Bava Kamma 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

A person should always enter

a city

when it is “good,”

while the sun is still shining [from the expression “And God saw the light, that it was good”], and he should not wait until nightfall.

And he should leave

the city

when it is “good,”

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

As it is stated: “

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

The Sages taught in a beraita: When there is an epidemic in the city—

bring your feet inside.

Remain in your home,

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]: “

Isaiah 26:20] “

Go, my people, enter your rooms and close your doors behind you;

hide for a moment, until the wrath passes.”

And it says [Deuteronomy 32:25]: “

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 openly present with his sword; therefore it is preferable to remain at home.

And we raise an objection:

What is the meaning of

“And it says”?

Why does the beraita need to bring three verses to prove that during an epidemic it is preferable to remain at home? Is the first verse not sufficient?

And we answer:

If you would say that, based only on the first verse, “And you shall not go out, each man from the entrance of his house until morning,” I 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, it does not.

There is no concern about leaving the house.

Come and hear:

Therefore the beraita brings the verse, “

Go, my people, enter your rooms and close your doors,”

which implies that even during the day one should remain at home during an epidemic.

If you would say that, based on this verse alone, I would say:

from this verse alone I would say:

This applies

when one should remain at home

where

there is no terror within,

when the epidemic does not prevail inside the house.

But

where there is terror within,

when the epidemic also prevails inside the house,

when he goes out, he should sit among people in a general gathering,

leaving the house and remaining in the company of people,

which is better,

than remaining alone at home.

Come and hear:

Therefore the beraita brings the verse, “

Outside the sword shall bereave, and within, terror.”

This implies

that even though there is terror within,

nevertheless,

outside the sword shall bereave!

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

Rava, during a time of wrath,

during an epidemic,

would close the windows,

he would shut the windows.

As it is written [Jeremiah 9:20]: “

Jeremiah 9:20], “

For death has come up through our windows,”

which implies that death comes through the window.

The Sages taught in a beraita: When there is famine in the city, disperse 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], during the great famine in the days of Elisha: “And four men who were lepers sat outside the city, and they said to one another: Why should we sit here until we die?

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. Now, let us go and fall upon the camp of Aram, and perhaps they will give us food.”

Thus, one must leave the city during a famine and go elsewhere to seek food.

And we raise an objection:

What is the meaning of

“And it says”?

Why does the beraita bring an additional verse instead of relying on the first verse?

And we answer:

If you would say that, based only on the verse concerning Abraham our forefather, I would say:

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

This applies

when one must leave his place during a famine only

where there is no possible danger to life,

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

But where there is possible danger to life

in the other place,

no,

he should not go there.

Come and hear:

Therefore the beraita brings the second verse, which implies that he should go even to a dangerous place. As it is stated: “

Let us go and fall upon the camp of Aram; if they keep us alive

they will leave us alive,

we shall live,

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

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

there

in the middle of the roads, since once permission has been granted to him,

he has been granted permission 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, when he has no permission

to kill,

he hides himself and proceeds.

He conceals himself at the sides of the roads.

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

because

the Angel of Death deposits there

his

implements.

This applies

only

where children do not study there,

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

and where ten do not pray,

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

The Sages taught in a beraita: 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.

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 of 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 say a halakhic teaching!

Let the master state a halakhic matter.

And the other master,

his companion,

said

to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

Let the master say a matter of aggada!

Let the master state a matter of aggada.

He began

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa, seeking

to say a matter of aggada, but one master would not let him.

One of them did not allow him to do so.

He began

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa

to say a halakhic teaching, but the other master would not let him.

The other one did not allow him to do so.

He said to them

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

I shall give you a parable. To what is this matter similar? To a man who had two wives, one young

and youthful

and one old.

The

young one plucked

and pulled out

for him

his

white

hairs,

and the

old one plucked for him

his

black hairs, so that he would appear old.

He was left bald on both sides!

So too here, it turned out that I could not say any words of Torah at all—neither a halakhic teaching nor aggada.

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 something containing both halakha and aggada, and both of you will be satisfied:

It is stated: “

When a fire goes forth and finds thorns.”

This is difficult, for “When

it goes forth”

implies that the fire went out

of its own accord,

whereas the continuation of the verse, “

The one who kindled the fire shall surely pay,”

implies that the person kindled the fire and it did not go out on its own.

Rather,

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

fire that I kindled!

