בבא קמא בדף כ"ג. הרמב''ם לפי הגר''א

כשחזרתי מהים עלה בדעתי מדוע הרמב''ם (לפי הגר''א) קבע שר' יוחנן שינה את דעתו, וקובע שנזק על ידי שריפה חייב בגלל נזק על ידי רכושו, לא נזק על ידי גופו. הסיבה היא השקלא וטריא של הגמרא בבא קמא בדף כ"ג. אביי שאל, אם צודק ר' יוחנן שנזק על ידי אש הוא בגלל "חיציו" {נזק ישיר על ידי גופו}, אז למה נזק לטמון (דברים נסתרים) לא יהיה אחראי? והוא ענה, היה שם חומה, והיא נפלה (לא בגלל האש), ולא הספיק לתקן אותו לפני שפרצה השריפה. אז זה מקרה של אי יכולת לעשות שום דבר כדי לעצור את הנזק הזה (אונס) . [למרות שבדרך כלל אנו אומרים שאדם תמיד עלול לגרום נזק, עדיין נזק באמצעות רכושו (או אפילו בשריפה שהיא חמורה יותר), העובדה שהמצב אינו בשליטתו גורמת לו שהוא ללא אחריות. לאחר מכן רבא שאל, אם כן, אז גם על דברים גלויים אינו צריך להיות אחראי. הגמרא עונה ר' יוחנן מחזיק נזק מאש נחשב חיציו וגם רכושו; ועניינו שהוא חייב בדברים פתוחים, אבל לא חייב בדברים נסתרים הוא במקום שהייתה התרשלות. זה יהיה דומה למה שיהיה אם הוא שכח לנעול את השור שלו בלילה, והוא יצא וגרם נזק.] אני חושב שהגמרא רואה בחומה מקרה של אי יכולת לשנות כלום (אונס) . אבל בלי חומה בינו לבין שכנו, אם זה יהיה "החצים שלו", אז הוא יהיה אחראי גם לדבר גלוי וגם נסתר. [כדי לגרום לו לא להיות אחראי לדברים נסתרים, הגמרא צריכה להמציא תרחיש שבו היה קיר. אחרי הכל, חיצים עוברים הרבה מעבר לחומות. ולכן הרמב''ם קבע שאין אנו חושבים עוד שר' יוחנן מחזיק ב"חיציו" אלא כדי להטיל עליו אחריות בכל חמשת מיני הנזק שחייב אדם בהם במקרה של נזק מגופו. מלבד זאת, הוא אחראי רק לנזק שנגרם על ידי רכושו.רק תחשוב. הגמרא אמרה כשהייתה חומה, "נגמרו החצים שלו". לכן, כדי למצוא דרך שחיציו לא יגמרו, היה על הגמרא לחלץ את החומה, ולהכניס עצלות והזנחה פשוטה. בשלב זה, מדוע שחצים יסתיימו? ברור שלא

the Gemara on page 23 in Bava Kama. Rambam according to the Gra.

