog place the loaf with the coal on the stack in order for there to be half damage, shows that force of a force is not obligated at all (or perhaps fourth damage as the Raavad asks on the Rambam). ______________________________________________________________________________________ However, I wrote elsewhere that the Rambam might hold like the Rosh that force of a force is obligated but based on the questions I have here on the Rambam, and the fact that I can not see any answer for him except to say that he holds like Tosphot, I think that that other place has to be answered in a different way__________________However, there is a question on this approach. It is possible that R Yochanan agrees with Reish Lakish if the dog threw the coal on the stack. We do not know since he says nothing about that case. If he agrees with Reish Lakish that the place the coal landed or was carried that is obligated in half damage, then neither the Tosphot nor Rambam can learn from that that force of his force is not obligated in any damage. For we were saying that the dog throwing or carrying of the coal is force of his force, and that is why R Yochanan says the dog has to put it down on the stack in order to be liable. But that would apply to the place of the coal also. If thrown, then the place of the coal also would be not obligated unlike Reish Lakish. Or perhaps R Yochanan agrees with Reish Lakish that if the dog would throw the coal, that that would be liable half damage on the place of the coal for the reasons Rashi gives (horn of a tame ox or pebble). (Thus, you can not learn from here about force of force.) The last possibility here is that perhaps R Yochanan holds that throwing is force of his force, and thus not liable on the stack nor the place of the coal, while Reish Lakish considered throwing not to be force of his force but rather pebbles or horn of a tame ox. Ho ______________________________________________________________________________________ ________________ The problem with the opinion of the רמב’’ם about the dog with the loaf and coal is hard to see how it corresponds to the גמרא. The גמרא does say that ר’ יוחנן holds that fire is also obligated because of money, but it is hard to see how that helps the רמב’’ם. If the רמב’’ם would hold directly and only like ריש לקיש, then we would have an answer, but he does not. He holds fire is obligated because of his arrows. Let me explain why if he would hold by ריש לקיש that would help him. ריש לקיש said fire is obligated when it is one's property. Then גמרא asks on him from the משנה with the dog, loaf, and coal. The coal does not belong to the owner of the dog, so why is he liable to pay for the stack? ריש לקיש answers because the dog threw the loaf with the coal onto the stack. That means it is not liable for fire at all, but rather because of horn of a tame ox or because of צרורות. This certainly like the גמרא on page י''ח where גמרא holds the liability is from צרורות or קרן התם. and to ריש לקיש the liability is only on the place of the coal, not the whole stack because the fire did not belong to the owner of the dog and the owner of the coal is not liable because he guarded his coal. But the ראשונים all decided the law is like ר’ יוחנן and therefore there is the possibility of being liable for either when the fire belongs to one or it is a case of his arrows. so why does the רמב’’ם hold that there is no liability for the stack, but only the path the coal took as the dog dragged it along. In any case, why does it make a difference to ריש לקיש if the dog threw the coal? Even if he put it down gently, it is still horn of an ox or צרורותs. Furthermore, how does ר’ יוחנן explain THE משנה, that the dog put the coal down gently so the owner of the dog is liable half damage for the whole stack. But why? It still is not “his arrows” but arrows of his dog and the coal does not belong to him. In order to answer this question on the רמב’’ם I think it is necessary to look back on page י''ח where the issue of force of a force comes up. We can see that the גמרא there considers the question of רבא about if you go by the beginning or the end of the causes of damage to be the same question as pebbles. There also is the case if the chicken that chewed on the string which held a vessel that fell and broke another vessel is force of force. Though the גמרא there does not arrive at an answer about force of a force [because the chicken might have pushed the vessel until it broke on a stone], the רמב’’ם and the תוספות here on page כ''ב do arrive at an answer. The fact that ר' יוחנןrequire that the dog place the loaf with the coal on the stack in order for there to be half damage, show that force of a force is not obligated at all (or perhaps fourth damage as the ראב'' ד asks on the רמב’’ם). However, I wrote elsewhere that the רמב’’ם might hold like the רא''ש that force of a force is obligated but based on the questions I have here on the רמב’’ם, and the fact that I can not see any answer for him except to say that he holds like תוספות, I think that that other place has to be answered in a different way ______________________________________________________________________________________ However, there is a question on this approach. It is possible that ר’ יוחנן agrees with ריש לקיש if the dog threw the coal on the stack. We do not know since he says nothing about that case. If he agrees with ריש לקיש that the place the coal landed or was carried that is obligated in half damage, then neither the תוספות nor רמב''ם can learn from that that force of his force is not obligated in any damage. For we were saying that the dog throwing or carrying of the coal is force of his force, and that is why ר’ יוחנן says the dog has to put it down on the stack in order to be liable. But that would apply to the place of the coal also. if thrown, then the place of the coal also would be not obligated unlike ריש לקיש. Or perhaps ר’ יוחנן agrees with ריש לקיש that if the dog would throw the coal, that that would be liable half damage on the place of the coal for the reasons רש''יgives (horn of a שור תם or צרורות). (Thus, you can not learn from here about force of force.) The last possibility here is that perhaps ר' יוחנן holds that throwing is force of his force and thus not liable on the stack nor the place of the coal while ריש לקיש considered throwing not to be force of his force but rather pebbles or horn of a tame ox.