בבא קמא דף ס

סלתא, שרגא, דההוא ודאי מעשה דידיה גרמו.

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.

שלח ביד פקח – הפקח חייב וכו׳. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: מאן דתני ״ליבה״ לא משתבש, ומאן דתני ״ניבה״ לא משתבש.

The mishna teaches that if one sent a fire in the hand of a halakhically competent person, the halakhically competent person is liable…If another came and fanned the flame the one who fanned it is liable. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.

מאן דתני ״ליבה״ לא משתבש – דכתיב: ״בלבת אש״. ומאן דתני ״ניבה״ לא משתבש – דכתיב: ״בורא ניב שפתים״.

Rav Naḥman explained: The one who teaches using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, as it is written: “With a flame [belabbat] of fire” (Exodus 3:2), and the one who teaches using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken, as it is written: “He creates the fruit [niv] of the lips” (Isaiah 57:19), which can be interpreted as referring to the breath of the lips.

לבתה הרוח – כולן פטורין. תנו רבנן: ליבה ולבתה הרוח, אם יש בלבויו כדי ללבותה – חייב, ואם לאו – פטור.

§ 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.

אמאי? ליהוי כזורה ורוח מסייעתו!

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.

אמר אביי: הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון שליבה מצד אחד, ולבתו הרוח מצד אחר. רבא אמר: כגון שליבה ברוח מצויה, ולבתו הרוח ברוח שאינה מצויה. רבי זירא אמר:

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.

כגון דצמרה צמורי.

רב אשי אמר: כי אמרינן זורה ורוח מסייעתו – הני מילי לענין שבת, דמלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה; אבל הכא – גרמא בעלמא הוא, וגרמא בנזקין פטור.

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.

מתני׳ השולח את הבערה, ואכלה עצים או אבנים או עפר – חייב; שנאמר: ״כי תצא אש ומצאה קצים, ונאכל גדיש או הקמה או השדה,

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: “If 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 compensation” (Exodus 22:5), which teaches that he is liable also for destroying the field itself.

שלם ישלם המבער את הבערה״.

גמ׳ אמר רבא: למה לי דכתב רחמנא ״קוצים״, ״גדיש״, ״קמה״ ו״שדה״?

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: “Thorns,” “a stack of grain,” “standing grain,” and “field,” which seem to be redundant?

צריכי; דאי כתב רחמנא ״קוצים״, הוה אמינא: קוצים הוא דחייב רחמנא – משום דשכיח אש גבייהו, ושכיח דפשע; אבל גדיש – דלא שכיח אש גבייהו,

Rava explains: All the terms are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only “thorns” 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 harm’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: “A stack of grain,” 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.

ולא שכיח דפשע, אימא לא. ואי כתב רחמנא ״גדיש״, הוה אמינא: גדיש חייב רחמנא – משום דהפסד מרובה הוא; אבל קוצים – דהפסד מועט, אימא לא.

״קמה״ למה לי? מה קמה בגלוי – אף כל בגלוי.

Why do I need the Torah to state the term “standing grain”? 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.

ולרבי יהודה דמחייב אנזקי טמון באש, ״קמה״ למה לי? לרבות כל בעלי קומה. ורבנן, לרבות כל בעלי קומה מנא להו? נפקא להו מ״או הקמה״.

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: “Standing grain”? 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 “standing grain,” from where do they derive that all items that have stature are included? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the term: “Or standing grain,” since the additional word “or” is an inclusive term.

ורבי יהודה – ״או״ מיבעי ליה לחלק. ורבנן לחלק מנא להו? נפקא להו מ״או השדה״.

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the additional word “or”? The Gemara answers: He requires the word “or” 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 “or,” as the verse states: “Or the field.”

ורבי יהודה – איידי דכתב רחמנא ״או הקמה״, כתב ״או השדה״.

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

״שדה״ למה לי? לאתויי לחכה נירו וסכסכה אבניו. ולכתוב רחמנא ״שדה״, ולא בעי הנך! צריכא; דאי כתב רחמנא ״שדה״, הוה אמינא: מה שבשדה – אין,

Rava continues to elaborate on the different terms in the verse: And why do I need the word “field” 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 “field,” 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 “field,” 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.

מידי אחרינא – לא; קא משמע לן.

