Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 1, 2024 | 讻壮 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 60

This month’s learning is sponsored by Tzippora Chwat in loving memory of Chana Leeba bat Chaim.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Tamar Orvell.聽

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree in which case the one who passes fire to a deaf-mute, shoteh, or minor will be exempted by human law and obligated by the law of heaven. If a person fans a coal together with the wind, if the wind played a significant role (if the person would not have been able to fan it into a fire without the wind), the person is exempt. How is it different from the聽zoreh, winnowing, in the Shabbat laws where one is liable even though the action is only completed with the help of the wind? There are four answers to this question. Why are all these words listed in the verse regarding damages from fire – thorns, pile, standing grain, and field? From this verse, the rabbis learn that when misfortune comes to the world due to evil people, it attacks the righteous ones first. From there the Gemara deviates into theological issues regarding the righteous and the wicked and why bad things happen to good people. During the plague of the firstborn, the Jews were commanded to stay inside as the destroyer was in the land and would not be able to distinguish between those deserving of death and those not deserving of death. This verse teaches several things about times when the Angel of Death is more rampant and how one should act to avoid it.

住诇转讗 砖专讙讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讜讚讗讬 诪注砖讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讙专诪讜


of thin wood and a candle [sheraga], since in that case his own action, i.e., that of the one who sent the flame, definitely caused the fire to spread.


砖诇讞 讘讬讚 驻拽讞 讛驻拽讞 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诇讬讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 谞讬讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖


The mishna teaches that if one sent a fire in the hand of a halakhically competent person, the halakhically competent person is liable鈥If another came and fanned the flame the one who fanned it is liable. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says with regard to the correct text of the mishna: The one who teaches it using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, and the one who teaches it using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken.


诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诇讬讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讻转讬讘 讘诇讘转 讗砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 谞讬讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讻转讬讘 讘讜专讗 谞讬讘 砖驻转讬诐


Rav Na岣an explained: The one who teaches using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, as it is written: 鈥淲ith a flame [belabbat] of fire鈥 (Exodus 3:2), and the one who teaches using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken, as it is written: 鈥淗e creates the fruit [niv] of the lips鈥 (Isaiah 57:19), which can be interpreted as referring to the breath of the lips.


诇讘转讛 讛专讜讞 讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讬讘讛 讜诇讘转讛 讛专讜讞 讗诐 讬砖 讘诇讘讜讬讜 讻讚讬 诇诇讘讜转讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专


搂 The mishna teaches: If the wind fanned the flames, all the people involved are exempt, indicating that even if one fanned the fire at the same time that the wind was blowing he is exempt. The Gemara cites a baraita in which the Sages taught the same idea explicitly: In a case where one fanned the flame and at the same time the wind fanned it, if his fanning has sufficient strength by itself to fan the flames, he is liable for damage caused by the fire, since even without the wind the fire would have spread. But if his fanning alone was not sufficient, he is exempt.


讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻讝讜专讛 讜专讜讞 诪住讬讬注转讜


The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt if his fanning is not sufficient? Let it be the same halakha as the case of one who winnows grain on Shabbat by throwing it into the air, and the wind assists him by separating the chaff from the grain. In such a case he is liable for desecrating Shabbat, despite the fact that without the assistance of the wind he would not have been able to winnow the grain.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖诇讬讘讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜诇讘转讜 讛专讜讞 诪爪讚 讗讞专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖诇讬讘讛 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讜诇讘转讜 讛专讜讞 讘专讜讞 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚爪诪专讛 爪诪讜专讬


Abaye said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he fanned the fire from one side and the wind fanned it from the other side, and the fire was blown in the direction the wind was blowing. Therefore, it is clear that his fanning did not help the fire spread, so he is exempt. Rava says: We are dealing with a case where he fanned it along with a typical wind, and this was not sufficient to cause the fire to spread, and suddenly an atypical wind came and fanned it. Therefore, he is exempt since he could not have anticipated this. Rabbi Zeira said: We are dealing with a case where he only heated [detzamera tzamurei] the fire by breathing on it, rather than fanning it properly.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讜专讛 讜专讜讞 诪住讬讬注转讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讚诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讙专诪讗 讘谞讝拽讬谉 驻讟讜专


Rav Ashi said: When we say that one is liable in a case where he winnows and the wind assists him, this statement applies with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. With regard to Shabbat, the principle is that the Torah prohibited planned, constructive labor. The primary consideration is that his objective is accomplished, even if he did not perform the entire act of labor. But here, in the context of damages, he is considered to have caused damage merely through indirect action, and one who causes damage through indirect action is exempt.


诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讗转 讛讘注专讛 讜讗讻诇讛 注爪讬诐 讗讜 讗讘谞讬诐 讗讜 注驻专 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 转爪讗 讗砖 讜诪爪讗讛 拽爪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 讗讜 讛拽诪讛 讗讜 讛砖讚讛 砖诇诐 讬砖诇诐 讛诪讘注专 讗转 讛讘注专讛


MISHNA: If one sends forth a fire, i.e., allows it to escape, and it consumes wood, or stones, or earth, he is liable, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed, the one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation鈥 (Exodus 22:5), which teaches that he is liable also for destroying the field itself.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽讜爪讬诐 讙讚讬砖 拽诪讛 讜砖讚讛


GEMARA: With regard to the verse cited in the mishna, Rava says: Why do I need the Merciful One to write in the Torah all of these terms: 鈥淭horns,鈥 鈥渁 stack of grain,鈥 鈥渟tanding grain,鈥 and 鈥渇ield,鈥 which seem to be redundant?


爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽讜爪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讜爪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞 讗砖 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜砖讻讬讞 讚驻砖注 讗讘诇 讙讚讬砖 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讗砖 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讚驻砖注 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讚讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讙讚讬砖 讞讬讬讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 拽讜爪讬诐 讚讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


Rava explains: All the terms are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渢horns鈥 in the Torah, I would say that it is specifically thorns for which the Merciful One renders one liable, because it is common for fire to be near them, and it is common that one is negligent. But with regard to a stack of grain, with regard to which it is not common for fire to be near it, as grain is valuable, so one keeps it out of harm鈥檚 way, and it is not common that one is negligent in allowing it to catch fire, I would say that he should not be liable. And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淎 stack of grain,鈥 I would say that it is specifically for such a stack that the Merciful One renders him liable, because it involves a substantial financial loss. But with regard to thorns, which involve only a minimal loss, I would say that he should not be liable. Therefore, the verse teaches that he is liable for damage to thorns as well.


