Pt2 Calamity, Epidemic, and Property: Teachings on Divine Punishment, Public Danger, and David’s Halakhic Dilemma in II Samuel 23 (Bava Kamma 60a-b)

This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 1

Anecdote re Rav Ami and Rav Asi sitting before R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa - One asks for halakha, the other for aggada

יתיב רב אמי ורב אסי קמיה דרבי יצחק נפחא.

• מר אמר ליה:

  • לימא מר שמעתתא,

• ומר אמר ליה:

  • לימא מר אגדתא.

§ Rav Ami and Rav Asi sat before R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa.

• One Sage said to R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa:

  • Let the Master say words of halakha,¹

• and the other Sage said to R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa:

  • Let the Master say words of aggada (אגדתא)

• פתח למימר אגדתא –

  • ולא שביק מר,

• פתח למימר שמעתתא –

  • ולא שביק מר.

• R’ 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.

Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa uses a parable of a man with a young and old wife to explain the difficulty of satisfying conflicting demands

אמר להם:

אמשול לכם משל,

למה הדבר דומה?

R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said to them:

I will relate a parable.

To what can this be compared?

לאדם שיש לו שתי נשים,

• אחת ילדה

• ואחת זקינה.

• ילדה

  • מלקטת לו לבנות,

• זקינה

  • מלקטת לו שחורות.

נמצא קרח

• מכאן

• ומכאן.

It can be compared to a man who has two wives,

• one young²

• and one old.

• The young wife

  • pulls out³ 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 ends up (נמצא) that he is bald

• from here

• and from there,

i.e., completely bald, due to the actions of both of his wives.

Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa therefore combines halakha and aggada

אמר להן:

אי הכי,

אימא לכו מלתא דשויא לתרוייכו:

R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa continued and said to them:

If so,

I will say to you a matter that is appropriate (שויא) to both of you,

which contains both halakha and aggada.

Exodus 22:5

״כי תצא אש

ומצאה קצים״ –

״תצא״ מעצמה,

In the verse that states: “If a fire breaks out (תצא),

and catches in thorns” (Exodus 22:5),

the term “breaks out” indicates that it breaks out by itself.

״שלם ישלם המבער את הבערה״.

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.

God burned the First Temple, therefore He must “repay” by rebuilding the Temple with fire (in the messianic future)

אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא:

עלי לשלם את הבערה שהבערתי

The verse can be explained allegorically:

God said that

although the fire broke out in the First Temple (6th century BCE) due to the sins of the Jewish people, it is incumbent upon Me to pay restitution for the fire that I kindled.

Prooftext - Lamentations 4:11

אני הציתי אש בציון,

שנאמר:

״ויצת אש בציון,

ותאכל יסודותיה״;

I, God, kindled a fire in Zion,

as it is stated:

“YHWH 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).

Zechariah 2:9

ואני עתיד לבנותה באש,

שנאמר:

״ואני אהיה לה חומת אש סביב,

ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה״.

[...]

And I will build it with fire in the messianic future,

as it is stated:

“For I, says YHWH, will be for her a wall of fire round about;

and I will be the glory in her midst” (Zechariah 2:9).

[...]

Rava citing Rav Naḥman - David’s request for “water” from Bethlehem was a halakhic query about liability for concealed items damaged by fire: whether the law follows R’ Yehuda or the Rabbis - II Samuel 23:15–16

״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 Talmud 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 3 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 YHWH” (II Samuel 23:15–16).⁴

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.⁵

He wanted to know

• whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R’ 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.⁶

And the rabbis in Bethlehem answered him what they answered him.

Rav Huna - David’s query concerned whether one may save oneself by destroying another Jew’s property, where Philistines were hiding in Jewish-owned barley stacks - II Samuel 23:15–16

רב הונא אמר:

גדישים דשעורים דישראל הוו,

דהוו מטמרי פלשתים בהו,

Rav Huna stated a different explanation of the verse:

There were stacks (גדישים) 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.

וקא מיבעיא ליה:

מהו להציל עצמו בממון חבירו?

David raised the dilemma:

What is the halakha? Is it permitted to save oneself by destroying the property of another?

