cellio | daf bit: Bava Kama 59-62

In past weeks we've talked about liability for damages caused by one's animals. The next category of damages occupies only a few pages here (maybe there will be more later). Rather than skipping over it because I only post these once a week, I'm backing up a few days to compile some of the mishnayot about fire:

If a man sent out something burning through a deaf-mute, an idiot, or a minor, and damage resulted, he is not liable for judgements of men (because it is the actions of the other that led to the damage, even though the other is not deemed competent), but he is subject to the judgement of heaven. If he sent it through a "normal" person, that normal person is liable. If someone fans the flames, that person is liable. (59b)
If somebody allowed fire to break out from his property and it caused damage, he is liable. (60a) But if it crossed a wall four cubits high or a public road or a canal, he is not liable. (61a)
If a man sets fire to a stack of corn and there's other stuff buried in the corn that gets destroyed, the sages say he is liable only for damage to corn. If, however, he sets fire to a castle he is liable for all the contents. Why the difference? Because it is customary to keep valuables in one's home. (61b)
Now let's talk about indirect cause. If a spark escapes from under a hammer and does damage (I assume the context here is blacksmithing), the one hammering is liable. If a camel laden with flax was passing through a public thoroughfare and some flax got into a shop and caught fire from the shopkeeper's candle, the owner of the camel is liable. If, however, the shopkeeper left his candle outside, he (the shopkeeper) is liable. R' Yehudah says if it was a Chanukah candle he is not liable (because those are placed outside and can't be high up). (62b)

Today's daf is 65, part of a multi-page discussion about fines for theft of livestock.