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

Daf Yomi

January 1, 2024 | ื›ืณ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • 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.ย 

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 theย 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.

ืกืœืชื ืฉืจื’ื ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื’ืจืžื•


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.


ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ืคืงื— ื”ืคืงื— ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืœื™ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ื ื™ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชื‘ืฉ


The mishna teaches that if one sent a fire in the hand of a halakhically competent person, the halakhically competent person is liableโ€ฆIf another came and fanned the flame the one who fanned it is liable. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.


ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืœื™ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืœื‘ืช ืืฉ ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ื ื™ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื•ืจื ื ื™ื‘ ืฉืคืชื™ื


Rav Naแธฅman explained: The one who teaches using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, as it is written: โ€œWith a flame [belabbat] of fireโ€ (Exodus 3:2), and the one who teaches using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken, as it is written: โ€œHe creates the fruit [niv] of the lipsโ€ (Isaiah 57:19), which can be interpreted as referring to the breath of the lips.


ืœื‘ืชื” ื”ืจื•ื— ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ื” ื•ืœื‘ืชื” ื”ืจื•ื— ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืœื‘ื•ื™ื• ื›ื“ื™ ืœืœื‘ื•ืชื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ


ยง 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.


ืืžืื™ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื›ื–ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื•ื— ืžืกื™ื™ืขืชื•


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.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื‘ื” ืžืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื‘ืชื• ื”ืจื•ื— ืžืฆื“ ืื—ืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื‘ื” ื‘ืจื•ื— ืžืฆื•ื™ื” ื•ืœื‘ืชื• ื”ืจื•ื— ื‘ืจื•ื— ืฉืื™ื ื” ืžืฆื•ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืฆืžืจื” ืฆืžื•ืจื™


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.


ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื–ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื•ื— ืžืกื™ื™ืขืชื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืžืœืื›ืช ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื’ืจืžื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื•ื’ืจืžื ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ


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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ืœื— ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ืขืฆื™ื ืื• ืื‘ื ื™ื ืื• ืขืคืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืชืฆื ืืฉ ื•ืžืฆืื” ืงืฆื™ื ื•ื ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืื• ื”ืงืžื” ืื• ื”ืฉื“ื” ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืžื‘ืขืจ ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื”


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: โ€œIf 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 compensationโ€ (Exodus 22:5), which teaches that he is liable also for destroying the field itself.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืงืžื” ื•ืฉื“ื”


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: โ€œThorns,โ€ โ€œa stack of grain,โ€ โ€œstanding grain,โ€ and โ€œfield,โ€ which seem to be redundant?


ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืืฉ ื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืฉื›ื™ื— ื“ืคืฉืข ืื‘ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื— ืืฉ ื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื— ื“ืคืฉืข ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ืคืกื“ ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื“ื”ืคืกื“ ืžื•ืขื˜ ืื™ืžื ืœื


Rava explains: All the terms are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only โ€œthornsโ€ 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 harmโ€™s 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: โ€œA stack of grain,โ€ 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.


ืงืžื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื” ืงืžื” ื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื‘ื’ืœื•ื™


Why do I need the Torah to state the term โ€œstanding grainโ€? 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.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื ื–ืงื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืงืžื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืงื•ืžื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืงื•ืžื” ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžืื• ื”ืงืžื”


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: โ€œStanding grainโ€? 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 โ€œstanding grain,โ€ from where do they derive that all items that have stature are included? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the term: โ€œOr standing grain,โ€ since the additional word โ€œorโ€ is an inclusive term.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื• ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ืœืง ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื—ืœืง ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžืื• ื”ืฉื“ื”


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the additional word โ€œorโ€? The Gemara answers: He requires the word โ€œorโ€ 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 โ€œor,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œOr the field.โ€


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื• ื”ืงืžื” ื›ืชื‘ ืื• ื”ืฉื“ื”


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


ืฉื“ื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื—ื›ื” ื ื™ืจื• ื•ืกื›ืกื›ื” ืื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉื“ื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ื”ื ืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉื“ื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžื” ืฉื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