As I was walking back from the sea it occurred to me why the Rambam held that Rava held that R. Yochanan holds that damage by fire is obligated because of damage by his property, not damage by his body. The reason is in the questions and answers of the Gemara on page 23 in Bava Kama. Abyee asked, if R Yochanan is right that damage by fire is because of “his arrows” {direct damage by his body}, then why would damage to hidden things not be liable? The abyee answered, there was a wall there, and it fell (not from the fire), and he did not have time to repair it before the fire broke out. So it is a case of not being able to do anything to stop that damage. [Even though we normally say a person is always liable to do damage, still damage by means of his property or (or even with fire which is more serious), the fact of the situation being totally out of one’s control makes him not liable. Rava then asks, if so, then even for open things he should be not liable. The Gemara answers R Yochanan holds damage by fire is considered “his arrows” and also his property; and our case where he liable for open things but not liable for hidden things is where there was neglect similar to what would be the case if he forgot to lock his ox up at night, and it went out and cause damage.] I think that the gemara considers a wall to be a case of not being able to change anything. but with no wall between him and his neighbor, if it would be “his arrows” then he would be liable for both open and hidden thing. [To get him to not be liable for hidden things the gemara has to come up with scenario where there was a wall. After all, arrows go far beyond walls. so the Rambam held that we no longer think that R Yochanan holds with “his arrows” except to make him liable in all the five kinds of damage that one is liable for in a case of damage by his body. Besides that, he is liable only for damage by his property. Just think. the Gemara said when there was a wall "his arrows were finished". So, to find a way that his arrows would not be finished, the Gemara had to extract the wall, and put in simple laziness and neglect. At that point, why would arrows be finished? Clearly not. I want to explain why the Gra wrote that only way to understand the subject on page 23 of Bava Kama is like the Rif and Rambam, that is that the Gemara decided that R Yochanan does no longer hold with his arrows except in so far as it makes him liable in another four types of damage. But in all other aspects, he holds like reish lakish that damage by fire is because of damage by mean of his property. The reason is this. Neither Abaye nor Rava had any problem with the idea that if one is liable because of his arrows that would extend beyond one’s own domain. The only question was it should even more liable for damage to hidden things. But then Abaye said the scenario is when there was a wall and so his arrows were finished. But Rava objected and said that then he wouldn’t be liable even for open things. So Rava decided the case is when there was no wall. But again, if there is no wall, then he should be liable for his arrows alone. There is no need to make him more liable because of damage by mean of his property. It was already perfectly fine for him to be liable for all damage done on another domain just from his arrow alone. so in short, the give and take questions and answers of Abaye and Rava make no sense unless you say that Rava held that R Yochanan hold his arrows are liable because of his money alone. His arrows would be finished if there was a wall there or if it fell and he had no time to repair it. But with no wall, there is no finishing of his arrows ------------------------------------- As I was walking back from the sea it occurred to me why the רמב''ם held that ר’ יוחנן changed his mind, and holds that damage by fire is obligated because of damage by his property, not damage by his body. The reason is in the questions and answers of the גמרא בבא קמא on page 23. אביי asked, if ר’ יוחנן is right that damage by fire is because of “his arrows” {direct damage by his body}, then why would damage to טמון hidden things not be liable? HE answers, there was a wall there, and it fell (not from the fire), and he did not have time to repair it before the fire broke out. So, it is a case of not being able to do anything to stop that damage(אונס) . [Even though we normally say a person is always liable to do damage, still damage by means of his property or (or even with fire which is more serious), the fact of the situation being totally out of one’s control makes him not liable. The רבא then asks, if so, then even for open things he should be not liable. The גמרא answers ר’ יוחנן holds damage by fire is considered “his arrows” and also his property; and our case where he liable for open things, but not liable for hidden things is where there was neglect. THAT WOULD BE similar to what would be the case if he forgot to lock his ox up at night, and it went out and caused damage.] I think that the גמרא considers a wall to be a case of not being able to change anything(אונס) . But with no wall between him and his neighbor, if it would be “his arrows”, then he would be liable for both open and hidden thing. [To get him to not be liable for hidden things the גמרא has to come up with scenario where there was a wall. After all, arrows go far beyond walls. so the רמב''ם held that we no longer think that ר’ יוחנן holds with “his arrows” except to make him liable in all the five kinds of damage that one is liable for in a case of damage by his body. Besides that, he is liable only for damage by his property. Just think. the גמרא said when there was a wall "his arrows were finished". So, to find a way that his arrows would not be finished, the גמרא had to extract the wall, and put in simple laziness and neglect. At that point, why would arrows be finished? Clearly not. I want to explain why the גר''א wrote that only way to understand the subject on page כ''ג of בבא קמא is like the רי''ף and רמב''ם , that is that the גמרא decided that ר’ יוחנן does no longer hold with his arrows except in so far as it makes him liable in another four types of damage. But in all other aspects, he holds like ריש לקיש that damage by fire is because of damage by mean of his property. The reason is this. Neither אביי nor רבא had any problem with the idea that if one is liable because of his arrows that would extend beyond one’s own domain. The only question was it should even more liable for damage to hidden things. But then אביי said the scenario is when there was a wall and so his arrows were finished. But רבא objected and said that then he wouldn’t be liable even for open things. So רבא decided the case is when there was no wall. But again, if there is no wall, then he should be liable for his arrows alone. There is no need to make him more liable because of damage by mean of his property. It was already perfectly fine for him to be liable for all damage done on another domain just from his arrow alone. so, in short, the give and take questions and answers of אביי and רבא make no sense unless you say that רבא held that ר’ יוחנן hold his arrows are liable because of his money alone. His arrows would be finished if there was a wall there or if it fell and he had no time to repair it. But with no wall, there is no finishing of his arrows