拽诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛 拽诪讛 讘讙诇讜讬 讗祝 讻诇 讘讙诇讜讬


Why do I need the Torah to state the term 鈥渟tanding grain鈥? It is in order to teach that just as standing grain is exposed, so too, one is liable only for damage caused by fire for all items that are exposed. One is exempt from liability for damage to items that are concealed.


讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗谞讝拽讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 拽诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽讜诪讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽讜诪讛 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讗讜 讛拽诪讛


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for a concealed article damaged by a fire, why do I need the Torah to state the term: 鈥淪tanding grain鈥? The Gemara answers: The term serves to include all items that have stature, i.e., trees and animals, and not only produce. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who derive the halakha of concealed articles from the term 鈥渟tanding grain,鈥 from where do they derive that all items that have stature are included? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the term: 鈥淥r standing grain,鈥 since the additional word 鈥渙r鈥 is an inclusive term.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 讜专讘谞谉 诇讞诇拽 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讗讜 讛砖讚讛


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the additional word 鈥渙r鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires the word 鈥渙r鈥 to divide the terms, i.e., to teach that one is liable for damage to any one of the items listed, and not only where the fire burned all of them together. The Gemara then asks: And from where do the Rabbis derive the halakha to divide the terms so that one is liable for damage to each one independently? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the second instance of the word 鈥渙r,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淥r the field.鈥


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讜 讛拽诪讛 讻转讘 讗讜 讛砖讚讛


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the phrase 鈥渙r the field鈥? The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One wrote in the Torah: 鈥淥r standing grain,鈥 He also wrote: 鈥淥r the field,鈥 for stylistic consistency, but no additional halakha may be derived from this term.


砖讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诇讞讻讛 谞讬专讜 讜住讻住讻讛 讗讘谞讬讜 讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讚讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讛谞讱 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讛 砖讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rava continues to elaborate on the different terms in the verse: And why do I need the word 鈥渇ield鈥 in the verse? It serves to include liability for damage in a case when the flames licked a plowed field and charred its stones. The Gemara asks: But let the Merciful One write only the term 鈥渇ield,鈥 and then it would not require all these other terms. If one is liable for damage to a field, which is not totally destroyed by the fire, he is certainly liable for damage to other items that are completely destroyed. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to write the other terms as well, because if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渇ield,鈥 I would say that for what is in the field, yes, one is liable, but for anything else, no, one is not liable. Therefore, it teaches us that one is liable for any damage caused by fire.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讬谉 驻讜专注谞讜转 讘讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛专砖注讬诐 讘注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讞诇转 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛爪讚讬拽讬诐 转讞诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 转爪讗 讗砖 讜诪爪讗讛 拽爪讬诐 讗讬诪转讬 讗砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讝诪谉 砖拽讜爪讬诐 诪爪讜讬谉 诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讞诇转 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛爪讚讬拽讬诐 转讞诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 讜讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讜谞讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 砖谞讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 讻讘专


搂 The Gemara cites an aggadic midrash based on this verse: Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Calamity befalls the world only when wicked people are in the world, but the calamity begins only with the righteous first, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淚f a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed鈥 (Exodus 22:5). When does the fire, i.e., calamity, emerge? At a time when the thorns, i.e., the wicked, are found with it. But calamity begins only from the righteous first, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎nd a stack of grain is consumed [vene鈥檈khal].鈥 It is not stated: If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, and consumes [ve鈥檃khal] the stack of grain; rather, it states: 鈥淎 stack of grain is consumed,鈥 meaning that the stack, i.e., the righteous, has already been consumed before the thorns.


转讗谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转爪讗讜 讗讬砖 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜 注讚 讘拽专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讬转谉 专砖讜转 诇诪砖讞讬转 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 爪讚讬拽讬诐 诇专砖注讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪转讞讬诇 诪谉 讛爪讚讬拽讬诐 转讞诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讻专转讬 诪诪讱 爪讚讬拽 讜专砖注


Rav Yosef taught a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the plague of the firstborn: 鈥淎nd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning鈥 (Exodus 12:22)? If the plague was not decreed upon the Jewish people, why were they not permitted to leave their homes? Once permission is granted to the destroyer to kill, it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. And not only that, but it begins with the righteous first, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked鈥 (Ezekiel 21:8), where mention of the righteous precedes the wicked.


讘讻讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讬谉 讚讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讟讬讘讜转讗 讛讜讗 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪驻谞讬 讛专注讛 谞讗住祝 讛爪讚讬拽


Rav Yosef cried and said: Are all these righteous people also compared to nothing when calamity strikes? Abaye said to him: It is goodness for the righteous that they die first, as it is written: 鈥淭he righteous is taken away because of the evil to come鈥 (Isaiah 57:1), so that he will not have to endure the suffering that will befall the people.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘


Rav Yehuda says that Rav says:


诇注讜诇诐 讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 讘讻讬 讟讜讘 讜讬爪讗 讘讻讬 讟讜讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转爪讗讜 讗讬砖 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜 注讚 讘拽专


A person should always enter an unfamiliar city at a time of good, i.e., while it is light, as the Torah uses the expression 鈥淚t is good鈥 with regard to the creation of light (see Genesis 1:4). This goodness is manifest in the sense of security one feels when it is light. And likewise, when one leaves a city he should leave at a time of good, meaning after sunrise the next morning, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning鈥 (Exodus 12:22).


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讘注讬专 讻谞住 专讙诇讬讱 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转爪讗讜 讗讬砖 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讗讜诪专 诇讱 注诪讬 讘讗 讘讞讚专讬讱 讜住讙讜专 讚诇转讱 讘注讚讱 讜讗讜诪专 诪讞讜抓 转砖讻诇 讞专讘 讜诪讞讚专讬诐 讗讬诪讛


The Sages taught: If there is plague in the city, gather your feet, i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.鈥 And it says in another verse: 鈥淐ome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed by鈥 (Isaiah 26:20). And it says: 鈥淥utside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:25).


诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讘诇 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 诇讱 注诪讬 讘讗 讘讞讚专讬讱 讜住讙讜专 讚诇转讱


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for citing the additional verses introduced with the term: And it says? The first verse seems sufficient to teach the principle that one should not emerge from one鈥檚 house when there is a plague. The Gemara answers: And if you would say that this matter, the first verse that states that none of you shall go out until morning, applies only at night, but in the day one may think that the principle does not apply, for this reason the Gemara teaches: Come and hear: 鈥淐ome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.鈥


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 [讛讬讻讗] 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬诪讛 诪讙讜讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬诪讛 诪讙讜讗讬 讻讬 谞驻讬拽 讬转讬讘 讘讬谞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘爪讜讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讟驻讬 诪注诇讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪讞讜抓 转砖讻诇 讞专讘 讜诪讞讚专讬诐 讗讬诪讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讞讚专讬诐 讗讬诪讛 诪讞讜抓 转砖讻诇 讞专讘


And if you would say that this matter applies only where there is no fear inside, which explains why it is preferable to remain indoors, but where there is fear inside, one might think that when he goes out and sits among people in general company it is better, therefore, the Gemara introduces the third verse and says: Come and hear: 鈥淥utside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.鈥 This means that although there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave, so it is safer to remain indoors.


专讘讗 讘注讬讚谉 专转讞讗 讛讜讬 住讻专 讻讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 注诇讛 诪讜转 讘讞诇讜谞讬谞讜


At a time when there was a plague, Rava would close the windows of his house, as it is written: 鈥淔or death is come up into our windows鈥 (Jeremiah 9:20).


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专注讘 讘注讬专 驻讝专 专讙诇讬讱 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 专注讘 讘讗专抓 讜讬专讚 讗讘专诐 诪爪专讬诪讛 [诇讙讜专] (讜讬讙专) 砖诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗诪专谞讜 谞讘讜讗 讛注讬专 讜讛专注讘 讘注讬专 讜诪转谞讜 砖诐


The Sages taught: If there is famine in the city, spread your feet, i.e., leave the city, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there鈥 (Genesis 12:10). And it says: 鈥淚f we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit here, we die also, now come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die鈥 (II聽Kings 7:4).


诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 诇讻讜 讜谞驻诇讛 讗诇 诪讞谞讛 讗专诐 讗诐 讬讞讬谞讜 谞讞讬讛


What is the reason for citing the second verse, introduced with the term: And it says? And if you would say that this matter, the principle of leaving the city, applies only where there is no uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, but where there is uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation this principle does not apply, come and hear: 鈥淐ome, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die.鈥


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讘注讬专 讗诇 讬讛诇讱 讗讚诐 讘讗诪爪注 讛讚专讱 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪讛诇讱 讘讗诪爪注 讛讚专讻讬诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘讗 诇讬讛 专砖讜转讗 诪住讙讬 诇讛讚讬讗 砖诇讜诐 讘注讬专 讗诇 讬讛诇讱 讘爪讚讬 讚专讻讬诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 专砖讜转讗 诪讞讘讬 讞讘讜讬讬 讜诪住讙讬


The Sages taught: If there is a plague in the city, a person should not walk in the middle of the road, due to the fact that the Angel of Death walks in the middle of the road, as, since in Heaven they have given him permission to kill within the city, he goes openly in the middle of the road. By contrast, if there is peace and quiet in the city, do not walk on the sides of the road, as, since the Angel of Death does not have permission to kill within the city, he hides himself and walks on the side of the road.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讘注讬专 讗诇 讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 讬讞讬讚 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪驻拽讬讚 砖诐 讻诇讬讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讜 讘讬讛 讚专讚拽讬 讜诇讗 诪爪诇讜 讘讬讛 注砖专讛


The Sages taught: If there is a plague in the city, a person should not enter the synagogue alone, as the Angel of Death leaves his utensils there, and for this reason it is a dangerous place. And this matter, the danger in the synagogue, applies only when there are no children learning in the synagogue, and there are not ten men praying in it. But if there are children learning or ten men praying there, it is not a dangerous place.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇讘讬诐 讘讜讻讬诐 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讘讗 诇注讬专 讻诇讘讬诐 诪砖讞拽讬诐 讗诇讬讛讜 讛谞讘讬讗 讘讗 诇注讬专 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 谞拽讘讛


The Sages taught: If the dogs in a certain place are crying for no reason, it is a sign that they feel the Angel of Death has come to the city. If the dogs are playing, it is a sign that they feel that Elijah the prophet has come to the city. These matters apply only if there is no female dog among them. If there is a female dog nearby, their crying or playing is likely due to her presence.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诪专 讗讙讚转讗 驻转讞 诇诪讬诪专 讗讙讚转讗 讜诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诪专 驻转讞 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诪专


Rav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. One Sage said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: Let the Master say words of halakha, and the other Sage said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: Let the Master say words of aggada. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 began to say words of aggada but one Sage did not let him, so he began to say words of halakha but the other Sage did not let him.


讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗诪砖讜诇 诇讻诐 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讚诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讞转 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞转 讝拽讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 诪诇拽讟转 诇讜 诇讘谞讜转 讝拽讬谞讛 诪诇拽讟转 诇讜 砖讞讜专讜转 谞诪爪讗 拽专讞 诪讻讗谉 讜诪讻讗谉


Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said to them: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared? It can be compared to a man who has two wives, one young and one old. The young wife pulls out his white hairs, so that her husband will appear younger. The old wife pulls out his black hairs so that he will appear older. And it turns out that he is bald from here and from there, i.e., completely bald, due to the actions of both of his wives.


讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讻讜 诪诇转讗 讚砖讜讬讗 诇转专讜讬讬讻讜 讻讬 转爪讗 讗砖 讜诪爪讗讛 拽爪讬诐 转爪讗 诪注爪诪讛 砖诇诐 讬砖诇诐 讛诪讘注专 讗转 讛讘注专讛 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇讬 诇砖诇诐 讗转 讛讘注专讛 砖讛讘注专转讬


Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 continued and said to them: If so, I will say to you a matter that is appropriate to both of you, which contains both halakha and aggada. In the verse that states: 鈥淚f a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns鈥 (Exodus 22:5), the term 鈥渂reaks out鈥 indicates that it breaks out by itself. Yet, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淭he one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,鈥 which indicates that he must pay only if the fire spread due to his negligence. The verse can be explained allegorically: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said that although the fire broke out in the Temple due to the sins of the Jewish people, it is incumbent upon Me to pay restitution for the fire that I kindled.