Rava continues to elaborate on the different terms in the verse: And why do I need the word โ€œfieldโ€ 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 โ€œfield,โ€ 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 โ€œfield,โ€ 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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ืจืขื ื•ืช ื‘ืื” ืœืขื•ืœื ืืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืจืฉืขื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžืชื—ืœืช ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืชื—ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืชืฆื ืืฉ ื•ืžืฆืื” ืงืฆื™ื ืื™ืžืชื™ ืืฉ ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืงื•ืฆื™ื ืžืฆื•ื™ืŸ ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžืชื—ืœืช ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืชื—ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื•ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื•ื ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื›ื‘ืจ


ยง The Gemara cites an aggadic midrash based on this verse: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani 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: โ€œIf a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumedโ€ (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: โ€œAnd a stack of grain is consumed [veneโ€™ekhal].โ€ It is not stated: If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, and consumes [veโ€™akhal] the stack of grain; rather, it states: โ€œA stack of grain is consumed,โ€ meaning that the stack, i.e., the righteous, has already been consumed before the thorns.


ืชืื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื ืœื ืชืฆืื• ืื™ืฉ ืžืคืชื— ื‘ื™ืชื• ืขื“ ื‘ืงืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืžืฉื—ื™ืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืœืจืฉืขื™ื ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืฉืžืชื—ื™ืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืชื—ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื›ืจืชื™ ืžืžืš ืฆื“ื™ืง ื•ืจืฉืข


Rav Yosef taught a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the plague of the firstborn: โ€œAnd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morningโ€ (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: โ€œAnd will cut off from you the righteous and the wickedโ€ (Ezekiel 21:8), where mention of the righteous precedes the wicked.


ื‘ื›ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืœืื™ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืชื ื”ื•ื ืœื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ืจืขื” ื ืืกืฃ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง


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: โ€œThe righteous is taken away because of the evil to comeโ€ (Isaiah 57:1), so that he will not have to endure the suffering that will befall the people.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘


Rav Yehuda says that Rav says:


ืœืขื•ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืื“ื ื‘ื›ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ื•ื™ืฆื ื‘ื›ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืชื ืœื ืชืฆืื• ืื™ืฉ ืžืคืชื— ื‘ื™ืชื• ืขื“ ื‘ืงืจ


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 โ€œIt is goodโ€ 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: โ€œAnd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morningโ€ (Exodus 12:22).


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ื›ื ืก ืจื’ืœื™ืš ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืชื ืœื ืชืฆืื• ืื™ืฉ ืžืคืชื— ื‘ื™ืชื• ืขื“ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืขืžื™ ื‘ื ื‘ื—ื“ืจื™ืš ื•ืกื’ื•ืจ ื“ืœืชืš ื‘ืขื“ืš ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืžื—ื•ืฅ ืชืฉื›ืœ ื—ืจื‘ ื•ืžื—ื“ืจื™ื ืื™ืžื”


ยง 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: โ€œAnd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.โ€ And it says in another verse: โ€œCome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed byโ€ (Isaiah 26:20). And it says: โ€œOutside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terrorโ€ (Deuteronomy 32:25).


ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ืœื ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืš ืขืžื™ ื‘ื ื‘ื—ื“ืจื™ืš ื•ืกื’ื•ืจ ื“ืœืชืš


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 oneโ€™s 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: โ€œCome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.โ€


ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ [ื”ื™ื›ื] ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืื™ืžื” ืžื’ื•ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืื™ืžื” ืžื’ื•ืื™ ื›ื™ ื ืคื™ืง ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื‘ืฆื•ื•ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื˜ืคื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื—ื•ืฅ ืชืฉื›ืœ ื—ืจื‘ ื•ืžื—ื“ืจื™ื ืื™ืžื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื—ื“ืจื™ื ืื™ืžื” ืžื—ื•ืฅ ืชืฉื›ืœ ื—ืจื‘


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: โ€œOutside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.โ€ This means that although there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave, so it is safer to remain indoors.