בבא קמא כ''ב וכ''ג

הייתי בחוף הים וחושב שאפילו אם נלך עם הגר"א שכתב שהרמב"ם סבור שרבא מחזיק שר' יוחנן מסכים עם השיטה של ריש לקיש שחובת תשלום נזק אש היא בגלל נזק על ידי רכושו (לא על ידי חיצים שלו) שעדיין זה לא מספר לנו כלום על המשנה עם הכלב והפחם. אתה בכל מקרה צריך לומר את הסיבה לריש לקיש שעל שאר הערימה לא חייב כי זה כוחו של כוחו. אבל זה רק זורק את השאלה צעד אחד אחורה. נניח שהכלב זרק את הפחם על הערימה. האם אין אנו אומרים שאנו הולכים בהתחלה של נזק? וכך בעצם הכריע הרמב''ם בהלכה. {זה כמו רבה שאם זורק כלי ולפני שהוא מגיע לארץ ונשבר, מישהו אחר שובר אותו בעודו באוויר. הראשון הוא חייב, לא השני.} עם זאת, אולי זה כל העניין של ריש לקיש? שנלך על תחילת הנזק, ולכן גרירת הפחם או השלכתו על הערימה תהיה אחראית כי זה הכוח הראשון. ואז שאר הערימה הוא כוח הכוח שלו. אז זה יסביר את הרמב''ם. זה גם עוזר לר' יוחנן שאמר שהוא אחראי לכל הערימה שהכלב צריך להניח עליה את הפחם. יכול להיות שהוא מסכים שאם הכלב יגרור אותו לאורך הערימה או יזרוק אותו על הערימה זה יהיה כמו ריש לקיש שהאזור הזה חייב בחצי נזק, (אבל לא נזק מלא כי זה לא דרכו הרגילה של כלב לזרוק גחלים. אבל אדם שזורק כלי יהיה אחראי מלוא נזק שלם.) אבל ר' יוחנן מחפש דרך לקבל חוק המשנה שאת החובה של חצי הערימה כולה תהיה חצי נזק. בסיכום, החליט הרמב''ם שהחוק כמו ריש לקיש. בעל הכלב חייב על הלחם נזק מלא, ועל מקום גרירת הפחם הוא חייב חצי נזק כי אנו הולכים עם תחילת הגורם נזק כמו רבה; ועל שאר הערימה, הוא אינו חייב כי זה כוחו של כוחו.-----------אני רוצה להסביר מדוע כתב הגר"א שרק הדרך להבין את הנושא בדף כ"ג בבא קמא היא כמו הרי"ף והרמב"ם, כלומר שהגמרא החליט שר' יוחנן אינו מחזיק יותר בחיציו אלא במידה שזה גורם לו להתחייב בעוד ארבעה סוגי נזק. אבל בכל ההיבטים האחרים, הוא סבור, כמו ריש לקיש, שנזק אש נובע מפגיעה על ידי רכושו. הסיבה היא זו. לא לאביי ולא לרבא הייתה שום בעיה עם הרעיון שאם אדם אחראי בגלל החיצים שלו זה ירחיק מעבר לתחום שלו. השאלה היחידה הייתה שהיא (אש) צריכה להיות אחראית אפילו יותר, היינו בנזק לדברים נסתרים. אבל אז אביי אמר שהתרחיש הוא כשהייתה חומה וכך החיצים שלו גמרו. אבל רבא התנגד ואמר שאז הוא לא יישא באחריות אפילו לדברים גלויים. אז רבא החליט שהמקרה הוא כשאין חומה. אבל שוב, אם אין חומה, אז הוא צריך להיות אחראי גם בגלל חיציו בלבד. אין צורך להטיל עליו אחריות רבה יותר בגלל נזק באמצעות רכושו. זה כבר היה בסדר גמור עבורו להיות אחראי לכל הנזק שנגרם בתחום אחר רק מהחץ שלו בלבד. אז בקיצור, השאלות והתשובות של תן וקח (שקלא וטריא) של אביי ורבא אינן הגיוניות אלא אם כן אתה אומר שרבא קבע שר' יוחנן מחזיק שאש אחראית רק בגלל הרכוש שלו. חיציו יגמרו אם היה שם חומה או אם היא נפלה ולא היה לו זמן לתקן אותה. אבל בלי חומה, אין גימור של החיצים שלו

Bava Kama page 22 and page 23.

