| 60b. לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב שנאמר (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר,ת"ר דבר בעיר כנס רגליך שנאמר ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ואומר (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך בעדך ואומר (דברים לב, כה) מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה,מאי ואומר וכי תימא ה"מ בליליא אבל ביממא לא תא שמע לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך,וכי תימא ה"מ [היכא] דליכא אימה מגואי אבל היכא דאיכא אימה מגואי כי נפיק יתיב ביני אינשי בצוותא בעלמא טפי מעלי ת"ש מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה אע"ג דמחדרים אימה מחוץ תשכל חרב,רבא בעידן רתחא הוי סכר כוי דכתי' (ירמיהו ט, כ) כי עלה מות בחלונינו,ת"ר רעב בעיר פזר רגליך שנא' (בראשית יב, י) ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם מצרימה [לגור] (ויגר) שם ואומר (מלכים ב ז, ד) אם אמרנו נבא העיר והרעב בעיר ומתנו שם,מאי ואומר וכי תימא ה"מ היכא דליכא ספק נפשות אבל היכא דאיכא ספק נפשות לא ת"ש (מלכים ב ז, ד) לכו ונפלה אל מחנה ארם אם יחיונו נחיה,ת"ר דבר בעיר אל יהלך אדם באמצע הדרך מפני שמלאך המות מהלך באמצע הדרכים דכיון דיהיבא ליה רשותא מסגי להדיא שלום בעיר אל יהלך בצדי דרכים דכיון דלית ליה רשותא מחבי חבויי ומסגי,ת"ר דבר בעיר אל יכנס אדם יחיד לבית הכנסת שמלאך המות מפקיד שם כליו וה"מ היכא דלא קרו ביה דרדקי ולא מצלו ביה עשרה,ת"ר כלבים בוכים מלאך המות בא לעיר כלבים משחקים אליהו הנביא בא לעיר וה"מ דלית בהו נקבה:,יתיב רב אמי ורב אסי קמיה דר' יצחק נפחא מר א"ל לימא מר שמעתתא ומר א"ל לימא מר אגדתא פתח למימר אגדתא ולא שביק מר 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 נמצא קרח מכאן ומכאן,אמר להן אי הכי אימא לכו מלתא דשויא לתרוייכו (שמות כב, ה) כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים תצא מעצמה שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה אמר הקב"ה עלי לשלם את הבערה שהבערתי,אני הציתי אש בציון שנאמר (איכה ד, יא) ויצת אש בציון ותאכל יסודותיה ואני עתיד לבנותה באש שנאמר (זכריה ב, ט) ואני אהיה לה חומת אש סביב ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה,שמעתתא פתח הכתוב בנזקי ממונו וסיים בנזקי גופו לומר לך אשו משום חציו:,(שמואל ב כג, טו) ויתאוה דוד ויאמר מי ישקני מים מבור בית לחם אשר בשער ויבקעו שלשת הגבורים במחנה פלשתים וישאבו מים מבור בית לחם אשר בשער [וגו'],מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אמר רבא אמר ר"נ טמון באש קמיבעיא ליה אי כר' יהודה אי כרבנן ופשטו ליה מאי דפשטו ליה,רב הונא אמר גדישים דשעורים דישראל הוו דהוו מטמרי פלשתים בהו וקא מיבעיא ליה מהו להציל עצמו בממון חבירו,שלחו ליה אסור להציל עצמו בממון חבירו אבל אתה מלך אתה [ומלך] פורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו,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 על מנת לשלם גדישין של עדשים דפלשתים,שלחו ליה (יחזקאל לג, טו) חבול ישיב רשע גזילה ישלם אע"פ שגזילה משלם רשע הוא אבל אתה מלך אתה ומלך פורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו,בשלמא למאן דאמר לאחלופי היינו דכתיב חד קרא (שמואל ב כג, יא) ותהי שם חלקת השדה מלאה עדשים וכתיב חד קרא (דברי הימים א יא, יג) ותהי חלקת השדה מלאה שעורים,אלא למאן דאמר למקלי מאי איבעיא להו להני תרי קראי אמר לך דהוו נמי גדישים דעדשים דישראל דהוו מיטמרו בהו פלשתים,בשלמא למאן דאמר למקלי היינו דכתיב (שמואל ב כג, יב) ויתיצב בתוך החלקה ויצילה אלא למ"ד לאחלופי מאי ויצילה,דלא שבק להו לאחלופי,בשלמא הני תרתי היינו דכתיב תרי קראי | 60b. bA personshould balways enteran unfamiliar city bata time of bgood,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. bAndlikewise, when one leaves a city bheshould bleave ata time of bgood,meaning after sunrise the next morning, bas it is statedin the verse: b“And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning”(Exodus 12:22).,§ bThe Sages taught:If there is bplague in the city, gather your feet,i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house, bas it is statedin the verse: b“And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.” And it saysin another verse: b“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). bAnd it says: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror”(Deuteronomy 32:25).,The Gemara asks: bWhatis the reason for citing the additional verses introduced with the term: bAnd 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: bAnd if you would saythat bthis matter,the first verse that states that none of you shall go out until morning, applies only bat night, but in the dayone may think that the principle does bnotapply, for this reason the Gemara teaches: bComeand bhear: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.” /b, bAnd if you would saythat bthis matterapplies only bwhere there is no fear inside,which explains why it