ืจื‘ื ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืจืชื—ื ื”ื•ื™ ืกื›ืจ ื›ื•ื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืขืœื” ืžื•ืช ื‘ื—ืœื•ื ื™ื ื•


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


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืขื‘ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืคื–ืจ ืจื’ืœื™ืš ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืจืขื‘ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื•ื™ืจื“ ืื‘ืจื ืžืฆืจื™ืžื” [ืœื’ื•ืจ] (ื•ื™ื’ืจ) ืฉื ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืืžืจื ื• ื ื‘ื•ื ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ืจืขื‘ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ื•ืžืชื ื• ืฉื


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: โ€œAnd there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn thereโ€ (Genesis 12:10). And it says: โ€œIf 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 dieโ€ (IIย Kings 7:4).


ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืกืคืง ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืกืคืง ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืœื ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœื›ื• ื•ื ืคืœื” ืืœ ืžื—ื ื” ืืจื ืื ื™ื—ื™ื ื• ื ื—ื™ื”


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: โ€œCome, 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.โ€


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืืœ ื™ื”ืœืš ืื“ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื”ื“ืจืš ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžืœืืš ื”ืžื•ืช ืžื”ืœืš ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื”ื™ื‘ื ืœื™ื” ืจืฉื•ืชื ืžืกื’ื™ ืœื”ื“ื™ื ืฉืœื•ื ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืืœ ื™ื”ืœืš ื‘ืฆื“ื™ ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืจืฉื•ืชื ืžื—ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžืกื’ื™


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.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืืœ ื™ื›ื ืก ืื“ื ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืฉืžืœืืš ื”ืžื•ืช ืžืคืงื™ื“ ืฉื ื›ืœื™ื• ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืงืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืจื“ืงื™ ื•ืœื ืžืฆืœื• ื‘ื™ื” ืขืฉืจื”


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.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœื‘ื™ื ื‘ื•ื›ื™ื ืžืœืืš ื”ืžื•ืช ื‘ื ืœืขื™ืจ ื›ืœื‘ื™ื ืžืฉื—ืงื™ื ืืœื™ื”ื• ื”ื ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื ืœืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ื ืงื‘ื”


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.


ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืžื™ ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืžื ืžืจ ืฉืžืขืชืชื ื•ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืžื ืžืจ ืื’ื“ืชื ืคืชื— ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืื’ื“ืชื ื•ืœื ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืžืจ ืคืชื— ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืฉืžืขืชืชื ื•ืœื ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืžืจ


ยง Rav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa. One Sage said to Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa: Let the Master say words of halakha, and the other Sage said to Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa: Let the Master say words of aggada. Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืืžืฉื•ืœ ืœื›ื ืžืฉืœ ืœืžื” ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืื“ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉืชื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืื—ืช ื™ืœื“ื” ื•ืื—ืช ื–ืงื™ื ื” ื™ืœื“ื” ืžืœืงื˜ืช ืœื• ืœื‘ื ื•ืช ื–ืงื™ื ื” ืžืœืงื˜ืช ืœื• ืฉื—ื•ืจื•ืช ื ืžืฆื ืงืจื— ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืžื›ืืŸ


Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื›ื• ืžืœืชื ื“ืฉื•ื™ื ืœืชืจื•ื™ื™ื›ื• ื›ื™ ืชืฆื ืืฉ ื•ืžืฆืื” ืงืฆื™ื ืชืฆื ืžืขืฆืžื” ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืžื‘ืขืจ ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืขืœื™ ืœืฉืœื ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ืฉื”ื‘ืขืจืชื™


Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa 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: โ€œIf a fire breaks out, and catches in thornsโ€ (Exodus 22:5), the term โ€œbreaks outโ€ indicates that it breaks out by itself. Yet, the continuation of the verse states: โ€œThe one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,โ€ 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.


ืื ื™ ื”ืฆื™ืชื™ ืืฉ ื‘ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืฆืช ืืฉ ื‘ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ื•ืชืื›ืœ ื™ืกื“ืชื™ื” ื•ืื ื™ ืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ื•ืชื” ื‘ืืฉ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืื ื™ ืื”ื™ื” ืœื” ื—ื•ืžืช ืืฉ ืกื‘ื™ื‘ ื•ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืื”ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ื›ื”


I, God, kindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated: โ€œThe Lord has accomplished His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger; and He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundationsโ€ (Lamentations 4:11). And I will build it with fire in the future, as it is stated: โ€œFor I, says the Lord, will be for her a wall of fire round about; and I will be the glory in her midstโ€ (Zechariah 2:9).