I have been at the sea shore and thinking that even if we go with the Gra who wrote that the Rambam holds that R Yochanan changed his mind, and he goes with the idea of Reish Lakish that the obligation of paying for damage by fire is because of damage by his property (not his arrows) that still does not tell us about the Mishna with the dog and coal. You anyway have to say the reason for Reish Lakish that the rest of the stack is not liable because it is force of his force. but that just throws the question one step back. Let’s say the dog threw the coal on the stack. Don’t we say that an animal that steps on a vessel and it rolls away and get broken, that we go by the beginning? And that is in fact how the Rambam decided the law. {Thi I lie Raba that if one throws a vessel and before it reaches the ground and is broken, someone else breaks it while it is still in the air. The first one is obligated, not the second one.} However, maybe that is the whole point of Reish Lakish? that we go by the beginning of the damage and o dragging the coal or throwing it on the stack would be liable because of that is the first force. then the remainder of the stack is force of his force. so that would explain the Rambam. This also helps R Yochanan who said to be liable for the whole stack the dog needs to place the coal on it. It might be that he agrees that if the dog dragged it along the stack or threw it on the stack that would be like Reish Lakish that that area is liable half damage. But R Yochanan is looking for a way to get the obligation of half damage to be applied to the whole stack, not just the place the coal landed. In summery the Rambam decided the law like Reish Lakish. The owner of the dog is liable for the bread full damage, and for the place where the coal was dragged, he is liable half damage because we go by the beginning of the cause of damage like Raba; and for the rest of the stack, he is not liable because that is force of his force. I am thinking that this explains Reish Lakish and the Rambam, but the sugia on page 23 is still blurry to me. The nice thing about this approach is that it uses the insight of the Gra to explain the Rambam, and also the inight of the Tosphot that we still need the idea of force of his force. _____________________________________________________________________________ I have been at the sea shore and thinking that even if we go with the גר''א who wrote that the רמב’’ם holds that ר’ יוחנן changed his mind, and he goes with the idea of ריש לקיש that the obligation of paying for damage by fire is because of damage by his property (not his arrows) that still does not tell us about the משנה with the dog and coal. You anyway have to say the reason for ריש לקיש that the rest of the stack is not liable because it is force of his force. but that just throws the question one step back. Let’s say the dog threw the coal on the stack. Don’t we say that an animal that steps on a vessel and it rolls away and get broken, that we go by the beginning? And that is in fact how the רמב’’ם decided the law. {This is like רבה that if one throws a vessel and before it reaches the ground and is broken, someone else breaks it while it is still in the air. The first one is obligated, not the second one.} However, maybe that is the whole point of ריש לקיש? that we go by the beginning of the damage and so dragging the coal or throwing it on the stack would be liable because of that is the first force. Then the remainder of the stack is force of his force. so that would explain the רמב’’ם. This also helps ר’ יוחנן who said to be liable for the whole stack the dog needs to place the coal on it. It might be that he agrees that if the dog dragged it along the stack or threw it on the stack that would be like ריש לקיש that that area is liable half damage, (but not full damage because it is not the normal way of a dog to throw coals. A person throwing a vessel however would be liable full damage.) But ר’ יוחנן is looking for a way to get the obligation of half damage to be applied to the whole stack, not just the place the coal landed. In summery the רמב’’ם decided the law like ריש לקיש. The owner of the dog is liable for the bread full damage, and for the place where the coal was dragged, he is liable half damage because we go by the beginning of the cause of damage like רבה; and for the rest of the stack, he is not liable because that is force of his force.

Mathematics was for me a big challenge. It took for me a long detour to get a grip on Math and Physics. I had to go the rout of the approach in the Gemara Tractate Avoda Zara page 19 which says that the main thing in learning is to say the words in order from the start of the book until the end and then review. I found that this helped me to get started with math and physics. And from my own experience I try to recommend this approach to others who like me may not be particularly talented in these areas and yet still realize their importance. But Isaac Rosten told me that an essential part of this approach is the review part. After you finish the book or chapter, then you need to review four times. This approach does not work without the review part.