is preferable to remain indoors, bbut where there is fear inside,one might think that bwhen he goes outand bsits among people in general companyit is bbetter,therefore, the Gemara introduces the third verse and says: bComeand bhear: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.”This means that balthough there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave,so it is safer to remain indoors., bAt a timewhen there was a bplague, Rava would close the windowsof his house, bas it is written: “For death is come up into our windows”(Jeremiah 9:20)., bThe Sages taught:If there is bfamine in the city, spread your feet,i.e., leave the city, bas it is statedin the verse: b“And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there”(Genesis 12:10). bAnd 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)., bWhatis the reason for citing the second verse, introduced with the term: bAnd it says? And if you would saythat bthis matter,the principle of leaving the city, applies only bwhere there is no uncertaintyconcerning ba life-threateningsituation, bbut where there is uncertaintyconcerning ba life-threateningsituation this principle does bnotapply, bcomeand bhear: “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.”, bThe Sages taught:If there is ba plague in the city, a person should not walk in the middle of the road, due tothe fact bthat the Angel of Death walks in the middle of the road, as, sincein Heaven bthey have given him permissionto kill within the city, bhe goes openlyin the middle of the road. By contrast, if there is bpeaceand quiet bin the city, do not walk on the sides of the road, as, sincethe Angel of Death bdoes not have permissionto kill within the city, bhe hideshimself band walkson the side of the road., bThe Sages taught:If there is ba 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. bAnd this matter,the danger in the synagogue, applies only bwhen there are no children learning inthe synagogue, bandthere are bnot tenmen bpraying in it.But if there are children learning or ten men praying there, it is not a dangerous place., bThe Sages taught:If the bdogsin a certain place bare cryingfor no reason, it is a sign that they feel the bAngel of Death has come to the city.If the bdogs are playing,it is a sign that they feel that bElijah the prophet has come to the city. These mattersapply only bif there is no femaledog among them. If there is a female dog nearby, their crying or playing is likely due to her presence.,§ bRav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa.One bSage said toRabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: bLet the Master saywords of ihalakha /i, andthe other bSage said toRabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: bLet the Master saywords of iaggada /i.Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa bbegan to saywords of iaggadabutone bSage did not let him,so he bbegan to saywords of ihalakhabutthe other bSage did not let him. /b,Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa bsaid to them: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared?It can be compared bto a man who has two wives, one young and one old. The youngwife bpulls out his whitehairs, so that her husband will appear younger. bThe oldwife bpulls out his blackhairs so that he will appear older. And it bturns outthat he is bbald from here and from there,i.e., completely bald, due to the actions of both of his wives.,Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa continued and bsaid to them: If so, I will say to you a matter that is appropriate to both of you,which contains both ihalakhaand iaggada /i. In the verse that states: b“If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns”(Exodus 22:5), the term b“breaks out”indicates that it breaks out bby itself.Yet, the continuation of the verse states: b“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: bThe Holy One, Blessed be He, saidthat although the fire broke out in the Temple due to the sins of the Jewish people, bit is incumbent upon Me to payrestitution bfor the fire that I kindled. /b, bI,God, bkindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated:“The Lord has accomplished His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger; band He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundations”(Lamentations 4:11). bAnd I will build it with firein the bfuture, as it is stated: “For I,says the Lord, bwill be for her a wall of fire round about; and I will be the glory in her midst”(Zechariah 2:9).,There