ืฉืžืขืชืชื ืคืชื— ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ ืžืžื•ื ื• ื•ืกื™ื™ื ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ ื’ื•ืคื• ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืืฉื• ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืฆื™ื•


There is a halakha that can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as the verse begins with damage caused through oneโ€™s property: โ€œIf a fire breaks out,โ€ and concludes with damage caused by oneโ€™s body: โ€œThe one who kindled the fire.โ€ 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.


ื•ื™ืชืื•ื” ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืžื™ ื™ืฉืงื ื™ ืžื™ื ืžื‘ืืจ ื‘ื™ืช ืœื—ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืฉืขืจ ื•ื™ื‘ืงืขื• ืฉืœืฉืช ื”ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื—ื ื” ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืื‘ื• ืžื™ื ืžื‘ืืจ ื‘ื™ืช ืœื—ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืฉืขืจ [ื•ื’ื•ืณ]


ยง The Gemara continues with another statement of aggada on a related topic: The verse states: โ€œAnd 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 Lordโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:15โ€“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.


ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืคืฉื˜ื• ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืคืฉื˜ื• ืœื™ื”


What is the dilemma that David is raising? Rava says that Rav Naแธฅman 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.


ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ื ื“ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ื• ื“ื”ื•ื• ืžื˜ืžืจื™ ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ื‘ื”ื• ื•ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื• ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืขืฆืžื• ื‘ืžืžื•ืŸ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•


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?


ืฉืœื—ื• ืœื™ื” ืืกื•ืจ ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืขืฆืžื• ื‘ืžืžื•ืŸ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืžืœืš ืืชื” [ื•ืžืœืš] ืคื•ืจืฅ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืจืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื•


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.


ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืžืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ื ื“ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ื• ื•ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ื•ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืžื”ื• ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืฉืœื ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืคืœืฉืชื™ื


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 oneโ€™s animal for it to consume, with the intent to pay the owner of the barley with the stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines?


ืฉืœื—ื• ืœื™ื” ื—ื‘ืœ ื™ืฉื™ื‘ ืจืฉืข ื’ื–ืœื” ื™ืฉืœื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืžืฉืœื ืจืฉืข ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืžืœืš ืืชื” ื•ืžืœืš ืคื•ืจืฅ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืจืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื•


The Sages of Bethlehem sent the following reply to him: โ€œIf 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 dieโ€ (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.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืื—ืœื•ืคื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื“ ืงืจื ื•ืชื”ื™ ืฉื ื—ืœืงืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ืžืœืื” ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื“ ืงืจื ื•ืชื”ื™ ื—ืœืงืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ืžืœืื” ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื


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: โ€œAnd the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistinesโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:11), and it is written in one other verse: โ€œHe 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 Philistinesโ€ (Iย Chronicles 11:13). This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by saying that there were two fields, one of barley and one of lentils.


ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืžืงืœื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœื”ื ื™ ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื“ื”ื•ื• ื ืžื™ ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ื ื“ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื“ื”ื•ื• ืžื™ื˜ืžืจื• ื‘ื”ื• ืคืœืฉืชื™ื


But according to Rav Huna, the one who says that Davidโ€™s 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.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืžืงืœื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืชื™ืฆื‘ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื—ืœืงื” ื•ื™ืฆื™ืœื” ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืžืื™ ื•ื™ืฆื™ืœื”


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: โ€œBut he stood in the midst of the plot, and saved it, and slew the Philistines; and the Lord performed a great victoryโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:12). But according to the one who says that Davidโ€™s question was asked with regard to exchanging the lentils for the barley, what is the meaning of the phrase: โ€œAnd saved itโ€?


ื“ืœื ืฉื‘ืง ืœื”ื• ืœืื—ืœื•ืคื™


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


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™


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.