בבא קמא כ''ב וכ''ג ותירוץ יותר טוב לרמב''ם

כתב הגר''א בדף כ''ג בבבא קמא ובשלחן ערוך פרק 418 הערה 33 שהרי''ף ורמב''ם גורסים שהגמרא שינה דעתו לגבי גישתו של ר' יוחנן בגלל שאלת רבא, אם האש חייבת בגלל חיציו, אז למה טמון (נסתר) לא חייב? (כלומר שאם היו דברים חבויים בערימה, אין הוא חייב בהם.) אלא ר' יוחנן מחזיק לגמרי כדעת ריש לקיש וההבדל היחיד ביניהם הוא ארבעת הדברים הנוספים שחייבים עליהם כשאדם עושה נזק בגופו ולא על ידי רכושו (כשורו). ההוכחה לכך ברורה. זה בגלל שהרי''ף והרמב''ם משאירים שניהם את התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא שהתכוונה לענות על שאלת רבא, (שבגלל שהיה חומה, נגמרו החצים שלו). הגמרא דחק את התשובה ההיא כי אם גמרו חיציו, אז גמרו לגבי נכסים שאינם נסתרים. אני כותב את זה כי ברור לי שהסיבה שהרמב''ם כתב שכאשר כלב לוקח לחם עם פחם לערימה והערימה נשרפת שהמקרה הוא שהכלב נשא אותו מעל הערימה, אבל לעולם לא הניח אותו ולכן החיוב הוא חצי נזק לכל מקום שדרכו של הפחם היה, ואין חובה על שאר הערימה. הסיבה היא שהרמב''ם פשוט הכריע כרישלקיש. הגר''א כתב שהרי''ף ורמב''ם הסבירן את הגמרא בדף כ''ג שר' יוחנן מחזיק למעשה כמו ריש לקיש, והמקרה הקודם שבו הכלב שם את הפחם על הערימה יהיה נזק מלא לכל הערימה. עם זאת, אני יכול להזכיר שהגישה הקודמת שלי להסבר הרמב"ם הייתה שהוא מחזיק שכוח כוחו אינו חייב (כמו שתוספות אמרו) הייתה תשובה ברת קיימא אלא שיותר הגיוני ששאר הערימה היה אחראי על רביעית מהנזק כפי שהרב"ד למעשה ששאל. עכשיו ההסברשל המשנה ופסק הרמב''ם לא כח כוחו, אלא שאש חייבת בגלל רכושו כמו השור שלו כמו שאמר ריש לקיש והנושא הפחם על הערימה זה צרורות או קרן של שור תם. בלילה הזה ראיתי שהרדב"ז כתב את תשובתי המקורית לרמב"ם שהמקרה הוא כח כוחו. ובהמשך הערב גיליתי את הערת הגר"א. אני חושב שגישת הגר"א יותר מדויקת________ קצת רקע לנושא הזה. אמר ר' יוחנן שהנזק של אש הוא בגלל חיציו וריש לקיש אמר שזה בגלל נזק מרכושו, למשל, השור שלו. שאלה הגמרא על ר' יוחנן שאם החבות תהיה בגלל נזק ישיר מפעולה אחת, אז למה טמון יהיה פטור? כלומר, אם שרף מישהו את ערימת החטים של מישהו אחר, ובתוכו הוחבא חפץ כלשהו, חובת התשלום היא רק על ערימת חיטים. התשובה שהגמרא נותנת לר' יוחנן היא שהייתה שם חומה שנפלה, ולפני שהייתה לאדם הזדמנות לתקן אותה, פרצה השריפה והלכה לנכס של השכן. אחר כך התנגד הגמרא לתשובה זו, ואמר באותו מקרה אז גם לדברים הפתוחים כמו הערימה עצמה, אין לחייבו. אז הגמרא אמר שלמעשה ר' יוחנן מסכים עם ריש לקיש, וההבדל היחיד ביניהם הוא בארבעת סוגי הנזק הנוספים שאדם אחראי להם כאשר הוא עושה נזק מפעולתו ולא מרכושו

bava kama pg 22 and 23. A better answer for the Rambam than the one I gave previously