The response: One may not save oneself with another’s property; however, as king, David could breach private property for royal needs

שלחו ליה:

אסור להציל עצמו בממון חבירו;

They sent the following answer to him:

It is prohibited to save oneself by destroying the property of another.⁷

אבל אתה מלך אתה,

—[ומלך]

פורץ לעשות לו דרך

ואין מוחין בידו.

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,⁸

Rabbis, or Rabba bar Mari - David’s query concerned whether he could take Jewish-owned barley for his animals and compensate the owner with Philistine-owned lentils - II Samuel 23:15–16

ורבנן, ואיתימא רבה בר מרי אמרו:

גדישים דשעורין דישראל הוו,

וגדישין דעדשים דפלשתים;

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.

וקא מיבעיא להו:

מהו ליטול גדישין של שעורין דישראל ליתן לפני בהמתו,

על מנת לשלם גדישין של עדשים דפלשתים?

And David raised the following dilemma:

What is the halakha? I know that I may take the lentils belonging to a non-Jew 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?

The response: Even if a robber later repays, he remains called wicked - Ezekiel 33:15

שלחו ליה:

״חבל ישיב רשע,

גזלה ישלם״

The rabbis 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).

אף על פי שגזילה משלם,

רשע הוא.

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.

Nevertheless, David as king had royal prerogative

אבל אתה מלך אתה,

ומלך פורץ לעשות לו דרך

ואין מוחין בידו.

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.

Appendix 1 - Homiletically interpreting “water” in the Bible as an allegory for Torah

Torah and Kindness as Meriting the Blessings of Joseph and Issachar (Bava Kamma 17a)

In Sefaria: Bava_Kamma.17a.8-11

ChavrutAI: Bava_Kamma/17a#8 (=Avodah_Zarah/5b#3)

R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Shimon ben Yoḥai - One who engages in Torah and acts of kindness merits the inheritance/reward of two tribes - Joseph and Issachar - Isaiah 32:20

אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי,

מאי דכתיב:

״אשריכם זרעי על כל מים,

משלחי רגל השור והחמור״?

§ A verse that was cited at the beginning of this chapter (2b) as part of a halakhic exposition is now explained homiletically:

R’ Yoḥanan says in the name of R’ Shimon ben Yoḥai:

What is the meaning of that which is written:

“Happy are you that sow beside all waters,

that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20)?

כל העוסק בתורה ובגמילות חסדים —

זוכה לנחלת שני שבטים.

It teaches that whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness —

merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes,

Joseph and Issachar.

“Sowing” in Isaiah 32:20 means charity, based on Hosea 10:12; “water” means Torah, based on Isaiah 55:1

שנאמר:

״אשריכם זרעי״

• ואין ״זריעה״ אלא צדקה,

  • שנאמר: ״זרעו לכם לצדקה, וקצרו לפי חסד״;

• ואין ״מים״ אלא תורה,

  • שנאמר: ״הוי כל צמא — לכו למים״.

The Talmud explains how this is derived from the verse:

As it is stated:

“Happy are you that sow.”

• And the reference to “sowing” refers only to acts of charity,

  • as it is stated: “Sow for yourselves for charity, reap according to kindness” (Hosea 10:12).

• And the reference to water refers only to the study of Torah,

  • as it is stated with regard to Torah study: “Ho, all who are thirsty, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1).

The “ox” alludes to Joseph, and the reward is a canopy/honor like Joseph; the “donkey” alludes to Issachar, and the reward is Issachar’s portion - Deuteronomy 33:17; Genesis 49:22, 14

וזוכה לנחלת שני שבטים –

• זוכה לכילה כיוסף,

  • דכתיב: ״בן פרת יוסף, בנות צעדה עלי שור״;

• וזוכה לנחלת יששכר,

  • דכתיב: ״יששכר חמר גרם״.

And the fact that he merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes is derived as follows:

• The reference to the ox in the verse is an allusion to Joseph, who is described as an ox (Deuteronomy 33:17), and one’s reward is that he merits to receive a canopy of honor, as did Joseph,

  • as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain;

    its branches run over the wall.” The branches over the wall in this verse allude to the canopy.

• And the reference to the donkey is an allusion to the fact that he merits to receive the portion of Issachar, who is described as a donkey,

  • as it is stated: “Issachar is a large-boned donkey” (Genesis 49:14).

