Bava Kamma 60b — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

A person should always enter

a city

when it is “good,”

when the sun is still shining [from the wording, “And God saw the light, that it was good”], and he should not wait until the night becomes dark.

And he should leave

the city

when it is “good,”

when the sun is already shining, in order to be saved from harmful beings and robbers.

As it is stated “

And you shall go out, each man from the entrance of his house, until morning.”

The Sages taught: If there is an epidemic in the city—

gather in your feet.

Remain in your house,

as it is stated: “

And you shall not go out

each man from the entrance of his house until morning.”

And it says [

Isaiah 26:20] “

Go, my people, enter your chambers and shut your doors behind you,

hide for a brief moment, until the wrath passes.”

And it says [

Deuteronomy 32:25] “

Outside the sword shall bereave

of the Angel of Death

and within, terror.”

This implies that within there is only the terror of death from the Angel of Death, and not as outside, where the Angel of Death is exposed with his sword; therefore it is preferable to remain in the house.

And we raise an objection to this:

What is the meaning of “

and it says”?

Why does the beraita need to bring three verses to prove that at the time of an epidemic it is preferable to remain in the house, and is the first verse not sufficient?

And we answer:

And if you would say,

if I had only the first verse, “And you shall not go out, each man from the entrance of his house until morning,” I would say:

This applies

only

at night,

as it says, “until morning,”

but during the day, no.

There is no concern about leaving the house.

Come and hear:

therefore the beraita brings the verse “

Go, my people, enter your chambers and shut your doors,”

which implies that even during the day he should remain in the house at the time of an epidemic.

And if you would say,

from this verse alone I would say:

This applies

to remaining in the house

where

there is no terror within,

when the epidemic does not hold sway within the house.

But

where there is terror within,

when the epidemic also holds sway in the house,

when he goes out, he sits among people in general company,

to leave the house and remain in the company of people,

it is more beneficial,

preferable to remaining alone in the house.

Come and hear:

therefore the beraita brings the verse “

Outside the sword shall bereave and within, terror.”

which implies:

even though there is terror within,

nevertheless,

outside the sword shall bereave!

Outside is worse, because the sword of the Angel of Death is exposed there.

Rava, in a time of wrath,

at the time of an epidemic,

would seal the windows,

he would close the windows.

As it is written [

Jeremiah 9:20], “

For death has come up through our windows,”

which implies that death comes through the window.

The Sages taught: If there is famine in the city, spread out your feet,

leave the city,

as it is stated: “

And there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there.”

And it says,

in Kings [II 7:4], at the time of the great famine that occurred in the days of Elisha: “And four men who were lepers sat outside the city, and they said one to another: Why are we sitting here until we die?

If we say, ‘Let us enter the city,’ the famine is in the city, and we shall die there.

And if we sit here, we shall die. And now, let us go and fall upon the camp of Aram and request food there.”

Thus, one must leave the city at a time of famine and go to another place to request food.

And we raise an objection to this:

What is the meaning of “

and it says”?

Why does the beraita bring an additional verse and not suffice with the first verse?

And we answer:

And if you would say,

if I had only the verse concerning Abraham our forefather, I would say:

This applies

to the requirement to leave one’s place at a time of famine only

where there is no danger to life,

where there is no danger to life in the place to which he is going, as with Abraham our forefather, who went down to Egypt.

But where there is danger to life

in the other place,

no,

he should not go there.

Come and hear:

therefore the beraita brought the second verse, which implies that he should go even to a place of danger. As it is stated: “

Let us go and fall upon the camp of Aram; if they let us live

they will leave us alive,

we shall live,

and if they put us to death, we shall die.” Thus, they went there even though there was danger to life, lest they kill them there.

The Sages taught: If there is an epidemic in the city, a person should not walk in the middle of the road, because the Angel of Death walks

then

in the middle of the roads; since permission has been given to him,

permission has been given to him to kill,

he proceeds openly,

he walks openly, in the middle of the road.

And when there is

peace in the city, he should not walk at the sides of the roads, since, because he has no permission

for the Angel of Death to kill,

he hides himself and proceeds.

He hides at the sides of the roads.

