Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 6:4 ירושלמי בבא קמא ו׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: He who causes a fire through the hand of a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person⁶³These are irresponsible; no liability can be imposed on them.
The expression “to send a fire” is a pun on the expression “sending בעירה” (Ex. 22:4), his animal, and paying for בערה “arson” in v. 5; cf. Ibn Ezra ad loc. is not liable in human law⁶⁴Damages by indirect arson cannot be recovered. but liable in Heaven’s law⁶⁵He cannot hope for divine forgiveness unless he pays the damages.. If he causes it through a hearing person, the hearing person is liable⁶⁶Since “there is no agency in criminal matters”, cf. Note 20.. If one person brings the fire and another one the wood, the one bringing the wood is liable. If one brings the wood and another one the fire, the one bringing the fire is liable⁶⁷If several ingredients are necessary, the person contributing the last ingredient makes the act possible and, therefore, bears full liability.. If another person came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned is liable. If the wind fanned it⁶⁸And without wind the fire would not have caused damage., none of them is liable⁶⁹Since they did not directly cause the damages..

HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire,” etc. ⁷⁰A similar discussion is in the Babli, 59b–60a; but the underlying argument there seems to be different.Ḥizqiah said, if he handed him⁷¹The irresponsible person. a glowing coal. But if he handed him an open flame he is liable⁷²In that case, he is directly responsible for the fire; it is not indirect causation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, coal and flame are the same⁷³Since after handing the fire to the deaf-and-dumb, insane, or underaged, he cannot know what they are going to do with it; the causation of the damage is still indirect. R. Joḥanan will agree that if somebody hands a fire to an irresponsible person and then guides that person until the fire is set, he is the arsonist and liable for all damages.. It is difficult according to Ḥizqiah, for if somebody saw another person’s glowing coal rolling by and did not extinguish it, is he not free from liability⁷⁴The passive bystander who fails to prevent a fire cannot be sued for damages. Then what is the differencebetween an irresponsible and a responsible person in this matter?? They said, explain it if he handed him an ownerless glowing coal, or also an ownerless flame, and one cannot infer anything⁷⁵The responsible person will acquire the coal or burning object by picking it up and becomes liable in all respects; an irresponsible person cannot acquire.
E has a different version of the last sentence, which avoids the Babylonian expression אינמי:
תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ שַׁלְהֶבֶת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ
וְלֵית שׁ״מ כְּלוּם.
“Explain it if he handed him a flame belonging to the Sanctuary, and one cannot infer anything.”
Taking the Sanctuary’s property is sinful; only the adult can sin..

Some Tannaĩm state: וְלִיבָּה. Some Tannaïm state: וְנִיבָּה. He who says וְלִיבָּה. As it is written, “in the flaming fire”⁷⁶Ex. 3:2.. He who says וְנִיבָּה, “it was in my heart like burning fire.⁷⁷Jer. 20:9. A similar argument is in the Babli, 60a.
It seems that the difference between the versions is simply a dialectal switch between the liquids l and n; but a biblical source is sought. In the Babli, the reference is to Is. 57:19, where the “fruit of the lips” is interpreted as “speech”. The verse from Jer. quoted here then points out that speech can be fiery, i. e., with one’s mouth one can fan a fire.”

There⁷⁸Babli 60a, in the name of Rava, the representative of Galilean Halakhah., they say, the Mishnah speaks of a catastrophic wind, but in case of normal wind he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even in case of normal wind he is not liable; for sometimes it blows, sometimes it does not blow⁷⁹Wind is unpredictable; wind which is fanning a fire cannot be planned. If without the wind the fire would not have spread, the person starting the fire is not liable..