讗谞讬 讛爪讬转讬 讗砖 讘爪讬讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪转 讗砖 讘爪讬讜谉 讜转讗讻诇 讬住讚转讬讛 讜讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讘谞讜转讛 讘讗砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 诇讛 讞讜诪转 讗砖 住讘讬讘 讜诇讻讘讜讚 讗讛讬讛 讘转讜讻讛


I, God, kindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord has accomplished His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger; and He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundations鈥 (Lamentations 4:11). And I will build it with fire in the future, as it is stated: 鈥淔or I, says the Lord, will be for her a wall of fire round about; and I will be the glory in her midst鈥 (Zechariah 2:9).


砖诪注转转讗 驻转讞 讛讻转讜讘 讘谞讝拽讬 诪诪讜谞讜 讜住讬讬诐 讘谞讝拽讬 讙讜驻讜 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讗砖讜 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬讜


There is a halakha that can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as the verse begins with damage caused through one鈥檚 property: 鈥淚f a fire breaks out,鈥 and concludes with damage caused by one鈥檚 body: 鈥淭he one who kindled the fire.鈥 This indicates that when damage is caused by fire, it is considered as though the person who kindled the fire caused the damage directly with his body. That serves to say to you that the liability for his fire damage is due to its similarity to his arrows. Just as one who shoots an arrow and causes damage is liable because the damage was caused directly through his action, so too, one who kindles a fire that causes damage is liable because it is considered as though the damage were caused directly by his actions.


讜讬转讗讜讛 讚讜讚 讜讬讗诪专 诪讬 讬砖拽谞讬 诪讬诐 诪讘讗专 讘讬转 诇讞诐 讗砖专 讘砖注专 讜讬讘拽注讜 砖诇砖转 讛讙讘讜专讬诐 讘诪讞谞讛 驻诇砖转讬诐 讜讬砖讗讘讜 诪讬诐 诪讘讗专 讘讬转 诇讞诐 讗砖专 讘砖注专 [讜讙讜壮]


搂 The Gemara continues with another statement of aggada on a related topic: The verse states: 鈥淎nd David longed, and said: Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men broke through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord鈥 (II聽Samuel 23:15鈥16). The Sages understood that David was not simply asking for water, but was using the term as a metaphor referring to Torah, and he was raising a halakhic dilemma.


诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讜驻砖讟讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚驻砖讟讜 诇讬讛


What is the dilemma that David is raising? Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: He was asking about the halakha with regard to a concealed article damaged by a fire. He wanted to know whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one is liable to pay for such damage, or whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one is exempt from liability for damage by fire to concealed articles. And the Sages in Bethlehem answered him what they answered him.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讙讚讬砖讬诐 讚砖注讜专讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讜 讚讛讜讜 诪讟诪专讬 驻诇砖转讬诐 讘讛讜 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讛爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜


Rav Huna stated a different explanation of the verse: There were stacks of barley belonging to Jews in which the Philistines were hiding, and David wanted to burn down the stacks to kill the Philistines and save his own life. He raised the dilemma: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to save oneself by destroying the property of another?


砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 诇讛爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪诇讱 讗转讛 [讜诪诇讱] 驻讜专抓 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讞讬谉 讘讬讚讜


They sent the following answer to him: It is prohibited to save oneself by destroying the property of another. But you are king, and a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action, i.e., the normal halakhot of damage do not apply to you since you are king.


讜专讘谞谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 诪专讬 讗诪专讜 讙讚讬砖讬诐 讚砖注讜专讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讜 讜讙讚讬砖讬谉 讚注讚砖讬诐 讚驻诇砖转讬诐 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讬讟讜诇 讙讚讬砖讬谉 砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讬转谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖诇诐 讙讚讬砖讬谉 砖诇 注讚砖讬诐 讚驻诇砖转讬诐


The Rabbis, and some say that it was Rabba bar Mari, give an alternative explanation of the dilemma and said: The stacks of barley belonged to Jews, and there were stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines. David needed barley to feed his animals. And David raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha? I know that I may take the lentils belonging to a gentile to feed my animals, but is it permitted to take a stack of barley belonging to a Jew, to place before one鈥檚 animal for it to consume, with the intent to pay the owner of the barley with the stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines?


砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讞讘诇 讬砖讬讘 专砖注 讙讝诇讛 讬砖诇诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讝讬诇讛 诪砖诇诐 专砖注 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪诇讱 讗转讛 讜诪诇讱 驻讜专抓 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讞讬谉 讘讬讚讜


The Sages of Bethlehem sent the following reply to him: 鈥淚f the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he had taken by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die鈥 (Ezekiel 33:15). This verse teaches that even though the robber repays the value of the stolen item, he is nevertheless considered to be wicked, and is described as such in the verse, and a commoner would not be allowed to act as you asked. But you are king, and a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讞讚 拽专讗 讜转讛讬 砖诐 讞诇拽转 讛砖讚讛 诪诇讗讛 注讚砖讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讞讚 拽专讗 讜转讛讬 讞诇拽转 讛砖讚讛 诪诇讗讛 砖注讜专讬诐


The Gemara discusses the different explanations: Granted, according to the one who says that David was asking whether he could take the stacks of barley and exchange them, i.e., repay the owners of the barley, with stacks of lentils, this is as it is written in one verse: 鈥淎nd the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines鈥 (II聽Samuel 23:11), and it is written in one other verse: 鈥淗e was with David at Pas Dammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where was a plot of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines鈥 (I聽Chronicles 11:13). This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by saying that there were two fields, one of barley and one of lentils.


讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪拽诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讚讛讜讜 谞诪讬 讙讚讬砖讬诐 讚注讚砖讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇 讚讛讜讜 诪讬讟诪专讜 讘讛讜 驻诇砖转讬诐


But according to Rav Huna, the one who says that David鈥檚 question was asked because he wanted to burn the stacks of barley, for what purpose does he require these two verses? How does he explain this contradiction? Rav Huna could have said to you that there were also stacks of lentils belonging to Jews, inside which the Philistines were hiding.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪拽诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬转讬爪讘 讘转讜讱 讛讞诇拽讛 讜讬爪讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 诪讗讬 讜讬爪讬诇讛


Granted, according to the one who says that David asked his question because he wanted to burn the stacks, this is as it is written in the following verse with regard to David: 鈥淏ut he stood in the midst of the plot, and saved it, and slew the Philistines; and the Lord performed a great victory鈥 (II聽Samuel 23:12). But according to the one who says that David鈥檚 question was asked with regard to exchanging the lentils for the barley, what is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淎nd saved it鈥?