  • 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

ืกืœืชื ืฉืจื’ื ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื’ืจืžื•


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.


ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ืคืงื— ื”ืคืงื— ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืœื™ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ื ื™ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชื‘ืฉ


The mishna teaches that if one sent a fire in the hand of a halakhically competent person, the halakhically competent person is liableโ€ฆIf another came and fanned the flame the one who fanned it is liable. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.


ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืœื™ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืœื‘ืช ืืฉ ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ื ื™ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื•ืจื ื ื™ื‘ ืฉืคืชื™ื


Rav Naแธฅman explained: The one who teaches using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, as it is written: โ€œWith a flame [belabbat] of fireโ€ (Exodus 3:2), and the one who teaches using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken, as it is written: โ€œHe creates the fruit [niv] of the lipsโ€ (Isaiah 57:19), which can be interpreted as referring to the breath of the lips.


ืœื‘ืชื” ื”ืจื•ื— ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ื” ื•ืœื‘ืชื” ื”ืจื•ื— ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืœื‘ื•ื™ื• ื›ื“ื™ ืœืœื‘ื•ืชื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ


ยง 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.


ืืžืื™ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื›ื–ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื•ื— ืžืกื™ื™ืขืชื•


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.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื‘ื” ืžืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื‘ืชื• ื”ืจื•ื— ืžืฆื“ ืื—ืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื‘ื” ื‘ืจื•ื— ืžืฆื•ื™ื” ื•ืœื‘ืชื• ื”ืจื•ื— ื‘ืจื•ื— ืฉืื™ื ื” ืžืฆื•ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืฆืžืจื” ืฆืžื•ืจื™


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.


ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื–ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื•ื— ืžืกื™ื™ืขืชื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืžืœืื›ืช ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื’ืจืžื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื•ื’ืจืžื ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ


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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ืœื— ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ืขืฆื™ื ืื• ืื‘ื ื™ื ืื• ืขืคืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืชืฆื ืืฉ ื•ืžืฆืื” ืงืฆื™ื ื•ื ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืื• ื”ืงืžื” ืื• ื”ืฉื“ื” ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืžื‘ืขืจ ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื”


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: โ€œIf 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 compensationโ€ (Exodus 22:5), which teaches that he is liable also for destroying the field itself.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืงืžื” ื•ืฉื“ื”


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: โ€œThorns,โ€ โ€œa stack of grain,โ€ โ€œstanding grain,โ€ and โ€œfield,โ€ which seem to be redundant?


ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืืฉ ื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืฉื›ื™ื— ื“ืคืฉืข ืื‘ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื— ืืฉ ื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื— ื“ืคืฉืข ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ืคืกื“ ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื“ื”ืคืกื“ ืžื•ืขื˜ ืื™ืžื ืœื


Rava explains: All the terms are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only โ€œthornsโ€ 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 harmโ€™s 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: โ€œA stack of grain,โ€ 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.


ืงืžื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื” ืงืžื” ื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื‘ื’ืœื•ื™


Why do I need the Torah to state the term โ€œstanding grainโ€? 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.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื ื–ืงื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืงืžื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืงื•ืžื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืงื•ืžื” ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžืื• ื”ืงืžื”


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: โ€œStanding grainโ€? 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 โ€œstanding grain,โ€ from where do they derive that all items that have stature are included? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the term: โ€œOr standing grain,โ€ since the additional word โ€œorโ€ is an inclusive term.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื• ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ืœืง ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื—ืœืง ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžืื• ื”ืฉื“ื”


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the additional word โ€œorโ€? The Gemara answers: He requires the word โ€œorโ€ 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 โ€œor,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œOr the field.โ€


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื• ื”ืงืžื” ื›ืชื‘ ืื• ื”ืฉื“ื”


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


ืฉื“ื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื—ื›ื” ื ื™ืจื• ื•ืกื›ืกื›ื” ืื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉื“ื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ื”ื ืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉื“ื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžื” ืฉื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


