Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 2:5 ירושלמי בבא קמא ב׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof and broke vessels one pays full damages⁷³Even if the vessels were in the public domain. because they are notorious. If a dog stole a hot pitta⁷⁴חררה is a piece of dough being baked over an open fire. and went to a stack of sheaves; while it was eating the hot pitta it ignited the stack. For the pitta [its owner] pays full damages, for the stack⁷⁵Which is lost by indirect action of his property. he pays half damages.

HALAKHAH: “For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof,” etc. There are Tannaïm who state: “jumped”. There are Tannaïm who state: “fell”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: “jumped”. But “fell” does not apply⁷⁶One cannot say that dogs or kid goats are notoriously apt to fall from roofs; therefore, their owners either are free or at most pay half damages. The Babli disagrees, 21b..

“A dog stole a hot pitta.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if he lit every single ear of grain⁷⁷The Babli, 22a, explains that R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that damage by fire is like any other damage caused by a person’s property. Therefore, the fire not directly caused by the dog should not lead to liability of the dog’s owner.
The Vatican fragment reads נעשה במצית את האור. This is a conflation of the Leiden text with a reading נַעֲשֶׂה כְמַצִית אֶת הָאוֹר “he is considered as if he had lit every stalk separately”, that every stalk creates a new obligation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another⁷⁸This is action from a distance; the owner is liable even if his property only shot the arrow or started the fire.. Rebbi Isaac bar Tevelai said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a kid goat was bound to it and a slave was close by and was burned, he is obligated. If the slave was bound and the kid goat close by, he is free.⁷⁹Mishnah 6:7. If a person set fire to a haystack, he has to pay for the hay and everything inside. If an animal was bound in the haystack, a slave was close to it, and both were burned, the arsonist has to pay for the animal; he is not responsible for the slave, who was not bound and could have saved himself. But if the slave was bound and the animal free, then the arsonist is a murderer. Nobody is both executed and pays for the same crime; even if he cannot be convicted for lack of eyewitnesses to the crime he cannot be made to pay (Terumot 7:1, Ketubot 3:1). Therefore, he cannot be made to pay for the animal.” But⁸⁰The argument advanced by R. Isaac bar Tevelai is not spelled out. The counter argument is presented: If the arsonist were personally liable only for the first stalk which he lit then by the time the fire reached the bound slave it no longer was his fire and there is no reason why he should not be made to pay for the animal. Only R. Joḥanan’s position is consistent with the Mishnah. if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then for the first ear he is guilty of a capital crime; for the remainder he should be liable for repayment. Rebbi Yose said, you also understand that from: “If his cattle set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is obligated. But if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is free.⁸¹Mishnah 3:12; cf. Terumot 7:1, Note 44.” But if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then should he not become obligated since for the remainder he should be liable for repayment⁸⁰The argument advanced by R. Isaac bar Tevelai is not spelled out. The counter argument is presented: If the arsonist were personally liable only for the first stalk which he lit then by the time the fire reached the bound slave it no longer was his fire and there is no reason why he should not be made to pay for the animal. Only R. Joḥanan’s position is consistent with the Mishnah.. A person did put out a hot water bottle⁸²Since making fire on the Sabbath is a capital crime, he cannot be sued for civil damages. But if his animals start a fire, no crime is involved, and the owner is fully responsible in a civil suit. outside⁸³Latin foris, “outside, in the open”. The Escurial text and the Vatican fragment offer a second reading פירון (cf. Latin forum “outside place, public place; market”), and a parallel text חד בר נש אמלי אסרטא “a person filled the thoroughfare”.. A donkey passed by and broke it. The case came before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevelai, who said to him: He does not owe you anything. Not only that but if [the donkey] suffered damage, [you] would be obligated for its damages⁸⁴Your merchandise has the status of “pit in the public domain”..