讚诇讗 砖讘拽 诇讛讜 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬


The Rabbis answer that David saved it in that he did not permit them to exchange the value of the barley with the lentils.


讘砖诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 转专讬 拽专讗讬


Granted, according to both of these two opinions, this is as it is written in two distinct verses, one describing the field of lentils and one describing the field of barley.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 56-62 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the liability one has to guard his fire. One is liable for anything that...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 60: Who By Fire

A Mishnah describes the ways in which someone is liable for damages caused by fire. Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha gives an...

Bava Kamma 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 60

住诇转讗 砖专讙讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讜讚讗讬 诪注砖讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讙专诪讜


of thin wood and a candle [sheraga], since in that case his own action, i.e., that of the one who sent the flame, definitely caused the fire to spread.


砖诇讞 讘讬讚 驻拽讞 讛驻拽讞 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诇讬讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 谞讬讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖


The mishna teaches that if one sent a fire in the hand of a halakhically competent person, the halakhically competent person is liable鈥If another came and fanned the flame the one who fanned it is liable. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says with regard to the correct text of the mishna: The one who teaches it using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, and the one who teaches it using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken.


诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诇讬讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讻转讬讘 讘诇讘转 讗砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 谞讬讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讻转讬讘 讘讜专讗 谞讬讘 砖驻转讬诐


Rav Na岣an explained: The one who teaches using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, as it is written: 鈥淲ith a flame [belabbat] of fire鈥 (Exodus 3:2), and the one who teaches using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken, as it is written: 鈥淗e creates the fruit [niv] of the lips鈥 (Isaiah 57:19), which can be interpreted as referring to the breath of the lips.


诇讘转讛 讛专讜讞 讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讬讘讛 讜诇讘转讛 讛专讜讞 讗诐 讬砖 讘诇讘讜讬讜 讻讚讬 诇诇讘讜转讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专


搂 The mishna teaches: If the wind fanned the flames, all the people involved are exempt, indicating that even if one fanned the fire at the same time that the wind was blowing he is exempt. The Gemara cites a baraita in which the Sages taught the same idea explicitly: In a case where one fanned the flame and at the same time the wind fanned it, if his fanning has sufficient strength by itself to fan the flames, he is liable for damage caused by the fire, since even without the wind the fire would have spread. But if his fanning alone was not sufficient, he is exempt.


讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻讝讜专讛 讜专讜讞 诪住讬讬注转讜


The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt if his fanning is not sufficient? Let it be the same halakha as the case of one who winnows grain on Shabbat by throwing it into the air, and the wind assists him by separating the chaff from the grain. In such a case he is liable for desecrating Shabbat, despite the fact that without the assistance of the wind he would not have been able to winnow the grain.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖诇讬讘讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜诇讘转讜 讛专讜讞 诪爪讚 讗讞专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖诇讬讘讛 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讜诇讘转讜 讛专讜讞 讘专讜讞 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚爪诪专讛 爪诪讜专讬


Abaye said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he fanned the fire from one side and the wind fanned it from the other side, and the fire was blown in the direction the wind was blowing. Therefore, it is clear that his fanning did not help the fire spread, so he is exempt. Rava says: We are dealing with a case where he fanned it along with a typical wind, and this was not sufficient to cause the fire to spread, and suddenly an atypical wind came and fanned it. Therefore, he is exempt since he could not have anticipated this. Rabbi Zeira said: We are dealing with a case where he only heated [detzamera tzamurei] the fire by breathing on it, rather than fanning it properly.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讜专讛 讜专讜讞 诪住讬讬注转讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讚诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讙专诪讗 讘谞讝拽讬谉 驻讟讜专


Rav Ashi said: When we say that one is liable in a case where he winnows and the wind assists him, this statement applies with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. With regard to Shabbat, the principle is that the Torah prohibited planned, constructive labor. The primary consideration is that his objective is accomplished, even if he did not perform the entire act of labor. But here, in the context of damages, he is considered to have caused damage merely through indirect action, and one who causes damage through indirect action is exempt.


诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讗转 讛讘注专讛 讜讗讻诇讛 注爪讬诐 讗讜 讗讘谞讬诐 讗讜 注驻专 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 转爪讗 讗砖 讜诪爪讗讛 拽爪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 讗讜 讛拽诪讛 讗讜 讛砖讚讛 砖诇诐 讬砖诇诐 讛诪讘注专 讗转 讛讘注专讛


MISHNA: If one sends forth a fire, i.e., allows it to escape, and it consumes wood, or stones, or earth, he is liable, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed, the one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation鈥 (Exodus 22:5), which teaches that he is liable also for destroying the field itself.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽讜爪讬诐 讙讚讬砖 拽诪讛 讜砖讚讛


GEMARA: With regard to the verse cited in the mishna, Rava says: Why do I need the Merciful One to write in the Torah all of these terms: 鈥淭horns,鈥 鈥渁 stack of grain,鈥 鈥渟tanding grain,鈥 and 鈥渇ield,鈥 which seem to be redundant?


爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽讜爪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讜爪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞 讗砖 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜砖讻讬讞 讚驻砖注 讗讘诇 讙讚讬砖 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讗砖 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讚驻砖注 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讚讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讙讚讬砖 讞讬讬讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 拽讜爪讬诐 讚讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


Rava explains: All the terms are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渢horns鈥 in the Torah, I would say that it is specifically thorns for which the Merciful One renders one liable, because it is common for fire to be near them, and it is common that one is negligent. But with regard to a stack of grain, with regard to which it is not common for fire to be near it, as grain is valuable, so one keeps it out of harm鈥檚 way, and it is not common that one is negligent in allowing it to catch fire, I would say that he should not be liable. And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淎 stack of grain,鈥 I would say that it is specifically for such a stack that the Merciful One renders him liable, because it involves a substantial financial loss. But with regard to thorns, which involve only a minimal loss, I would say that he should not be liable. Therefore, the verse teaches that he is liable for damage to thorns as well.


拽诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛 拽诪讛 讘讙诇讜讬 讗祝 讻诇 讘讙诇讜讬


Why do I need the Torah to state the term 鈥渟tanding grain鈥? It is in order to teach that just as standing grain is exposed, so too, one is liable only for damage caused by fire for all items that are exposed. One is exempt from liability for damage to items that are concealed.


讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗谞讝拽讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 拽诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽讜诪讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽讜诪讛 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讗讜 讛拽诪讛


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for a concealed article damaged by a fire, why do I need the Torah to state the term: 鈥淪tanding grain鈥? The Gemara answers: The term serves to include all items that have stature, i.e., trees and animals, and not only produce. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who derive the halakha of concealed articles from the term 鈥渟tanding grain,鈥 from where do they derive that all items that have stature are included? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the term: 鈥淥r standing grain,鈥 since the additional word 鈥渙r鈥 is an inclusive term.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 讜专讘谞谉 诇讞诇拽 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讗讜 讛砖讚讛


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the additional word 鈥渙r鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires the word 鈥渙r鈥 to divide the terms, i.e., to teach that one is liable for damage to any one of the items listed, and not only where the fire burned all of them together. The Gemara then asks: And from where do the Rabbis derive the halakha to divide the terms so that one is liable for damage to each one independently? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the second instance of the word 鈥渙r,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淥r the field.鈥


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讜 讛拽诪讛 讻转讘 讗讜 讛砖讚讛


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the phrase 鈥渙r the field鈥? The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One wrote in the Torah: 鈥淥r standing grain,鈥 He also wrote: 鈥淥r the field,鈥 for stylistic consistency, but no additional halakha may be derived from this term.


砖讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诇讞讻讛 谞讬专讜 讜住讻住讻讛 讗讘谞讬讜 讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讚讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讛谞讱 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 砖讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讛 砖讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rava continues to elaborate on the different terms in the verse: And why do I need the word 鈥渇ield鈥 in the verse? It serves to include liability for damage in a case when the flames licked a plowed field and charred its stones. The Gemara asks: But let the Merciful One write only the term 鈥渇ield,鈥 and then it would not require all these other terms. If one is liable for damage to a field, which is not totally destroyed by the fire, he is certainly liable for damage to other items that are completely destroyed. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to write the other terms as well, because if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渇ield,鈥 I would say that for what is in the field, yes, one is liable, but for anything else, no, one is not liable. Therefore, it teaches us that one is liable for any damage caused by fire.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讬谉 驻讜专注谞讜转 讘讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛专砖注讬诐 讘注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讞诇转 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛爪讚讬拽讬诐 转讞诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 转爪讗 讗砖 讜诪爪讗讛 拽爪讬诐 讗讬诪转讬 讗砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讝诪谉 砖拽讜爪讬诐 诪爪讜讬谉 诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讞诇转 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛爪讚讬拽讬诐 转讞诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 讜讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讜谞讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 砖谞讗讻诇 讙讚讬砖 讻讘专


搂 The Gemara cites an aggadic midrash based on this verse: Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Calamity befalls the world only when wicked people are in the world, but the calamity begins only with the righteous first, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淚f a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed鈥 (Exodus 22:5). When does the fire, i.e., calamity, emerge? At a time when the thorns, i.e., the wicked, are found with it. But calamity begins only from the righteous first, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎nd a stack of grain is consumed [vene鈥檈khal].鈥 It is not stated: If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, and consumes [ve鈥檃khal] the stack of grain; rather, it states: 鈥淎 stack of grain is consumed,鈥 meaning that the stack, i.e., the righteous, has already been consumed before the thorns.


转讗谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转爪讗讜 讗讬砖 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜 注讚 讘拽专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讬转谉 专砖讜转 诇诪砖讞讬转 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 爪讚讬拽讬诐 诇专砖注讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪转讞讬诇 诪谉 讛爪讚讬拽讬诐 转讞诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讻专转讬 诪诪讱 爪讚讬拽 讜专砖注


Rav Yosef taught a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the plague of the firstborn: 鈥淎nd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning鈥 (Exodus 12:22)? If the plague was not decreed upon the Jewish people, why were they not permitted to leave their homes? Once permission is granted to the destroyer to kill, it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. And not only that, but it begins with the righteous first, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked鈥 (Ezekiel 21:8), where mention of the righteous precedes the wicked.


讘讻讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讬谉 讚讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讟讬讘讜转讗 讛讜讗 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪驻谞讬 讛专注讛 谞讗住祝 讛爪讚讬拽


Rav Yosef cried and said: Are all these righteous people also compared to nothing when calamity strikes? Abaye said to him: It is goodness for the righteous that they die first, as it is written: 鈥淭he righteous is taken away because of the evil to come鈥 (Isaiah 57:1), so that he will not have to endure the suffering that will befall the people.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘


Rav Yehuda says that Rav says:


诇注讜诇诐 讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 讘讻讬 讟讜讘 讜讬爪讗 讘讻讬 讟讜讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转爪讗讜 讗讬砖 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜 注讚 讘拽专


A person should always enter an unfamiliar city at a time of good, i.e., while it is light, as the Torah uses the expression 鈥淚t is good鈥 with regard to the creation of light (see Genesis 1:4). This goodness is manifest in the sense of security one feels when it is light. And likewise, when one leaves a city he should leave at a time of good, meaning after sunrise the next morning, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning鈥 (Exodus 12:22).


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讘注讬专 讻谞住 专讙诇讬讱 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转爪讗讜 讗讬砖 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讗讜诪专 诇讱 注诪讬 讘讗 讘讞讚专讬讱 讜住讙讜专 讚诇转讱 讘注讚讱 讜讗讜诪专 诪讞讜抓 转砖讻诇 讞专讘 讜诪讞讚专讬诐 讗讬诪讛


The Sages taught: If there is plague in the city, gather your feet, i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.鈥 And it says in another verse: 鈥淐ome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed by鈥 (Isaiah 26:20). And it says: 鈥淥utside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:25).


诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讘诇 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 诇讱 注诪讬 讘讗 讘讞讚专讬讱 讜住讙讜专 讚诇转讱


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for citing the additional verses introduced with the term: And it says? The first verse seems sufficient to teach the principle that one should not emerge from one鈥檚 house when there is a plague. The Gemara answers: And if you would say that this matter, the first verse that states that none of you shall go out until morning, applies only at night, but in the day one may think that the principle does not apply, for this reason the Gemara teaches: Come and hear: 鈥淐ome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.鈥


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 [讛讬讻讗] 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬诪讛 诪讙讜讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬诪讛 诪讙讜讗讬 讻讬 谞驻讬拽 讬转讬讘 讘讬谞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘爪讜讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讟驻讬 诪注诇讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪讞讜抓 转砖讻诇 讞专讘 讜诪讞讚专讬诐 讗讬诪讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讞讚专讬诐 讗讬诪讛 诪讞讜抓 转砖讻诇 讞专讘


And if you would say that this matter applies only where there is no fear inside, which explains why it is preferable to remain indoors, but where there is fear inside, one might think that when he goes out and sits among people in general company it is better, therefore, the Gemara introduces the third verse and says: Come and hear: 鈥淥utside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.鈥 This means that although there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave, so it is safer to remain indoors.