Rava continues to elaborate on the different terms in the verse: And why do I need the word โ€œfieldโ€ 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 โ€œfield,โ€ 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 โ€œfield,โ€ 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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ืจืขื ื•ืช ื‘ืื” ืœืขื•ืœื ืืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืจืฉืขื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžืชื—ืœืช ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืชื—ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืชืฆื ืืฉ ื•ืžืฆืื” ืงืฆื™ื ืื™ืžืชื™ ืืฉ ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืงื•ืฆื™ื ืžืฆื•ื™ืŸ ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžืชื—ืœืช ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืชื—ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื•ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื•ื ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื ืื›ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื›ื‘ืจ


ยง The Gemara cites an aggadic midrash based on this verse: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani 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: โ€œIf a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumedโ€ (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: โ€œAnd a stack of grain is consumed [veneโ€™ekhal].โ€ It is not stated: If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, and consumes [veโ€™akhal] the stack of grain; rather, it states: โ€œA stack of grain is consumed,โ€ meaning that the stack, i.e., the righteous, has already been consumed before the thorns.


ืชืื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื ืœื ืชืฆืื• ืื™ืฉ ืžืคืชื— ื‘ื™ืชื• ืขื“ ื‘ืงืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืžืฉื—ื™ืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืœืจืฉืขื™ื ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืฉืžืชื—ื™ืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ืชื—ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื›ืจืชื™ ืžืžืš ืฆื“ื™ืง ื•ืจืฉืข


Rav Yosef taught a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the plague of the firstborn: โ€œAnd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morningโ€ (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: โ€œAnd will cut off from you the righteous and the wickedโ€ (Ezekiel 21:8), where mention of the righteous precedes the wicked.


ื‘ื›ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืœืื™ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืชื ื”ื•ื ืœื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ืจืขื” ื ืืกืฃ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง


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: โ€œThe righteous is taken away because of the evil to comeโ€ (Isaiah 57:1), so that he will not have to endure the suffering that will befall the people.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘


Rav Yehuda says that Rav says:


ืœืขื•ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืื“ื ื‘ื›ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ื•ื™ืฆื ื‘ื›ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืชื ืœื ืชืฆืื• ืื™ืฉ ืžืคืชื— ื‘ื™ืชื• ืขื“ ื‘ืงืจ


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 โ€œIt is goodโ€ 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: โ€œAnd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morningโ€ (Exodus 12:22).


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ื›ื ืก ืจื’ืœื™ืš ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืชื ืœื ืชืฆืื• ืื™ืฉ ืžืคืชื— ื‘ื™ืชื• ืขื“ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืขืžื™ ื‘ื ื‘ื—ื“ืจื™ืš ื•ืกื’ื•ืจ ื“ืœืชืš ื‘ืขื“ืš ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืžื—ื•ืฅ ืชืฉื›ืœ ื—ืจื‘ ื•ืžื—ื“ืจื™ื ืื™ืžื”


ยง 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: โ€œAnd none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.โ€ And it says in another verse: โ€œCome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed byโ€ (Isaiah 26:20). And it says: โ€œOutside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terrorโ€ (Deuteronomy 32:25).


ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ืœื ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืš ืขืžื™ ื‘ื ื‘ื—ื“ืจื™ืš ื•ืกื’ื•ืจ ื“ืœืชืš


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 oneโ€™s 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: โ€œCome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.โ€


ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ [ื”ื™ื›ื] ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืื™ืžื” ืžื’ื•ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืื™ืžื” ืžื’ื•ืื™ ื›ื™ ื ืคื™ืง ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื‘ืฆื•ื•ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื˜ืคื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื—ื•ืฅ ืชืฉื›ืœ ื—ืจื‘ ื•ืžื—ื“ืจื™ื ืื™ืžื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื—ื“ืจื™ื ืื™ืžื” ืžื—ื•ืฅ ืชืฉื›ืœ ื—ืจื‘


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: โ€œOutside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.โ€ This means that although there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave, so it is safer to remain indoors.


