Bava Kamma 61a — the Talmud in English

But according to the one who says

“concealed [property] in a fire”

was what he asked about,

for David,

what need did he have for the verses?

Why is it written once “barley” and once “lentils,” for he asked only about one stack whether one is liable for concealed [property] in a fire?

And we answer:

That one who says:

“

concealed [property]”

and one of these [other questions] was what he asked about.

David asked the Sanhedrin two questions: the question of concealed [property] in a fire and one more of the two questions, either “to burn” or “to exchange.” And each question concerned a different stack. Therefore it is written once “barley” and once “lentils.”

And we raise [an objection] concerning this:

Granted, according to the one who says these two,

whether according to the one who says “to burn” or according to the one who says “to exchange,”

this is what is written:

“And David did not wish to drink them,”

for David did not wish to make use of the permission that the Sanhedrin had given him to burn the stacks or to exchange [them] without the owners’ permission, because

he said: Since there is a prohibition

for every person in Israel in this,

it is not agreeable to me

to rely on the fact that I am king and that it is permitted to a king.

But according to the one who says

“concealed [property] in a fire”

was what he asked about,

the difficulty is:

After all, it was a teaching that they sent him,

for the Sanhedrin sent him only a ruling of halakha, whether the halakha follows Rabbi Judah or the Rabbis concerning “concealed [property] in a fire.” If so,

what is

“And David did not wish to drink them”?

What relevance is there to saying that he did not wish to accept the ruling? And we answer:

For he did not state them in their names.

David did not wish to state the ruling in the name of the three mighty men who endangered themselves and passed through the Philistine camp in order to reach the Sanhedrin and ask his question.

David said:

“

This is what I received as a tradition from the court of Samuel the Ramathite: Whoever gives himself over to death for words of Torah—the matter of halakha is not stated in his name!” (

See an additional note at the end of the book from the editor-in-chief.)

And it is written further in the verse:

“And he poured them out to Hashem.”

And we raise [an objection] concerning this:

Granted, according to the one who says these two,

“to burn” and “to exchange,” concerning which it was explained above that David did not wish to drink them—that he did not wish to rely on the permission that the Sanhedrin had given him—this is what is meant by what is written that he poured them out to Hashem, namely,

because he acted for the sake of Heaven.

He did not wish to permit himself something that is forbidden to every person, and this is considered as though he had poured these waters out to Hashem.

But according to the one who says

“concealed [property] in a fire,”

and the reason he did not wish to drink them was that he did not state the ruling in their name, if so,

what is

“And he poured them out to Hashem”?

And we answer:

For he stated them in the name of the Gemara.

David did not state the ruling in his own name; rather, he said that this was the tradition, and this is called that he poured them out to Hashem.

Mishna:

If [the fire] passed through

the fire

a wall that was four cubits high,

which had stood between the fire and his fellow’s field,

or

if it passed

through a public thoroughfare

the broad one, sixteen cubits [corresponding to the width of the wagons in the banners of the wilderness, where there was “public domain”],

or a river, he is exempt,

for he is compelled by circumstances concerning this.

Gemara:

And we challenge the Mishna, which says that if it passed through a wall that was four cubits high, he is exempt:

But we learned

in a beraita:

If it passed through a wall that was four cubits high, he is liable!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: The tanna of our [Mishna]

of the Mishna

is counting

he proceeds

from above downward:

Six cubits

in height,

he is exempt.

Five cubits

in height,

he is exempt.

Less than five cubits

up to

a height of

four cubits,

and the four cubits themselves are also included in “up to, and including,”

he is exempt.

Whereas

the outside tanna

the tanna of the beraita

is counting from below upward

he proceeds from below upward:

Two cubits

in height,

he is liable.

Three cubits

in height,

he is liable.

Above three cubits

up to

the height of

four cubits,

and the four cubits themselves are not included in this—“up to, but not including”—

he is liable.

It follows that the tanna of the beraita also agrees that at a height of four cubits he is exempt. And what is stated in the beraita, “four cubits, he is liable,” means that up to four cubits he is liable, while at four cubits themselves he is indeed exempt. Whereas what is stated in the Mishna, that at four cubits he is exempt, means that at four cubits themselves he is also exempt.

Rava said: The four cubits that they said [make him] exempt—even in a field of thorns.

Even if that field beyond the wall, which caught fire, was full of thorns, in which the fire takes hold easily, nevertheless a wall four cubits high is sufficient to exempt the owner of the fire.

Rav Pappa said: And from the top of the thorns upward,

the wall must be

four cubits

high. The wall need not be four cubits higher only in relation to the fire; also in relation to the thorns on the other side, the wall must be four cubits higher than the top of the thorns.

Rav said: They taught

in the Mishna that he is exempt if the wall was four cubits high

only with a rising fire,

whose fire rises upward in a column.

But with a bending fire,

if the wind bends the fire to the sides,

even if

the wall was

up to one hundred cubits high, he is liable.

Since, through the wind, the flame may leap over the high wall.

And Samuel said,

the opposite:

The Mishna

speaks specifically

of a bending fire,

and only then is a wall four cubits high required.

But with a rising fire,

if the fire rises upward and does not bend to the sides because of the wind,

even if

the wall was only

anything at all high, he is exempt.

It was taught in accordance with Rav

that the Mishna speaks only of a rising fire:

When is this matter said,

that what the Mishna says—if the fire passed through a public thoroughfare, he is exempt—applies only

with a rising fire,

when the fire is high and rises upward.

But with a bending fire,

when the fire is low,

and wood is available to it,

so that the fire continues and takes hold of the wood on the ground,

even if

the fire reached a distance

of one hundred mil, he is liable.

If it passed through

the fire

a river [

below the Gemara will explain what “channel” is]

or a channel, which are eight cubits wide, he is exempt.

Thus, the beraita interprets the Mishna as speaking only of a rising fire, in accordance with Rav.

We learned in the Mishna: “Or”

a public thoroughfare

he is exempt.

And we raise [the question]:

Who is the tanna?

Who is the tanna of our Mishna who holds that the measure of the distance through which the fire must pass—which exempts the owner of the fire—is sixteen cubits?

And we answer:

Rava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer!

For we learned

in the Mishna below [on page b]:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If the fire passed

through

sixteen cubits, as the way of the public domain, (he is exempt).

We learned in the Mishna:

or a river

he is exempt.

Rav said:

The Mishna speaks of

an actual river

such that if the fire crossed it, he is exempt.

And Samuel said:

The Mishna speaks

of a canal of the water-drawers,

a small river from which they draw water and irrigate the fields, and even then he is exempt.

And we explain:

The one who says: an actual river,

which is wide, [holds that]

even though there is no water

in the river, nevertheless he is exempt because of its width.

And the one who says: a canal of the water-drawers,

which is not wide, [holds that]

if there is water in it,

only then is he exempt because of the water,

but

if

there is no water in it

in the channel,

not

then he is not exempt.

We learned there

in tractate Peah:

And these interrupt for peah,

the things listed below interrupt the field with regard to peah, so that it is considered two fields and they must leave peah from each one separately:

the stream, the channel, and a private way

four cubits wide,

and a public thoroughfare

sixteen cubits wide. For all of these, if they pass through the field, interrupt it and make it like two fields with regard to peah.

And we raise [the question]:

What is

a channel?

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: A place where rainwater

sweeps away,

where rainwater gathers.

Rav Bibi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: An irrigation channel that distributes its yield to its banks,

from which they irrigate the fields.

And we explain:

The one who says: a place where rainwater sweeps away,

holds that

all the more so an irrigation channel

interrupts the field.