专讘讗 讘注讬讚谉 专转讞讗 讛讜讬 住讻专 讻讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 注诇讛 诪讜转 讘讞诇讜谞讬谞讜


At a time when there was a plague, Rava would close the windows of his house, as it is written: 鈥淔or death is come up into our windows鈥 (Jeremiah 9:20).


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专注讘 讘注讬专 驻讝专 专讙诇讬讱 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 专注讘 讘讗专抓 讜讬专讚 讗讘专诐 诪爪专讬诪讛 [诇讙讜专] (讜讬讙专) 砖诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗诪专谞讜 谞讘讜讗 讛注讬专 讜讛专注讘 讘注讬专 讜诪转谞讜 砖诐


The Sages taught: If there is famine in the city, spread your feet, i.e., leave the city, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there鈥 (Genesis 12:10). And it says: 鈥淚f we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit here, we die also, now come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die鈥 (II聽Kings 7:4).


诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 诇讻讜 讜谞驻诇讛 讗诇 诪讞谞讛 讗专诐 讗诐 讬讞讬谞讜 谞讞讬讛


What is the reason for citing the second verse, introduced with the term: And it says? And if you would say that this matter, the principle of leaving the city, applies only where there is no uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, but where there is uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation this principle does not apply, come and hear: 鈥淐ome, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die.鈥


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讘注讬专 讗诇 讬讛诇讱 讗讚诐 讘讗诪爪注 讛讚专讱 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪讛诇讱 讘讗诪爪注 讛讚专讻讬诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘讗 诇讬讛 专砖讜转讗 诪住讙讬 诇讛讚讬讗 砖诇讜诐 讘注讬专 讗诇 讬讛诇讱 讘爪讚讬 讚专讻讬诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 专砖讜转讗 诪讞讘讬 讞讘讜讬讬 讜诪住讙讬


The Sages taught: If there is a plague in the city, a person should not walk in the middle of the road, due to the fact that the Angel of Death walks in the middle of the road, as, since in Heaven they have given him permission to kill within the city, he goes openly in the middle of the road. By contrast, if there is peace and quiet in the city, do not walk on the sides of the road, as, since the Angel of Death does not have permission to kill within the city, he hides himself and walks on the side of the road.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讘注讬专 讗诇 讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 讬讞讬讚 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 诪驻拽讬讚 砖诐 讻诇讬讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讜 讘讬讛 讚专讚拽讬 讜诇讗 诪爪诇讜 讘讬讛 注砖专讛


The Sages taught: If there is a plague in the city, a person should not enter the synagogue alone, as the Angel of Death leaves his utensils there, and for this reason it is a dangerous place. And this matter, the danger in the synagogue, applies only when there are no children learning in the synagogue, and there are not ten men praying in it. But if there are children learning or ten men praying there, it is not a dangerous place.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇讘讬诐 讘讜讻讬诐 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讘讗 诇注讬专 讻诇讘讬诐 诪砖讞拽讬诐 讗诇讬讛讜 讛谞讘讬讗 讘讗 诇注讬专 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 谞拽讘讛


The Sages taught: If the dogs in a certain place are crying for no reason, it is a sign that they feel the Angel of Death has come to the city. If the dogs are playing, it is a sign that they feel that Elijah the prophet has come to the city. These matters apply only if there is no female dog among them. If there is a female dog nearby, their crying or playing is likely due to her presence.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诪专 讗讙讚转讗 驻转讞 诇诪讬诪专 讗讙讚转讗 讜诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诪专 驻转讞 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讜诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诪专


Rav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. One Sage said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: Let the Master say words of halakha, and the other Sage said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: Let the Master say words of aggada. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 began to say words of aggada but one Sage did not let him, so he began to say words of halakha but the other Sage did not let him.


讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗诪砖讜诇 诇讻诐 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讚诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讞转 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞转 讝拽讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 诪诇拽讟转 诇讜 诇讘谞讜转 讝拽讬谞讛 诪诇拽讟转 诇讜 砖讞讜专讜转 谞诪爪讗 拽专讞 诪讻讗谉 讜诪讻讗谉


Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said to them: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared? It can be compared to a man who has two wives, one young and one old. The young wife pulls out his white hairs, so that her husband will appear younger. The old wife pulls out his black hairs so that he will appear older. And it turns out that he is bald from here and from there, i.e., completely bald, due to the actions of both of his wives.


讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讻讜 诪诇转讗 讚砖讜讬讗 诇转专讜讬讬讻讜 讻讬 转爪讗 讗砖 讜诪爪讗讛 拽爪讬诐 转爪讗 诪注爪诪讛 砖诇诐 讬砖诇诐 讛诪讘注专 讗转 讛讘注专讛 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇讬 诇砖诇诐 讗转 讛讘注专讛 砖讛讘注专转讬


Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 continued and said to them: If so, I will say to you a matter that is appropriate to both of you, which contains both halakha and aggada. In the verse that states: 鈥淚f a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns鈥 (Exodus 22:5), the term 鈥渂reaks out鈥 indicates that it breaks out by itself. Yet, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淭he one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,鈥 which indicates that he must pay only if the fire spread due to his negligence. The verse can be explained allegorically: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said that although the fire broke out in the Temple due to the sins of the Jewish people, it is incumbent upon Me to pay restitution for the fire that I kindled.


讗谞讬 讛爪讬转讬 讗砖 讘爪讬讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪转 讗砖 讘爪讬讜谉 讜转讗讻诇 讬住讚转讬讛 讜讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讘谞讜转讛 讘讗砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 诇讛 讞讜诪转 讗砖 住讘讬讘 讜诇讻讘讜讚 讗讛讬讛 讘转讜讻讛


I, God, kindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord has accomplished His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger; and He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundations鈥 (Lamentations 4:11). And I will build it with fire in the future, as it is stated: 鈥淔or I, says the Lord, will be for her a wall of fire round about; and I will be the glory in her midst鈥 (Zechariah 2:9).