The Sages taught: If there is an epidemic in the city, a person should not enter alone into a synagogue

because

the Angel of Death deposits there

his

implements.

And this applies

only

where children do not study,

in a synagogue of this kind, where the children of the house of the teacher do not study,

and ten do not pray there,

and ten men do not pray there. But in a synagogue where the children of the house of the teacher study and where ten pray, there is no concern about entering there alone at the time of an epidemic.

The Sages taught: When dogs cry,

it is a sign that

the Angel of Death has come to the city.

When dogs play,

it is a sign that

Elijah the Prophet has come to the city.

And this applies when there is no female among them

among the dogs. But if there is a female among the dogs, they play because of the female, and this is not a sign concerning Elijah the Prophet.

Rav Ami and Rav Asi were sitting before Rav Yitzhak Nappaḥa.

One master,

one of them,

said

to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

Let the master recite a statement of halakha!

Let the master state a matter of halakha.

And one master,

his companion,

said

to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

Let the master recite an aggadic teaching!

Let the master state a matter of aggada.

He began

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa and wished

to recite an aggadic teaching, but one master did not allow him,

one of them did not give him permission.

He began

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa

to recite a statement of halakha, but one master did not allow him.

The other did not give him permission.

He said to them

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

I shall give you a parable. To what is the matter comparable? To a man who has two wives, one young

and youthful,

and one old.

The

young one plucks

pulls out

for him

his

white

hairs

and the old one plucks for him

his

black

hairs, so that he will appear old.

He is thus bald on both sides!

So too here, it turns out that I cannot state any complete matter of Torah, neither a statement of halakha nor an aggadic teaching.

He said to them

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

If so, let me tell you a matter that is suitable for both of you.

I shall tell you a matter containing both halakha and aggada, and both of you will be satisfied:

It is stated: “

When a fire goes forth and finds thorns.”

And it is difficult, for “when

it goes forth”

implies that the fire went out

by itself,

whereas from the continuation of the verse, “

The one who kindled the fire shall surely pay,”

it implies that the person was the one who kindled the fire, and it did not go out by itself.

Rather,

the Holy One, blessed be He, said: It is incumbent upon Me to pay for the

fire that I kindled!

Although we caused the fire through our sins, the Holy One, blessed be He, promised to pay as though He had kindled the fire.

I kindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated [

Lamentations 4:11] “

And He kindled a fire in Zion, and it consumed her foundations.”

And I am destined to build it with fire, as it is stated [

Zechariah 2:9] “

And I shall be for her a wall of fire around, and for glory I shall be within her.”

This is the aggadic matter.

And also

a statement of halakha

I shall tell you concerning this matter:

The verse began with damage caused by his property,

which implies from the beginning of the verse that the fire went out by itself from within his domain and burned that which belonged to his fellow, and this is only as though his property caused damage, and not as though he himself did so directly. And the verse concluded with damage caused by his body, calling him “the one who kindled,” as though he had directly kindled that which belonged to his fellow.

To tell you: His fire is on account of his arrow!

Although he did not directly set fire to the grain pile, the Torah obligates him because he lit a fire within his domain, and the fire went out and caused damage, as though he had thrown a distant arrow and the arrow caused damage there. The matter is considered as though he himself caused the damage directly; so too, concerning the fire, he is liable as one who causes damage directly. [

The practical difference resulting from whether “his fire is on account of his arrow” or “on account of his property” is explained in the Gemara above [23a]: if the fire damaged another person, the owner of the fire is liable to pay him “four things,” according to the law of a person who causes damage; whereas if it were only “his fire on account of his property,” he would be exempt from “four things,” according to the law of property that causes damage.]

It is stated in the Book of Samuel [II 23:15] “

And David longed and said: Who will give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem that is by the gate? And the three warriors broke through

made a path for themselves

through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem that is by the gate.”

And they carried it and came to David. But he refused to drink it, and he poured it out before the Lord. And he said: “Far be it from me, O Lord, that I should do this! Is this not the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?” And he refused to drink it.

And we raise an objection to this:

What did he seek to ask?

What did David wish to ask of the Sanhedrin?