Some say / alternative interpretation - The reward is that one’s enemies fall before him like Joseph, and that one receives understanding like Issachar - Deuteronomy 33:17; I Chronicles 12:33

אית דאמרי:

• אויביו נופלים לפניו כיוסף –

  • דכתיב: ״בהם עמים ינגח, יחדו אפסי ארץ״;

• וזוכה לבינה כיששכר –

  • דכתיב: ״ומבני יששכר, יודעי בינה לעתים, לדעת מה יעשה ישראל״.

There are some who say that the comparison should be understood in a different manner:

• His enemies will fall before him just like in the blessing given by Moses to the tribe of Joseph,

  • as it is written in the blessing bestowed by Moses to the tribe of Joseph: “His horns are the horns of the wild-ox; with them he shall gore the nations, even to the ends of the earth” (Deuteronomy 33:17).

• And he merits the understanding of Issachar,

  • as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do” (I Chronicles 12:33).

The Derivation of Public Torah Reading from Israel’s Three Days Without Water in the Wilderness in Exodus 15:22 (Bava Kamma 82a)

In Sefaria: Bava_Kamma.82a.5-6

In ChavrutAI: Bava_Kamma/82a#5

Baraita - Interprets Israel’s three-day journey without water as three days without Torah - Exodus 15:22

[…]

תניא:

״וילכו שלשת ימים במדבר

ולא מצאו מים״

[…]

it is taught in a baraita

with regard to the verse: “And Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur;

and they went 3 days in the wilderness,

and found no water” (Exodus 15:22).

“Interpreters of verses” (דורשי רשומות) - “Water” in Exodus 15:22 refers allegorically to Torah - Isaiah 55:1

דורשי רשומות אמרו:

אין מים אלא תורה,

שנאמר:

״הוי כל צמא —

לכו למים״.

Those who interpret verses metaphorically (דורשי רשומות) said that

water here is referring to nothing other than Torah,

as it is stated metaphorically, concerning those who desire wisdom:

“Ho, everyone who thirsts —

come for water” (Isaiah 55:1).

כיון שהלכו שלשת ימים בלא תורה —

נלאו

The baraita continues:

The verse means that since the Jews traveled for 3 days without hearing any Torah —

they became weary (נלאו)

Therefore, contemporary prophets instituted public Torah reading on Shabbat, Monday, and Thursday, so that Israel would never go three days without Torah

עמדו נביאים שביניהם ותיקנו להם שיהו

1. קורין בשבת,

   1. ומפסיקין באחד בשבת,

2. וקורין בשני,

   1. ומפסיקין שלישי ורביעי,

3. וקורין בחמישי,

   1. ומפסיקין ערב שבת,

כדי שלא ילינו שלשה ימים בלא תורה.

and therefore the prophets among them arose and instituted for them that they should

1. read from the Torah each Shabbat,

   1. and pause on Sunday,

2. and read again on Monday,

   1. and pause on Tuesday and Wednesday,

3. and read again on Thursday,

   1. and pause on Friday,

so they would not go (ילינו) 3 days without hearing the Torah.

Appendix 2 - Anecdotes Concerning Informers and “Pursuers”, and the Halakhah of Self-Rescue with Another’s Property (Bava Kamma 117b)

Sefaria: Bava_Kamma.117b.4-10

In ChavrutAI: Bava_Kamma/117b#4 and on

Case #1 - A man informed non-Jews where R’ Abba’s silk was; R’ Abbahu, R’ Ḥanina bar Pappi, and R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa considered making him liable

ההוא דאחוי אמטכסא דרבי אבא.

יתיב

1. רבי אבהו

2. ורבי חנינא בר פפי

3. ורבי יצחק נפחא,

ויתיב רבי אילעא גבייהו.

§ The Talmud relates another incident pertaining to one who informed non-Jews of the whereabouts of another Jew’s property.

There was a certain individual who showed R’ Abba’s silk [ametakesa] to non-Jews, who later seized it.

1. R’ Abbahu

2. and R’ Ḥanina bar Pappi

3. and R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa

sat together to determine whether R’ Abba was entitled to compensation from the informer,

and R’ Ile’a sat next to them.

