caused by the fire in the American context are uncertain, it is worth discussing the Halachic perspective on retribution for such damages. In Halacha, the individual who starts the fire is generally obligated to provide compensation for the resulting harm. However, when the fire’s origin is natural or beyond human control, the owner of the property where the fire started may not be held liable.

In the Torah, there is a clear obligation for an individual to take responsibility and provide compensation for any harm or damage they cause to others. This obligation extends beyond personal physical actions and includes situations where property, such as animals, or even an individual’s failure to prevent harm, such as leaving a hazardous pit open, leads to damages.

One significant category of damages outlined in the Torah is the damage caused by fire. Fire, with its destructive potential, is recognized as a source of great danger and harm. Therefore, if a person’s fire causes harm to another person or their property, they must pay for the losses incurred.

Is Smoke Like Fire?

The Gemara explains that fire possesses a unique characteristic: it requires an external force to aid its movement. Typically, this force is the wind, which propels the fire to its destination, where it inflicts damage.

Building upon this understanding, the Sages provided additional examples that fall under the category of fire. For instance, if an individual negligently leaves a stone or knife on a roof, and the wind subsequently blows it down causing harm to someone, the Gemara states that this is also considered a form of fire-related damage. This is because the wind facilitated the objects’ descent, similar to how it aids the movement of fire. Therefore, if the Halacha doesn’t limit “fire” to flames alone, but also to situations where external forces, like wind, contribute to the occurrence of damage; one can suggest that the same can be said for the smoke arriving across our border, as it was aided by the wind.

Blame Canada?

While it may initially appear reasonable to argue that the owner of the trees, like the Canadian government, should be held responsible for damages caused by a fire due to their failure to anticipate and prevent an unusually severe fire, Halacha takes a

different approach. According to Halacha, the owner of the fire is only obligated to pay if the fire was driven by natural, normal winds. However, if unusually stronger winds were involved, the owner is exempt from liability.

When it comes to fires, particularly in the context
of tree ownership, such as
in the case of the Canadian government, the question of obligation arises. Is the owner of the trees responsible for damages caused by the fire, even if they were not the ones who started it?

In contrast to other categories of damages, such as owning a cow that causes harm to others, where the owner is generally responsible and obligated to pay for the damages, fire-related damages follow a different principle. If the owner of the property did not start the fire, they are not held responsible according to the Torah. This distinction is explicitly stated in the writings of the Imrei Moshe and the Birkat Shmuel, as well as by the renowned אמרי משה סכ״ט סקכ״ב( authority, the Garnat וברכת שמואל סימן י’, יז’ וכן הגרנ״ט סי’ קיז וראה )תוס’ ב״ק מח,א ד״ה איש

These sources highlight that the Torah designates the individual who initiated the fire as the sole party obligated to provide compensation for the resulting damages. This unique aspect sets fire-related damages apart from other categories, acknowledging that the person who ignited the fire bears the primary responsibility for its consequences.

The Chazon Ish(ב״ק סימן ב’ סק״ד) went to the extent to say that even if the owner of the trees is negligent to the point that he knew the fire will start, he still isn’t obligated, though he must initially do everything within his powers to make sure fire wouldn’t start.

Sefer Mishpat Hamazik (page 240) raises the question of whether an individual who left unsafe wires in their apartment, which ultimately caused a fire, is responsible for the damages. Based on the explanation provided earlier, it can be inferred that the person may be exempt from paying damages in this particular case. This highlights the concept that fire-related damages, even if caused by the negligence of the property owner, may not necessarily result in an obligation to provide compensation.