The Torah in Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 22:5) establishes that if a person lit a fire which ended up spreading into his fellow’s property, causing damage, then the one who kindled the fire must pay for the damages. Even though the person lit the fire in his own property, he is nevertheless responsible if it spread to his fellow’s property and caused damage. The Sefer Ha’hinuch lists as the 56 th Biblical command the obligation upon Bet Din to try these cases, and to hold people accountable for damages caused by fires which they lit. This Misva, of course, is one of many examples of the Torah’s concern to ensure that people act responsibly and refrain from reckless behavior which could cause harm to others. Bet Din must hold people accountable for the damages they caused so that people will exercise care and conduct themselves in a responsible fashion. The exception to the guilty party’s liability for fire damage is “Tamun” – damage caused to items which were not visible. If the victim had hid utensils, for example, under the shrubbery in his field, and the fire destroyed these utensils, the one who started the fire is not responsible to compensate for the damaged utensils, since the utensils were not visible at the time they were consumed by the fire. The Gemara in Masechet Baba Kama brings a famous debate among the Amoraim as to the nature of a person’s liability for damages caused by a fire he kindled. Rabbi Yohanan maintained that “Isho Mishum Hesyo” – one is liable for these damages just as he is liable for damages he causes by shooting an arrow. According to Rabbi Yohanan, when a person lights a fire, then even though it then spread to his fellow’s property on its own, or as a result of the wind, the person is considered to have himself damaged that property. Resh Lakish, however, disagrees, noting that whereas an arrow damages because of the person’s force – as he pulled back the bow, giving the arrow the power to go forth – the fire spreads as a result of “Ko’ah Aher” – another force, such as the wind. According to Resh Lakish, a person’s liability for damages caused by a fire he kindled is “Mi’shum Mamono” – due to the fact that the coal is his property. Just as a person bears liability for damages caused by his animal, because the animal is his property, so is one liable for damages caused by a fire he kindles, of which he is the owner. In other words, Rabbi Yohanan maintained that the person is considered to have personally caused the damage by lighting the fire, whereas Resh Lakish argued that it is the person’s property, and not the person himself, that caused the damage. This fundamental debate yields a number of interesting practical ramifications. One involves the case of one who kindles a fire which then spreads into another person’s property and causes bodily harm. When it comes to physical injury – as opposed to property damage – Halacha distinguishes between the case of a person who himself caused his fellow bodily harm, and the case where a person’s property causes his fellow bodily harm. If the person himself hurts his fellow, the he must make five different payments (which were outlined in Misva #49). According to Rabbi Yohanan, then, if one’s fire spread and physically hurt his fellow, then the person who kindled the fire must make all five compensatory payments. According to Resh Lakish, however, the one who lit the fire is not considered to have damaged the victim, and so he needs to only make the basic payment to compensate the victim. Tosafot (Baba Kama 56) assert that this debate also affects the question of whether one is held liable for murder if he intentionally murders by kindling a flame which then spreads to the victim. According to Rabbi Yohanan, it would seem, the guilty party is considered to have actually set fire to the victim, and he should then be liable to the death penalty. According to Resh Lakish, however, the person is not considered to have directly killed, and so he would not be