Mishnah, cited by the judges - An erroneous judge whose ruling causes loss must personally pay, implying liability for damage caused through speech - Mishnah Bekhorot 28b

סבור לחיוביה מהא דתנן:

דן את הדין –

1. 1. זיכה את החייב

   2. וחייב את הזכאי,

2. 1. טימא את הטהור

   2. וטיהר את הטמא –

מה שעשה עשוי,

וישלם מביתו.

The judges thought to deem the informer liable to reimburse R’ Abba based upon that which we learned in a Mishnah (Bekhorot 28b):

If a judge issued a judgment and erred,

1. 1. and he acquitted one who was in fact liable,

   2. or deemed liable one who should have in fact been acquitted,

2. 1. or if he ruled that a pure item is impure,

   2. or ruled that an impure item is pure,

and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands,

and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds.

This indicates that one is liable to pay for a financial loss that he causes even if his involvement was only through speech.

R’ Ile’a citing Rav - The Mishnah only applies where the judge actively “took and gave by hand,” not mere speech

אמר להו רבי אילעא,

הכי אמר רב:

והוא שנשא ונתן ביד

R’ Ile’a said to them:

This is what Rav says:

And that Mishnah is discussing a case where the judge not only issued a ruling, but actively took the money from the one whom he found liable, and gave it to the other party by his own hand.

Consequently, it cannot serve as a precedent to render the informer liable in this case.

Response - R’ Abba should take the case to R’ Shimon ben Elyakim and R’ Elazar ben Pedat, who impose liability for ‘garmi’ (indirectly caused damage)

אמרי ליה:

זיל לגבי ד

1. רבי שמעון בן אליקים

2. ורבי אלעזר בן פדת,

דדייני דינא דגרמי.

The rabbis serving as judges said to R’ Abba:

Go to

1. R’ Shimon ben Elyakim

2. and R’ Elazar ben Pedat,

who rule that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action (דינא דגרמי).

R’ Shimon ben Elyakim and R’ Elazar ben Pedat - They hold the informer liable, based on the Mishnah that if thugs seize a field “due to the robber,” the robber must provide another field; the case is interpreted as one who merely pointed out the field

אזל לגבייהו,

חייביה ממתניתין –

אם מחמת הגזלן,

חייב להעמיד לו שדה אחר;

ואוקימנא דאחוי אחוויי.

R’ Abba went to them,

and they deemed the informer liable to reimburse R’ Abba, as it is taught in the Mishnah:

If the thugs seized the field due to the robber,

he is liable to provide the owner with a different field.

And it was established that the Mishnah is referring to a case where an individual showed the field to thugs who later seized it.

The halakha stated in the Mishnah would apply to this case as well.

Case #2 - A bailee entrusted with a silver cup gave it to thieves when they came to his house

ההוא גברא דהוה מפקיד ליה כסא דכספא.

סליקו גנבי עילויה,

שקלה

יהבה להו

The Talmud relates another incident:

There was a certain man with whom a silver cup was deposited.

Thieves came upon him in his home

and he took the cup

and gave it to them.

Rabba - The bailee is exempt

אתא לקמיה דרבה,

פטריה

The case came before Rabba,

and Rabba exempted him from payment.

Abaye - The bailee should be liable, because he saved himself using another person’s property

אמר ליה אביי:

האי מציל עצמו בממון חבירו הוא!

Abaye said to him:

This individual is saving himself with another’s property,

and he should therefore be liable.

Rav Ashi - Rabba’s exemption depends on context: if the bailee is wealthy, the thieves came for his property and he is liable; if not, they came for the silver cup itself and he is exempt

אלא אמר רב אשי:

חזינן;

• אי איניש אמיד הוא –

  • אדעתא דידיה אתו,

• ואי לא –

  • אדעתא דכספא אתו.

Rather, Rav Ashi said,

in explanation of Rabba’s ruling: We look at his financial status:

• If the bailee is a wealthy man,

  • the thieves came with the intent to steal his property, and he is therefore liable to pay, as he saved himself from financial loss by handing over another’s property.

• And if he is not wealthy,

  • the thieves presumably came with the intent to steal the silver cup, and he is therefore exempt from liability.

Case #3 - A bailee entrusted with a purse for redeeming captives gave it to thieves

ההוא גברא דהוה מפקיד גביה ארנקא דפדיון שבויים.