ืจื‘ื ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืจืชื—ื ื”ื•ื™ ืกื›ืจ ื›ื•ื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืขืœื” ืžื•ืช ื‘ื—ืœื•ื ื™ื ื•


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


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืขื‘ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืคื–ืจ ืจื’ืœื™ืš ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืจืขื‘ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื•ื™ืจื“ ืื‘ืจื ืžืฆืจื™ืžื” [ืœื’ื•ืจ] (ื•ื™ื’ืจ) ืฉื ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืืžืจื ื• ื ื‘ื•ื ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ืจืขื‘ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ื•ืžืชื ื• ืฉื


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: โ€œAnd there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn thereโ€ (Genesis 12:10). And it says: โ€œIf 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 dieโ€ (IIย Kings 7:4).


ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืกืคืง ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืกืคืง ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืœื ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœื›ื• ื•ื ืคืœื” ืืœ ืžื—ื ื” ืืจื ืื ื™ื—ื™ื ื• ื ื—ื™ื”


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: โ€œCome, 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.โ€


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืืœ ื™ื”ืœืš ืื“ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื”ื“ืจืš ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžืœืืš ื”ืžื•ืช ืžื”ืœืš ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื”ื™ื‘ื ืœื™ื” ืจืฉื•ืชื ืžืกื’ื™ ืœื”ื“ื™ื ืฉืœื•ื ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืืœ ื™ื”ืœืš ื‘ืฆื“ื™ ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืจืฉื•ืชื ืžื—ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžืกื’ื™


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.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืืœ ื™ื›ื ืก ืื“ื ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืฉืžืœืืš ื”ืžื•ืช ืžืคืงื™ื“ ืฉื ื›ืœื™ื• ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืงืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืจื“ืงื™ ื•ืœื ืžืฆืœื• ื‘ื™ื” ืขืฉืจื”


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.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœื‘ื™ื ื‘ื•ื›ื™ื ืžืœืืš ื”ืžื•ืช ื‘ื ืœืขื™ืจ ื›ืœื‘ื™ื ืžืฉื—ืงื™ื ืืœื™ื”ื• ื”ื ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื ืœืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ื ืงื‘ื”


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.


ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืžื™ ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืžื ืžืจ ืฉืžืขืชืชื ื•ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืžื ืžืจ ืื’ื“ืชื ืคืชื— ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืื’ื“ืชื ื•ืœื ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืžืจ ืคืชื— ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืฉืžืขืชืชื ื•ืœื ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืžืจ


ยง Rav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa. One Sage said to Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa: Let the Master say words of halakha, and the other Sage said to Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa: Let the Master say words of aggada. Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืืžืฉื•ืœ ืœื›ื ืžืฉืœ ืœืžื” ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืื“ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉืชื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืื—ืช ื™ืœื“ื” ื•ืื—ืช ื–ืงื™ื ื” ื™ืœื“ื” ืžืœืงื˜ืช ืœื• ืœื‘ื ื•ืช ื–ืงื™ื ื” ืžืœืงื˜ืช ืœื• ืฉื—ื•ืจื•ืช ื ืžืฆื ืงืจื— ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืžื›ืืŸ


Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื›ื• ืžืœืชื ื“ืฉื•ื™ื ืœืชืจื•ื™ื™ื›ื• ื›ื™ ืชืฆื ืืฉ ื•ืžืฆืื” ืงืฆื™ื ืชืฆื ืžืขืฆืžื” ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืžื‘ืขืจ ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืขืœื™ ืœืฉืœื ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ืฉื”ื‘ืขืจืชื™


Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa 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: โ€œIf a fire breaks out, and catches in thornsโ€ (Exodus 22:5), the term โ€œbreaks outโ€ indicates that it breaks out by itself. Yet, the continuation of the verse states: โ€œThe one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,โ€ 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.


ืื ื™ ื”ืฆื™ืชื™ ืืฉ ื‘ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืฆืช ืืฉ ื‘ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ื•ืชืื›ืœ ื™ืกื“ืชื™ื” ื•ืื ื™ ืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ื•ืชื” ื‘ืืฉ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืื ื™ ืื”ื™ื” ืœื” ื—ื•ืžืช ืืฉ ืกื‘ื™ื‘ ื•ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืื”ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ื›ื”


I, God, kindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated: โ€œThe Lord has accomplished His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger; and He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundationsโ€ (Lamentations 4:11). And I will build it with fire in the future, as it is stated: โ€œFor I, says the Lord, will be for her a wall of fire round about; and I will be the glory in her midstโ€ (Zechariah 2:9).