Although it was our sins that caused the fire, the Holy One, blessed be He, promised to pay as though He Himself had kindled the fire.

I kindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated [Lamentations 4:11]: “

Lamentations 4:11] “

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

And I am destined to rebuild it with fire, as it is stated [Zechariah 2:9]: “

Zechariah 2:9] “

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

This is the aggadic matter.

And also

a halakhic teaching

I shall tell you concerning this matter:

The verse begins with the damage caused by his property,

which implies at the beginning of the verse that the fire went out on its own from within his domain and burned that belonging to another, so that it is as though his property caused damage, and not that he himself caused it directly. But the verse concludes with the damage caused by his person, calling him “the one who kindled,” as though he had directly kindled the fire belonging to another.

This teaches you: His fire is considered like his arrow!

Although he did not kindle the stack directly, the Torah obligates him because he kindled a fire within his domain, and the fire went out and caused damage, just as one who throws a distant arrow is liable when the arrow causes damage there. The matter is considered as though he himself caused the damage directly; so too, with regard to fire, he is liable as one who causes damage directly. [

The practical difference between whether “his fire is considered like his arrow” or “his fire is considered his property” is explained in the Gemara above [23a]: If the fire injured another person, the owner of the fire must pay him the “four forms of compensation,” as the law of one who causes damage personally; whereas if it were only that “his fire is considered his property,” he would be exempt from the “four forms of compensation,” as in the case 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, which is by the gate? And the three warriors broke through

and made a way for themselves

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

They carried it and brought it 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:

What did he wish to ask?

What did David wish to ask the Sanhedrin?

That is, the Gemara understands David’s statement, “Who will give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate,” to mean: Who will go to the Sanhedrin [the elders of the gate] to ask a halakhic matter?

Rava said: “

Concealed objects in a fire”

was what he was asking about!

A case had come before him in which his men burned the stack of a Jewish man, and there were vessels hidden inside the stack. 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 objects in a fire,”

if

the halakha is

in accordance with the Rabbis,

who exempt one from liability for “concealed objects in a fire”?

And they resolved it for him

the Sanhedrin,

whatever they resolved for him,

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

Rav Huna said: There were stacks of barley belonging to Jews.

There were stacks of barley belonging to Jewish people,

in which Philistines were hiding,

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

And David was asking

and sent to ask the Sanhedrin:

What is the ruling concerning saving oneself with another’s property?

Is it permitted to burn these stacks in order to save oneself from the Philistines, even though by doing so he takes the stacks from their owners?

They sent word to him:

the Sanhedrin:

It is forbidden

for a person

to save himself through another’s property!

But you are a king, [

and a king]

may breach

a fence enclosing a field belonging to others in order

to make a road through it

so that he and his men can pass through the field,

and no one may protest against him!

Therefore, you are permitted to burn these stacks.

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

that is, there were stacks of barley belonging to Jews and stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines.

And they raised the following dilemma

before David:

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

in order

to place them before his animals

—David’s animals—

with the intention of paying

those Jews afterward

with the stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines?

The question is whether it is permitted to steal with the intention of paying.

They sent word to him,

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

He returns the pledge, he pays the stolen item.”

This implies that

even though it is theft,

he

pays

in the end, nevertheless

he is wicked,

as it is forbidden to steal even with the intention of paying.

But you are a king, and a king may breach

a fence

to make a road through it, and no one may protest against him!

Therefore, you are permitted to take the property with the intention of paying.

And we inquire into this:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the matter under discussion was

exchanging,

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

this is why one verse

in Samuel [there] states, “

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

And one verse

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

And the plot of land was full of barley.”

For that 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 does it state 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 authority:

There were also stacks of lentils,

in addition to the stack of barley,

in which the Philistines had hidden,

as the Philistines had also hidden there, and the question concerned both of them, and therefore the account of the incident appears in both forms.

And we inquire into this:

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 rescued it,”

as David did not permit the stack to be burned, because the Sanhedrin had answered him that it is forbidden to save oneself through another’s property [and he did not wish to use the permission granted to 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 with lentils,

what is the meaning of “

and rescued it”?

What does rescue have to do with this?

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 with lentils.

And we inquire into this:

Granted, these two—

according to these two amoraim, concerning “to burn” and “to exchange,”

this is why two verses are written,

one mentioning barley and one mentioning lentils, as explained above.