Bava Kamma 62B

מתני׳ גץ שיצא מתחת הפטיש והזיק ⁠– חייב.

Mishnah: In the case of a spark that emerged from under the hammer of a blacksmith and started a fire, causing damage, the blacksmith is liable for the damage caused.

גמל שהיה טעון פשתן, ועבר ברשות הרבים, ונכנסה פשתנו לתוך החנות ודלקה בנרו של חנוני, והדליק את הבירה ⁠– בעל גמל חייב. הניח חנוני נרו מבחוץ ⁠– החנוני חייב. רבי יהודה אומר: בנר חנוכה ⁠– פטור.

In the case of a camel that was laden with flax and was passing through the public domain, and its flax extended into a store and the flax caught fire from a lamp in the store belonging to the storekeeper, and as a result of the burning flax the camel set fire to the building together with all its contents, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside, thereby causing the flax on the camel to catch fire, and consequently the building was set on fire, the storekeeper is liable. R' Yehuda says: In a case where the lamp placed outside was a Hanukkah lamp, the storekeeper is exempt, since it is a mitzva for a Hanukkah lamp to be placed outside.

גמ׳ אמר רבינא משמיה דרבא: שמע מינה מדרבי יהודה, נר חנוכה ⁠– מצוה להניחה בתוך עשרה. דאי סלקא דעתך למעלה מעשרה, אמאי אמר רבי יהודה: נר חנוכה פטור? לימא ליה: הוה ליה לאנוחה למעלה מגמל ורוכבו! אלא לאו שמע מינה: מצוה להניחה בתוך עשרה?

Talmud: Ravina said in the name of Rava: Conclude from R' Yehuda’s statement that the mitzva is to place the Hanukkah lamp within a height of 10 handbreadths from the ground as, if it enters your mind to say that the mitzva can also be fulfilled by placing it above 10 handbreadths, why did R' Yehuda say that in the case of a Hanukkah lamp placed outside, the storekeeper is exempt? Let the owner of the camel say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider so that the flax would not catch fire. Rather, must one not conclude from here that R' Yehuda’s opinion is that the mitzva is to place it within 10 handbreadths of the ground and not higher?