Talmud - Bava Kamma 61a בבא קמא ס״א א׳

But according to Rava, who cited Rav Naḥman, the one who says that David asked with regard to the halakha of a concealed article damaged by a fire, for what purpose does he require the two verses that describe a field of lentils and a field of barley? Rav Naḥman could have said to you that David was asking both about concealed articles damaged by a fire and one of these other two dilemmas.

Granted, according to the one who says one of these two explanations, that David was asking either about repaying barley with lentils or burning the stacks of barley, this is as it is written of David: “But he would not drink it” (II Samuel 23:16). David said to himself: Since there is a prohibition involved in this action, it is not satisfactory to me to act in this manner, even though technically it is permitted for a king. But according to the one who says that David was raising a dilemma with regard to the halakha of a concealed article damaged by a fire, since they sent him an answer that was a tradition with regard to the halakha, what is the meaning of: “But he would not drink it”?

The Gemara answers: This means that he did not say the halakha in their names. He did not transmit the ruling in the name of those who went in the time of battle to ask the Sages what the halakha is. David said to himself: This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel of Rama: With regard to anyone who hands himself over to die for the sake of words of Torah, the Sages do not say a matter of halakha in his name, so that others will not follow this ruling and endanger their lives.

The Gemara asks another question: The verse states: “He poured it out to the Lord” (II Samuel 23:16), which indicates that David acted stringently and did not rely on the lenient ruling that he received. Granted, according to the one who says either of these two explanations, that David asked either about burning the stacks of barley or about replacing their value with lentils, he poured out the water to God due to the fact that he acted for the sake of Heaven and did not rely on the lenient ruling he had received. But according to the one who says that David asked about a concealed article damaged by a fire, what is the reason that he poured out the water to the Lord? The Gemara answers: The reason is that they said this halakha in the name of the tradition, without associating it with any specific individual.

MISHNA: If one kindled a fire that crossed a fence that is four cubits high, or if the fire crossed the public thoroughfare, or if the fire crossed a river, and in each case it caused damage on the other side, he is exempt from liability.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if a fire crossed a fence that is four cubits in height, the one who kindled the fire is liable? This appears to contradict the mishna.

Rav Pappa said: There is no dispute between the tanna of the mishna and the tanna of the baraita; there is merely a difference of how they stated their rulings. The tanna of our mishna counts downward from above to below. In other words, if the fire crossed a fence six cubits high, the one who kindled the fire is exempt; if it crossed a fence five cubits high, he is exempt; and this is the halakha until the fire crosses a fence of a minimum of four cubits high, where the one who kindled the fire is still exempt. Conversely, the tanna of the baraita counts up from below to above. The meaning is that if the fire crossed a fence two cubits high, the one who kindled the fire is liable; if the fire crossed a fence three cubits high, he is liable; and this is the halakha until the fire crosses a fence of a maximum of four cubits high, where the one who kindled the fire is still liable. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the mishna and the baraita.

§ Rava says: When they said in the mishna with regard to a fire crossing a fence four cubits high that the one who kindled the fire is exempt, this is even in a field of thorns. Rav Pappa says: And Rava’s statement is referring to a case where the height of the fence is four cubits counting from above the upper limit of the thorns.

Rav says: They taught in the mishna that one is exempt from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare only in a case where the flame blazes high [bekolaḥat]. But in a case where the flame blazes low [benikhpefet] and therefore spreads easily along the ground, the one who kindled the fire is liable even if the space that the fire crossed was up to one hundred cubits. And Shmuel said: The mishna exempts one from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare in a case where the flame blazes low, but in a case where the flame blazes high, even any minimal gap between where the fire was kindled and where it caused damage renders the one who kindled the fire exempt.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In what case is this statement said that one is exempt if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare? It is in a case where the flame blazes high. But in a case where the flame blazes low and there is wood to keep it burning, one is liable even if it causes damage at a distance of up to one hundred mil. If the fire crossed a river or a pool [shelulit] of water that is eight cubits wide, he is exempt from paying for the damage caused, regardless of whether the fire blazed high or low.

§ The mishna teaches: If the fire crossed the public thoroughfare, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this opinion? Rava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (61b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable up to a distance of sixteen cubits, like the width of the public domain. By inference, one is exempt if a fire crosses a greater distance, i.e., across a public thoroughfare.

The mishna teaches: Or if the fire crossed a river, he is exempt. Rav says: The term stream means an actual river. And Shmuel says: This term means a water channel.

The Gemara explains their dispute: The one who says that it is referring to an actual river, Rav, deems exempt one whose fire crosses a riverbed even when there is no water in it, since it is sufficiently deep and wide to prevent a typical fire from crossing it. But the one who says that it is referring to a water channel, Shmuel, holds that if the fire crosses a water channel that has water in it, yes, the one who kindled the fire is exempt. But if the fire crosses a water channel that does not have water in it, he is not exempt.

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Pe’a 2:1): And these, the following list of features, divide a field for the purpose of pe’a, i.e., it is no longer considered a single field, but instead pe’a must be given from each separate section: A stream, a shelulit, a private road, and a public thoroughfare.

The Gemara asks: What is a shelulit? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is a place where rainwater gathers [sholelin]. Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is a water channel that distributes its spoils [shalal] to its banks, since the water spreads to the adjacent cisterns.

The Gemara points out that according to the one who says that it means a place where rainwater gathers, Shmuel, since gathered rainwater divides a field, all the more so does a water channel, which is both larger and permanent, divide a field. But according to the one who says that only a water channel divides a field, Rabbi Yoḥanan, he holds that only that divides a field, but a place where rainwater gathers does not divide the field, since these

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

BavaKamma 61a explores David's Talmudic dilemmas over damaged grain fields and hidden fires, and why he withheld halakhic rulings tied to risking one's life.