is ba ihalakha /ithat can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as bthe verse begins with damagecaused through one’s bproperty:“If a fire breaks out,” band concludes with damagecaused by bone’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 bto say to youthat the liability for bhis firedamage is bdue toits similarity to bhis 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.,§ The Gemara continues with another statement of iaggadaon a related topic: The verse states: b“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., bWhat is the dilemmathat David bis raising? Rava saysthat bRav Naḥman says: He was askingabout the ihalakhawith regard to ba concealedarticle damaged by ba fire.He wanted to know whether the ihalakhais bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,who holds that one is liable to pay for such damage, or bwhetherthe ihalakhais bin accordance withthe opinion of bthe Rabbis,who hold that one is exempt from liability for damage by fire to concealed articles. bAndthe Sages in Bethlehem banswered him what they answered him. /b, bRav Huna stateda different explanation of the verse: bThere were stacks of barley belonging to Jews in which the Philistines were hiding, andDavid wanted to burn down the stacks to kill the Philistines and save his own life. bHe raised the dilemma: What isthe ihalakha /i? Is it permitted bto save oneselfby destroying bthe property of another? /b, bThey sentthe following answer bto him: It is prohibited to save oneselfby destroying bthe property of another. But you are king, and a king may breach the fenceof an individual bin order to form a path for himself, and none may protest hisaction, i.e., the normal ihalakhotof damage do not apply to you since you are king., bThe Rabbis, and some saythat it was bRabba bar Mari,give an alternative explanation of the dilemma and bsaid: The stacks of barley belonged to Jews, andthere were bstacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines.David needed barley to feed his animals. bAndDavid braised thefollowing bdilemma: What isthe ihalakha /i? I know that I may take the lentils belonging to a gentile to feed my animals, but is it permitted bto take a stack of barleybelonging to ba Jew, to place before one’s animalfor it to consume, bwith the intent to paythe owner of the barley with the bstacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines? /b,The Sages of Bethlehem bsentthe following reply bto 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 beven thoughthe robber brepaysthe value of the bstolen item, heis nevertheless considered to be bwicked,and is described as such in the verse, and a commoner would not be allowed to act as you asked. bBut you are king, and a king may breach the fenceof an individual bin order to form a path for himself, and none may protest hisaction.,The Gemara discusses the different explanations: bGranted, according to the one who saysthat David was asking whether he could take the stacks of barley and bexchangethem, i.e., repay the owners of the barley, with stacks of lentils, bthis is as it is writtenin bone verse:“And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, bwhere was a plot of ground full of lentils;and the people fled from the Philistines” (II Samuel 23:11), band it is writtenin boneother bverse:“He was with David at Pas Dammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, bwhere 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., bBut according toRav Huna, bthe one who saysthat David’s question was asked because he wanted bto burnthe stacks of barley, for bwhatpurpose bdoes he require these two verses?How does he explain this contradiction? Rav Huna could have bsaid to you that there were also stacks of lentils belonging to Jews, inside which the Philistines were hiding. /b, bGranted, according to the one who saysthat David asked his question because he wanted bto burnthe stacks, bthis is as it is writ-tenin the following verse with regard to David: b“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). bBut according to the one who saysthat David’s question was asked bwith regard to exchangingthe lentils for the barley, bwhatis the meaning of the phrase: b“And saved it”? /b,The Rabbis answer that David saved it in bthat he did not permit them to exchangethe value of the barley with the lentils., bGranted,according to both of bthese twoopinions, bthis is as it is writtenin btwodistinct bverses,one describing the field of lentils and one describing the field of barley. |