סליקו גנבי עילויה,

שקלה יהבה ניהלייהו

The Talmud relates another incident:

There was a certain man with whom the purse containing funds collected for the redemption of captives was deposited.

Thieves came upon him

and he took the purse

and gave it to them.

Rabba - The bailee is exempt

אתא לקמיה דרבא,

פטריה

The case came before Rabba,

and Rabba exempted him from payment.

Abaye - The bailee should be liable, since he saved himself using another person’s property

אמר ליה אביי:

והא מציל עצמו בממון חבירו הוא!

Abaye said to him:

But this individual is saving himself with another’s property,

and he should therefore be liable to pay.

Rabba’s response - The bailee is exempt, since using the money to save himself from the thieves counts as its intended use: redemption from captivity/danger

אמר ליה:

אין לך פדיון שבויים גדול מזה.

Rabba said to him:

You have no greater redemption of captives than this.

Since the man used the money to avoid being harmed by the thieves, Rabba considered the money to have been used for its intended purpose.

Case #4 - A man loaded his donkey onto a ferry first

ההוא גברא דאקדים ואסיק חמרא למברא,

קמי דסליקו אינשי במברא

The Talmud relates another incident:

There was a certain man who hastened and brought his donkey onboard a ferry [mavra]

before other people boarded the ferry.

The donkey endangered the ferry, so another man threw it into the river, where it drowned

בעי לאטבועי,

אתא ההוא גברא,

מלח ליה לחמרא דההוא גברא ושדייה לנהרא,

וטבע

The donkey began to move around and was about to cause the boat to sink.

A certain other man came

and pushed the donkey of that first man into the river,

and it drowned.

Rabba - The man who threw the donkey overboard is exempt

אתא לקמיה דרבה,

פטריה

The case came before Rabba,

and Rabba exempted him from payment.

Abaye - The man should be liable, since he saved himself using another person’s property

אמר ליה אביי:

והא מציל עצמו בממון חבירו הוא!

Abaye said to him:

But this individual is saving himself with another’s property,

and he should therefore be liable to pay.

Rabba’s response - The man who threw the donkey overboard is exempt, because the donkey’s owner had the status of a pursuer (‘rodef‘), endangering others from the outset

אמר ליה:

האי –

מעיקרא רודף הוה.

Rabba said to him:

This owner of the donkey was considered a pursuer (rodef) from the outset,

as he endangered the other travelers. It is permitted to stop a pursuer by any means necessary, including by destroying his property.

1. שמעתתא.

On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “שְׁמַעְתָּא”:

(see שְׁמוּעָה)

report, tradition, traditional law; outcome of a discussion, decision.

• Targum of I Chronicles 11:11 (ed. Rahmer שמעת, correct accordingly).

• Targum of I Chronicles 2:55.

• Eruvin 9b; Kiddushin 50b, and elsewhere - ומותבינן אשְׁמַעְתִּין - “but we must bring evidence against the tradition which we just cited”

• Berakhot 33a:29 - אשמעתיה (correct accordingly, see Rabbinowicz, ‘Dikdukei Sofrim’ there, note 70).

• Sotah 21a:13 דסלקא ליה ש׳ וכ׳ - “a scholar whose final conclusions agree with the adopted practice”

• Sanhedrin 38b:22 - ר”מ … תילתא ש׳ וכ׳ - “Rabbi Meir used to divide his lectures into three parts, one part devoted to legal discussion, one to homily (see אֲגָדָה), and one to parables”

• Berakhot 6b:13 - אגרא דש׳ סברא - “the merit of studying traditions lies in the reasoning thereon”

• and very frequently.

Plural: שְׁמָעָתָא, שְׁמַעְתָּתָא.

• Niddah 14a - שְׁמַעְתָּתֵיה, see חֲדַד;

• Ketubot 62b:13 - שְׁמָעָתֵיה.

• Eruvin 65a:13 - מחדדן שְׁמָעָתָךְ - “you have your traditions always ready”

• Berakhot 42a:7 - לית הילכתא ככל הני ש׳ וכ׳ - “the adopted practice is not in agreement with all these traditions etc.”

• and frequently.

