Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 6:7 ירושלמי בבא קמא ו׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves which contains implements, Rebbi Jehudah says, he has to pay everything contained in it but the Sages say, he pays only for a stack of wheat sheaves or a stack of barley sheaves¹⁰⁰He has to pay only for what was visible from the outside.. If a goat was tied to it, and a slave was nearby¹⁰¹Since the slave was not bound, he could have escaped. The arsonist is not guilty of murder; he is liable for all material damage which he may cause., and they were burned, he is liable. If a slave was tied to it, and a goat was nearby, and they were burned, he is not liable¹⁰²Since the slave could not have escaped, the arsonist is a murderer. Even if he cannot be criminally prosecuted for lack of eye witnesses or for other reasons, he cannot be sued for monetary damages (Ketubot 3:1, Notes 29ff., Terumot 7:1, Notes 3–73, and sources given there.). But the Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that one who sets fire to a building has to pay everything contained in it since people regularly store things in houses.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there¹⁰³The Babli (61b) agrees in the name of Rava, the proponent of Galilean Halakhah.. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There¹⁰⁴Mishnah Peah 6:9. The parallel treatment there in Halakhah 6:9 (Notes 151–154) is more explicit. he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it¹⁰⁵The difference has nothing to do with positions of R. Jehudah, but with his interpretation of Ex. 22:5. The verse states that the arsonist has to pay for “thorns, or a stack, or standing grain, or a field.” Since even without mention of “stack” the arsonist would have to pay for the grain, the inclusion of “stack” can only mean “everything in a stack, whether recognizable from the outside or not.”. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there?¹⁰⁶They do not disagree with R. Jehudah. Their difference is about the standards of proof required from the victims of a fire. R. Jehudah holds that the arsonist would have to disprove any claim while the rabbis hold that the claimant still has the burden of proof unless he is supported by current agricultural practice. Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose)¹⁰⁷One has to read: Jehudah, with Rosh (Chapter 6, #16). as it was stated: ¹⁰⁸Tosephta 6:24, Babli 62a.“If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ]¹⁰⁹Add with Rosh and Alfasi (#125): “Rav said.” He swears and collects¹¹⁰The text is elliptic; it is best explained following Nahmanides (and all Spanish commentators of the Babli.) The first problem is what is the connection between the story and the question at hand; the second is why the claimant may swear and collect. Nahmanides (as quoted by Rashba ad 62a and others) thinks that the sack was lost in a fire; the owner of the sack claims payment from the person responsible for the fire. Now Mishnah Šebuot 7:1 states that in general one only accepts an oath of a person who can absolve himself of payment by the oath. To collect money based on an oath is possible only in very few cases, one of them being the victim of a robbery. In the Babli, 62a, it is stated that R. Jehudah equates loss by fire to loss by robbery. Since the Yerushalmi holds that the Sages mostly agree with R. Jehudah, everybody must hold that the victim of a fire may swear and collect. In the case described, since the sack was deposited tightly tied, the argument of the person with whom the sack was deposited (who may have set the fire himself), that the sack might have contained scrap metal, is not more than a conjecture and may be disregarded.
By the biblical law of deposits (Ex. 22:6–8), the person holding the deposit has to swear that he did nothing to impair the deposit; then he is not liable. If he set the fire, he cannot swear and, therefore, should be required to pay without the other side being forced to swear. However, this only applies if the nature of the deposit was known. If the contents of the sack were not ascertained by the trustee when he accepted the sack, the rule that the person who cannot swear must pay is irrelevant..

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can one argue for him an argument which does not apply to him¹¹¹The entire paragraph is in a slightly different formulation in Šebuot 7:2, 37d.
Since the Sages agree with R. Jehudah that for matters within general practice one believes the claimant of fire damages without proof, must the “general practice” be interpreted narrowly or may one admit, e. g., practices of rich people for a poor claimant?? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound¹¹²A Roman pound, 345 g, an enormous value in the early 3rd Century. of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument¹¹³R. Ismael ben R. Yose’s. means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]¹¹⁴Missing here, added from the text of Alfasi (#125) and the parallel in Šebuot. In the latter text, the position of R. Ḥiyya is explicitly endorsed by R. Joḥanan who quotes Prov. 13:7: “There are those who pose as rich and have nothing, pose as poor and have great wealth”.; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift¹¹⁵Since R. Ismael ben R. Yose said that “it should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons,” all have to share equally..