ืฉืžืขืชืชื ืคืชื— ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ ืžืžื•ื ื• ื•ืกื™ื™ื ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ ื’ื•ืคื• ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืืฉื• ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืฆื™ื•


There is a halakha that can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as the verse begins with damage caused through oneโ€™s property: โ€œIf a fire breaks out,โ€ and concludes with damage caused by oneโ€™s body: โ€œThe one who kindled the fire.โ€ 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.


ื•ื™ืชืื•ื” ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืžื™ ื™ืฉืงื ื™ ืžื™ื ืžื‘ืืจ ื‘ื™ืช ืœื—ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืฉืขืจ ื•ื™ื‘ืงืขื• ืฉืœืฉืช ื”ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื—ื ื” ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืื‘ื• ืžื™ื ืžื‘ืืจ ื‘ื™ืช ืœื—ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืฉืขืจ [ื•ื’ื•ืณ]


ยง The Gemara continues with another statement of aggada on a related topic: The verse states: โ€œAnd 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 Lordโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:15โ€“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.


ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืคืฉื˜ื• ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืคืฉื˜ื• ืœื™ื”


What is the dilemma that David is raising? Rava says that Rav Naแธฅman 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.


ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ื ื“ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ื• ื“ื”ื•ื• ืžื˜ืžืจื™ ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ื‘ื”ื• ื•ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื• ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืขืฆืžื• ื‘ืžืžื•ืŸ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•


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?


ืฉืœื—ื• ืœื™ื” ืืกื•ืจ ืœื”ืฆื™ืœ ืขืฆืžื• ื‘ืžืžื•ืŸ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืžืœืš ืืชื” [ื•ืžืœืš] ืคื•ืจืฅ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืจืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื•


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.


ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืžืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ื ื“ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ื• ื•ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ื•ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืžื”ื• ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืฉืœื ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืคืœืฉืชื™ื


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 oneโ€™s animal for it to consume, with the intent to pay the owner of the barley with the stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines?


ืฉืœื—ื• ืœื™ื” ื—ื‘ืœ ื™ืฉื™ื‘ ืจืฉืข ื’ื–ืœื” ื™ืฉืœื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืžืฉืœื ืจืฉืข ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืžืœืš ืืชื” ื•ืžืœืš ืคื•ืจืฅ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืจืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื•


The Sages of Bethlehem sent the following reply to him: โ€œIf 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 dieโ€ (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.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืื—ืœื•ืคื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื“ ืงืจื ื•ืชื”ื™ ืฉื ื—ืœืงืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ืžืœืื” ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื“ ืงืจื ื•ืชื”ื™ ื—ืœืงืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ืžืœืื” ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื


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: โ€œAnd the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistinesโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:11), and it is written in one other verse: โ€œHe 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 Philistinesโ€ (Iย Chronicles 11:13). This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by saying that there were two fields, one of barley and one of lentils.


ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืžืงืœื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœื”ื ื™ ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื“ื”ื•ื• ื ืžื™ ื’ื“ื™ืฉื™ื ื“ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื“ื”ื•ื• ืžื™ื˜ืžืจื• ื‘ื”ื• ืคืœืฉืชื™ื


But according to Rav Huna, the one who says that Davidโ€™s 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.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืžืงืœื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืชื™ืฆื‘ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื—ืœืงื” ื•ื™ืฆื™ืœื” ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืžืื™ ื•ื™ืฆื™ืœื”


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: โ€œBut he stood in the midst of the plot, and saved it, and slew the Philistines; and the Lord performed a great victoryโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:12). But according to the one who says that Davidโ€™s question was asked with regard to exchanging the lentils for the barley, what is the meaning of the phrase: โ€œAnd saved itโ€?


ื“ืœื ืฉื‘ืง ืœื”ื• ืœืื—ืœื•ืคื™


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


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™


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