That is, the Gemara holds that what David said, “Who will give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem that is by the gate,” means: who will go to the Sanhedrin [the elders of the gate] to ask a matter of halakha?

Rava said: “

Concealed in a fire”

was what he was asking!

An incident had come before him in which his men burned the grain pile of a Jewish person, and vessels had been concealed within the grain pile. And David wished to ask the Sanhedrin whether they were liable to pay for the concealed vessels or not:

If

the halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds one liable for “concealed property in a fire.”

If

the halakha is

in accordance with the Rabbis,

who exempt one for “concealed property in a fire.”

And they resolved it for him

the Sanhedrin

with what they resolved it for him,

they answered him what the halakha is concerning “concealed property.”

Rav Huna said: There were grain piles of barley belonging to Israelites.

There were grain piles of barley belonging to Jewish people,

in which Philistines were hiding,

who had concealed themselves within them [Rav Huna relies on what is stated in Chronicles [I 11:13], in the account of the same incident: “And the field was full of barley”].

And David was asking

he sent to ask the Sanhedrin:

What is the ruling concerning saving oneself with the property of one’s fellow?

Is it permitted to burn these grain piles in order to be saved from the Philistines, even though by doing so he takes the grain piles away from their owners?

They sent word to him,

the Sanhedrin:

It is forbidden

for a person

to save himself through his fellow’s property!

But you, a king,

and a king

breaks through

a fence of a field belonging to others in order

to make a road for himself

through the field by which he can pass, he and his men,

and no one may protest against him!

And therefore it is permitted for you to burn these stacks.

And the Rabbis—and some say Rabba bar Mari—said: They were stacks of barley belonging to Jews, and stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines,

there were there stacks of barley belonging to Jews and stacks of lentils belonging to Philistines.

And it was asked of him,

of David:

What is the ruling regarding taking stacks of barley belonging to Jews,

in order

to place them before his animal

of David,

with the intention of paying

those Jews afterward

with stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines?

And the question is whether it is permitted to take unlawfully with the intention of paying?

They sent word to him,

the Sanhedrin: It is stated in Ezekiel [33:15]: “

He shall restore the pledge, he shall pay the unlawful gain.”

It follows that

even though the unlawful taking

is

paid

in the end, nevertheless

he is wicked,

for it is forbidden to take unlawfully even with the intention of paying.

But you are a king, you are, and a king breaks through

a fence

to make a road for himself, and no one may protest against him!

And therefore it is permitted for you to take with the intention of paying.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the matter under discussion was

exchanging,

whether it is permitted to exchange his barley, without the owners’ permission, for another’s lentils,

this is why one verse is written

in Samuel [there]: “

And there was there a plot of field full of lentils.”

And one verse is written

in Chronicles [there], in the account of that same incident: “

And the plot of field was full of barley.”

For this was the question: whether it is permitted to exchange the barley for lentils.

But according to the one who says

that the question was whether it is permitted

to burn,

to burn the stack of barley in which the Philistines had hidden,

what need did they have for these two verses?

Why was it stated once that it was a stack of barley, and once that it was a stack of lentils?

And we answer:

He can say to you,

that same one who says:

There were also stacks of lentils,

in addition to the stack of barley,

in which the Philistines were hiding,

for the Philistines had also hidden there, and the question was regarding both of them, and therefore the account of the incident appears in two forms.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the question was

to burn,

whether it is permitted to burn the stack in which the Philistines had hidden,

this is why it is written

in Samuel [there]: “

And he stood in the midst of the plot and saved it,”

for David did not permit the stack to be burned, because the Sanhedrin answered him that it is forbidden to save oneself through his fellow’s property [and he did not wish to use the permission they gave him because he was a king, as follows].

But according to the one who says

that the question was

exchanging,

whether it is permitted to take barley belonging to a Jew with the intention of paying him lentils,

what is “

and saved it”?

What connection does saving have here?

And we answer:

He did not allow them to exchange.

David did not allow them to exchange and take the barley without the owners’ permission with the intention of paying them lentils.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

Granted, these two,

according to these two amoraitic opinions, that of “to burn” and that of “exchanging,”

this is why two verses are written,

once barley and once lentils, as was explained above.