The Gra wrote on page 23 in Bava Kama and in the Shulchan Aruch chapter 418 paragraph 33 that the Rif and Rambam hold that the Gemara changed its mind about the approach of R Yochanan because of the question of Rava, if fire is liable because of his arrows then why is hidden not obligated? (That is to say that if there were things hidden in the stack, he is not obligated for them.) Rather R Yochanan holds completely with the opinion of Reish Lakish and the only difference between them is the four extra thing that one is obligated for when one doe damage by his own body rather than by one property like hi ox. the proof of this is clear. It is because the Rif and Rambam both leave out the first answer of the Gemara that intended to answer the question of Rava, that because there was wall, his arrows are finished. The Gemara pushed out that answer because if his arrows are finished, then they would be finished in regard to possessions that are not hidden. I write this because it is clear to me that the reason the Rambam wrote that when a dog take a loaf with a coal to a stack and the stack is burnt up that the case is where the dog carried it over the stack, but never put it down and so the obligation is half damage for wherever the path of the coal was, and there is no obligation for the rest of the stack is that the Rambam simply decided the law like Reish Lakish because that is how he and the Rif explain the Gemara on page 23 that R Yochanan in fact hold like Reish Lakish and the previous case where he the dog put the coal on the stack would be full damage for the whole stack. However, I might mention that my previous approach to explain the Rambam was that he holds force of force is not obligated (like Tosphot said) was a viable answer except that it would make more sense that the rest of the stack would have been liable a fourth of the damage as the Raavad in fact ask.[and in fact the Rambam does hold that force of a force is not obligated at all.] but I think now that this case of the dog is not force of a force but simply fire is obligated because of his property like his ox like Reish Lakish said and carrying it over the stack is pebbles or horn of a tame ox. (This night I saw the Radvaz wrote my original answer for the Rambam that the case is force of his force. And later in the evening I discovered the comment of the Gra. I think the approach of the Gra is more accurate.) A little background for this subject. R Yochanan said that damage by fire is because of his arrows and Reish Lakish said it is because of damage by means of one’s property e.g., his ox. The Gemara asked on R Yochanan that if the liability would be because of direct damage by one own action, then why would hidden thing be exempt? That means, if one burnt someone else’s stack of wheat, and inside was hidden some object, the obligation to pay is only for a stack of wheat. The answer the Gemara gives for R Yochanan is that there had been a wall there which fell, and before the person had a chance to repair it, the fire broke out and went to the neighbor’s property. Then the Gemara objected to this answer and said in that case then even for the open things like the stack itself, he should not be obligated. So then the Gemara said that in fact R Yochanan agrees with Reish Lakish, and the only difference between them is in the four extra types of damage that one is liable for when he does damage by his own action rather than by his property _____________________________________________________________ The גר’’א wrote on page כ''ג in בבא קמא and in the שלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק תי''ח הערה ל''ג that theרי’’ףand רמב’’ם hold that the גמרא changed its mind about the approach of ר’ יוחנן because of the question of רבא, if fire is liable because of his arrows then why is hidden טמון not obligated? (That is to say that if there were things hidden in the stack, he is not obligated for them.) Rather ר’ יוחנן holds completely with the opinion of ריש לקיש and the only difference between them is the four extra things that one is obligated for when one does damage by his own body rather than by one's property like his ox. The proof of this is clear. It is because the רי’’ף and רמב’’ם both leave out the first answer of the גמרא that intended to answer the question ofרבא , that because there was wall, his arrows are finished. The גמרא pushed out that answer because if his arrows are finished, then they would be finished in regard to possessions that are not hidden. I write this because it is clear to me that the reason the רמב’’ם wrote that when a dog take a loaf with a coal to a stack and the stack is burnt up that the case is where the dog carried it over the stack, but never put it down and so the obligation is half damage for wherever the path of the coal was, and there is no obligation for the rest of the stack is that the רמב’’ם simply decided the law like ריש לקיש because that is how he and the רי’’ף explain the גמראon page כ''ג that ר’ יוחנן in fact hold like ריש לקיש and the previous case where he the dog put the coal on the stack would be full damage for the whole stack. However, I might mention that my previous approach to explain the רמב’’ם was that he holds force of force is not obligated (like תוספות said) was a viable answer except that it would make more sense that the rest of the stack would have been liable a fourth of the damage as the ראב''ד in fact ask.[and in fact the רמב’’ם does hold that force of a force is not obligated at all.] but I think now that this case of the dog is not force of a force but simply fire is obligated because of his property like his ox like ריש לקיש said and carrying it over the stack is צרורות or horn of a tame ox. (This night I saw the Radvaz wrote my original answer for the רמב’’ם that the case is force of his force. And later in the evening I discovered the comment of the גר’’א. I think the approach of the גר’’א is more accurate.) A little background for this subject. ר’ יוחנן said that damage by אש is because of his arrows and ריש לקיש said it is because of damage by means of one’s property e.g., his ox. The גמרא asked on ר’ יוחנן that if the liability would be because of direct damage by one own action, then why would hidden thing טמון be exempt? That means, if one burnt someone else’s stack of wheat, and inside was hidden some object, the obligation to pay is only for a stack of wheat. The answer the גמרא gives for ר’ יוחנן is that there had been a wall there which fell, and before the person had a chance to repair it, the fire broke out and went to the neighbor’s property. Then the גמרא objected to this answer and said in that case then even for the open things like the stack itself, he should not be obligated. So, then the גמרא said that in fact ר’ יוחנן agrees with ריש לקיש, and the only difference between them is in the four extra types of damage that one is liable for when he does damage by his own action rather than by his property