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן: אין פורענות באה לעולם אלא בזמן שהרשעים בעולם, ואינה מתחלת אלא מן הצדיקים תחלה, שנאמר:

§ The Gemara cites an aggadic midrash based on this verse: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani 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: “If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed” (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: “And a stack of grain is consumed [vene’ekhal].” It is not stated: If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, and consumes [ve’akhal] the stack of grain; rather, it states: “A stack of grain is consumed,” meaning that the stack, i.e., the righteous, has already been consumed before the thorns.

״כי תצא אש ומצאה קצים״ – אימתי אש יוצאה? בזמן שקוצים מצויין לה. ואינה מתחלת אלא מן הצדיקים תחלה, שנאמר: ״ונאכל גדיש״; ״ואכל גדיש״ לא נאמר,

אלא ״ונאכל גדיש״ – שנאכל גדיש כבר.

תאני רב יוסף, מאי דכתיב: ״ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר״? כיון שניתן רשות למשחית, אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים. ולא עוד,

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

אלא שמתחיל מן הצדיקים תחלה, שנאמר: ״והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע״.

בכי רב יוסף: כולי האי נמי לאין דומין. אמר ליה אביי: טיבותא הוא לגבייהו, דכתיב: ״כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק״.

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: “The righteous is taken away because of the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1), so that he will not have to endure the suffering that will befall the people.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב:

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says:

לעולם יכנס אדם ב״כי טוב״ ויצא ב״כי טוב״, שנאמר: ״ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר״.

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 “It is good” 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: “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning” (Exodus 12:22).

תנו רבנן: דבר בעיר – כנס רגליך, שנאמר: ״ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר״. ואומר: ״לך עמי בא בחדריך, וסגור דלתך בעדך״. ואומר:

§ 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: “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.” And it says in another verse: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed by” (Isaiah 26:20). And it says: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror” (Deuteronomy 32:25).

״מחוץ תשכל חרב, ומחדרים אימה״.

מאי ״ואומר״? וכי תימא: הני מילי בליליא, אבל ביממא לא; תא שמע: ״לך עמי בא בחדריך, וסגור דלתך״.

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 one’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: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.”

וכי תימא: הני מילי [היכא] דליכא אימה מגואי, אבל היכא דאיכא אימה מגואי – כי נפיק יתיב ביני אינשי בצוותא בעלמא, טפי מעלי; תא שמע:

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: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.” This means that although there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave, so it is safer to remain indoors.

״מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה״ – אף על גב דמחדרים אימה, מחוץ תשכל חרב.

רבא, בעידן רתחא הוה סכר כוי, דכתיב: ״כי עלה מות בחלונינו״.

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

תנו רבנן: רעב בעיר – פזר רגליך, שנאמר: ״ויהי רעב בארץ, וירד אברם מצרימה [לגור] (ויגר) שם״. ואומר: ״אם אמרנו נבוא העיר והרעב בעיר, ומתנו שם״.

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: “And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there” (Genesis 12:10). And it says: “If 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 die” (II Kings 7:4).

מאי ״ואומר״? וכי תימא: הני מילי היכא דליכא ספק נפשות, אבל היכא דאיכא ספק נפשות – לא; תא שמע: ״לכו ונפלה אל מחנה ארם, אם יחינו נחיה״.

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: “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 die.”

תנו רבנן: דבר בעיר – אל יהלך אדם באמצע הדרך, מפני שמלאך המות מהלך באמצע הדרכים. דכיון דיהיבא ליה רשותא, מסגי להדיא.

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.

שלום בעיר – אל יהלך בצדי דרכים. דכיון דלית ליה רשותא, מחבי חבויי ומסגי.

תנו רבנן: דבר בעיר – אל יכנס אדם יחיד לבית הכנסת, שמלאך המות מפקיד שם כליו. והני מילי היכא דלא קרו ביה דרדקי, ולא מצלו ביה עשרה.

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.

תנו רבנן: כלבים בוכים – מלאך המות בא לעיר. כלבים משחקים – אליהו הנביא בא לעיר. והני מילי דלית בהו נקבה.

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.

יתיב רב אמי ורב אסי קמיה דרבי יצחק נפחא. מר אמר ליה: לימא מר שמעתתא, ומר אמר ליה: לימא מר אגדתא. פתח למימר אגדתא – ולא שביק מר,

§ Rav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. One Sage said to Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: Let the Master say words of halakha, and the other Sage said to Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: Let the Master say words of aggada. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa 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.