砖诪注转转讗 驻转讞 讛讻转讜讘 讘谞讝拽讬 诪诪讜谞讜 讜住讬讬诐 讘谞讝拽讬 讙讜驻讜 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讗砖讜 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬讜


There is a halakha that can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as the verse begins with damage caused through one鈥檚 property: 鈥淚f a fire breaks out,鈥 and concludes with damage caused by one鈥檚 body: 鈥淭he one who kindled the fire.鈥 This indicates that when damage is caused by fire, it is considered as though the person who kindled the fire caused the damage directly with his body. That serves to say to you that the liability for his fire damage is due to its similarity to his arrows. Just as one who shoots an arrow and causes damage is liable because the damage was caused directly through his action, so too, one who kindles a fire that causes damage is liable because it is considered as though the damage were caused directly by his actions.


讜讬转讗讜讛 讚讜讚 讜讬讗诪专 诪讬 讬砖拽谞讬 诪讬诐 诪讘讗专 讘讬转 诇讞诐 讗砖专 讘砖注专 讜讬讘拽注讜 砖诇砖转 讛讙讘讜专讬诐 讘诪讞谞讛 驻诇砖转讬诐 讜讬砖讗讘讜 诪讬诐 诪讘讗专 讘讬转 诇讞诐 讗砖专 讘砖注专 [讜讙讜壮]


搂 The Gemara continues with another statement of aggada on a related topic: The verse states: 鈥淎nd David longed, and said: Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men broke through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord鈥 (II聽Samuel 23:15鈥16). The Sages understood that David was not simply asking for water, but was using the term as a metaphor referring to Torah, and he was raising a halakhic dilemma.


诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讜驻砖讟讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚驻砖讟讜 诇讬讛


What is the dilemma that David is raising? Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: He was asking about the halakha with regard to a concealed article damaged by a fire. He wanted to know whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one is liable to pay for such damage, or whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one is exempt from liability for damage by fire to concealed articles. And the Sages in Bethlehem answered him what they answered him.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讙讚讬砖讬诐 讚砖注讜专讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讜 讚讛讜讜 诪讟诪专讬 驻诇砖转讬诐 讘讛讜 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讛爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜


Rav Huna stated a different explanation of the verse: There were stacks of barley belonging to Jews in which the Philistines were hiding, and David wanted to burn down the stacks to kill the Philistines and save his own life. He raised the dilemma: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to save oneself by destroying the property of another?


砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 诇讛爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪诇讱 讗转讛 [讜诪诇讱] 驻讜专抓 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讞讬谉 讘讬讚讜


They sent the following answer to him: It is prohibited to save oneself by destroying the property of another. But you are king, and a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action, i.e., the normal halakhot of damage do not apply to you since you are king.


讜专讘谞谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 诪专讬 讗诪专讜 讙讚讬砖讬诐 讚砖注讜专讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讜 讜讙讚讬砖讬谉 讚注讚砖讬诐 讚驻诇砖转讬诐 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讬讟讜诇 讙讚讬砖讬谉 砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讬转谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖诇诐 讙讚讬砖讬谉 砖诇 注讚砖讬诐 讚驻诇砖转讬诐


The Rabbis, and some say that it was Rabba bar Mari, give an alternative explanation of the dilemma and said: The stacks of barley belonged to Jews, and there were stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines. David needed barley to feed his animals. And David raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha? I know that I may take the lentils belonging to a gentile to feed my animals, but is it permitted to take a stack of barley belonging to a Jew, to place before one鈥檚 animal for it to consume, with the intent to pay the owner of the barley with the stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines?


砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讞讘诇 讬砖讬讘 专砖注 讙讝诇讛 讬砖诇诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讝讬诇讛 诪砖诇诐 专砖注 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪诇讱 讗转讛 讜诪诇讱 驻讜专抓 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讞讬谉 讘讬讚讜


The Sages of Bethlehem sent the following reply to him: 鈥淚f the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he had taken by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die鈥 (Ezekiel 33:15). This verse teaches that even though the robber repays the value of the stolen item, he is nevertheless considered to be wicked, and is described as such in the verse, and a commoner would not be allowed to act as you asked. But you are king, and a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讞讚 拽专讗 讜转讛讬 砖诐 讞诇拽转 讛砖讚讛 诪诇讗讛 注讚砖讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讞讚 拽专讗 讜转讛讬 讞诇拽转 讛砖讚讛 诪诇讗讛 砖注讜专讬诐


The Gemara discusses the different explanations: Granted, according to the one who says that David was asking whether he could take the stacks of barley and exchange them, i.e., repay the owners of the barley, with stacks of lentils, this is as it is written in one verse: 鈥淎nd the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines鈥 (II聽Samuel 23:11), and it is written in one other verse: 鈥淗e was with David at Pas Dammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where was a plot of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines鈥 (I聽Chronicles 11:13). This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by saying that there were two fields, one of barley and one of lentils.


讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪拽诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讚讛讜讜 谞诪讬 讙讚讬砖讬诐 讚注讚砖讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇 讚讛讜讜 诪讬讟诪专讜 讘讛讜 驻诇砖转讬诐


But according to Rav Huna, the one who says that David鈥檚 question was asked because he wanted to burn the stacks of barley, for what purpose does he require these two verses? How does he explain this contradiction? Rav Huna could have said to you that there were also stacks of lentils belonging to Jews, inside which the Philistines were hiding.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪拽诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬转讬爪讘 讘转讜讱 讛讞诇拽讛 讜讬爪讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 诪讗讬 讜讬爪讬诇讛


Granted, according to the one who says that David asked his question because he wanted to burn the stacks, this is as it is written in the following verse with regard to David: 鈥淏ut he stood in the midst of the plot, and saved it, and slew the Philistines; and the Lord performed a great victory鈥 (II聽Samuel 23:12). But according to the one who says that David鈥檚 question was asked with regard to exchanging the lentils for the barley, what is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淎nd saved it鈥?


讚诇讗 砖讘拽 诇讛讜 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬


The Rabbis answer that David saved it in that he did not permit them to exchange the value of the barley with the lentils.


讘砖诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 转专讬 拽专讗讬


Granted, according to both of these two opinions, this is as it is written in two distinct verses, one describing the field of lentils and one describing the field of barley.


Scroll To Top