פתח למימר שמעתתא – ולא שביק מר.

אמר להם: אמשול לכם משל, למה הדבר דומה? לאדם שיש לו שתי נשים, אחת ילדה ואחת זקינה. ילדה מלקטת לו לבנות, זקינה מלקטת לו שחורות.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa 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.

נמצא קרח מכאן ומכאן.

אמר להן: אי הכי, אימא לכו מלתא דשויא לתרוייכו: ״כי תצא אש ומצאה קצים״ – ״תצא״ מעצמה, ״שלם ישלם המבער את הבערה״. אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא:

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa 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: “If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns” (Exodus 22:5), the term “breaks out” indicates that it breaks out by itself. Yet, the continuation of the verse states: “The one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,” 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.

עלי לשלם את הבערה שהבערתי –

אני הציתי אש בציון, שנאמר: ״ויצת אש בציון, ותאכל יסודותיה״; ואני עתיד לבנותה באש, שנאמר: ״ואני אהיה לה חומת אש סביב, ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה״.

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

שמעתתא – פתח הכתוב בנזקי ממונו, וסיים בנזקי גופו; לומר לך: אשו משום חציו.

There is a halakha that can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as the verse begins with damage caused through one’s property: “If a fire breaks out,” and concludes with damage caused by one’s body: “The one who kindled the fire.” 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.

״ויתאוה דוד ויאמר: מי ישקני מים מבאר בית לחם אשר בשער. ויבקעו שלשת הגבורים במחנה פלשתים, וישאבו מים מבאר בית לחם אשר בשער [וגו׳]״.

§ The Gemara continues with another statement of aggada on a related topic: The verse states: “And 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 Lord” (II Samuel 23:15–16). 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.

מאי קא מיבעיא ליה? אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן: טמון באש קמיבעיא ליה, אי כרבי יהודה אי כרבנן, ופשטו ליה מאי דפשטו ליה.

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

רב הונא אמר: גדישים דשעורים דישראל הוו, דהוו מטמרי פלשתים בהו, וקא מיבעיא ליה: מהו להציל עצמו בממון חבירו?

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?

שלחו ליה: אסור להציל עצמו בממון חבירו; אבל אתה מלך אתה, [ומלך] פורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו.

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.

ורבנן ואיתימא רבה בר מרי אמרו: גדישים דשעורין דישראל הוו, וגדישין דעדשים דפלשתים; וקא מיבעיא להו: מהו ליטול גדישין של שעורין דישראל ליתן לפני בהמתו,

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 one’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?

על מנת לשלם גדישין של עדשים דפלשתים?

שלחו ליה: ״חבל ישיב רשע, גזלה ישלם״ – אף על פי שגזילה משלם, רשע הוא. אבל אתה מלך אתה, ומלך פורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו.

The Sages of Bethlehem sent the following reply to him: “If 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 die” (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.

בשלמא למאן דאמר לאחלופי – היינו דכתיב חד קרא: ״ותהי שם חלקת השדה מלאה עדשים״, וכתיב חד קרא: ״ותהי חלקת השדה מלאה שעורים״;

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: “And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines” (II Samuel 23:11), and it is written in one other verse: “He 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 Philistines” (I Chronicles 11:13). This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by saying that there were two fields, one of barley and one of lentils.

אלא למאן דאמר למקלי, מאי איבעיא להו להני תרי קראי? אמר לך: דהוו נמי גדישים דעדשים דישראל, דהוו מיטמרו בהו פלשתים.

But according to Rav Huna, the one who says that David’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.

בשלמא למאן דאמר למקלי – היינו דכתיב: ״ויתיצב בתוך החלקה ויצילה״; אלא למאן דאמר לאחלופי, מאי ״ויצילה״?

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: “But he stood in the midst of the plot, and saved it, and slew the Philistines; and the Lord performed a great victory” (II Samuel 23:12). But according to the one who says that David’s question was asked with regard to exchanging the lentils for the barley, what is the meaning of the phrase: “And saved it”?

דלא שבק להו לאחלופי.

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

בשלמא הני תרתי, היינו דכתיב תרי קראי;

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.