And see ibid., entry “שְׁמוּעָה”, sense #2:

2) tradition, traditional decision, legal discussion (הֲלָכָה).

• Ibid. 23a - אין אומרים ש׳ והגדה וכ׳ - “you must not speak of legal subjects or homiletical interpretations in the house of mourning”

• Sanhedrin 88a:15 - הוא אומר מפי הש׳ - “if he says, I gave my decision on the basis of a tradition”, as opposed to כך הוא בעיני - “it is my own opinion”

• Mishnah Eduyot 5:7 - אני עמדתי בשְׁמוּעָתִי … בשְׁמוּעָתָן - “I stood by my tradition, and they by theirs”

• Eruvin 64a:8 - כל האומר ש׳ זו וכ׳ - “he who says, this traditional decision is good, the other is not etc.”

• Menachot 18a:6 - כמדומה אני שלא כיווננו שְׁמוּעָתֵינוּ וכ׳ - “it seems to me that until now our traditions did not correspond”;

• Tosefta Zevahim 2:17 - שמועתן (correct accordingly);

• and frequently.

Plural: as above [=שְׁמוּעוֹת]

• Chagigah 14a:10 - גבור בעל שמועות - “ ‘a mighty man’ (Isaiah 3:2) that means a man knowing many legal traditions”

On that final example in tractate Chagigah, see my “Isaiah’s Eighteen Curses and Categories of Torah and Torah Scholars: An Allegorical Reading of Isaiah 3:1-7 (Chagigah 14a)“, section “The list in Isaiah 3:1–4 is read allegorically: each “support” removed from Jerusalem (in 6th century BCE) represents a lost category of Torah mastery“, list item #5. Note how list item #4 is “ masters of aggada” (בעלי אגדה).

2. ילדה - literally: “[female] child”.

3. מלקטת - “gathers”.

4. Steinsaltz adds:

The rabbis understood that David was not simply asking for water, but was using the term “water” as a metaphor referring to Torah, and he was raising a halakhic dilemma.

For another example of the Talmud allegorically interpreting water in a Biblical narrative as a metaphor for Torah, see my “Achsah, Othniel, and Jabez, and Allegories for Torah Study in Joshua 15 and I Chronicles 4 (Temurah 16a)“, section “The Metaphorical Significance of Achsah’s Request for Water: Achsah’s Request as a Plea for Blessing; Water as a Metaphor for Torah; Sustenance Through Torah Merit - Joshua 15:19“.

And see the appendix at the end of this piece: “Appendix - Homiletically interpreting “water” in the Bible as an allegory for Torah”.

5. טמון באש.

This is a technical term, on it, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “טמון באש“, my translation:

In the laws of damages (נזיקין) in halakha, the rule of tamun be-esh — “hidden items in the case of fire” — is a special law within fire damage (נזקי אש), one of the four primary categories of damages (ארבעה אבות הנזיקין). According to this rule, liability for compensation applies only to things that were visible and damaged, not to what was “hidden” (טמון) or concealed.

The classic case of tamun is a fire that went out of control and burned a stack of wheat in which someone had hidden objects. According to halakha, the person who lit the fire must pay only for the stack of wheat that was burned, not for the objects that were hidden inside it.

6. The dispute appears in the Mishnah that this sugya is on (Bava Kamma 6:5; =Bava_Kamma/61b#8):

המדליק את הגדיש,

והיו בו כלים

ודלקו,

• רבי יהודה אומר:

  • משלם מה שבתוכו,

• וחכמים אומרים:

  • אינו משלם אלא גדיש של חטין או של שעורין.

With regard to one who kindles a stack (גדיש) of wheat or barley

and there were vessels concealed inside the stack

and they caught fire and burned together with the stack,

• R’ Yehuda says:

  • The one who kindled the fire also pays compensation for what was inside the stack,

• but the Rabbis say:

  • He pays compensation only for the stack of wheat or barley, as the case may be, and he is not responsible for that which was concealed within it.

7. On this, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “רודף“, section “נזקים ממוניים“. And see the appendix at the end of this piece: “Appendix 2 - Anecdotes Concerning the Halakhah of Self-Rescue with Another’s Property (Bava Kamma 117b)”.

8. Steinsaltz explains:

i.e., the normal halakhot of damage do not apply to you since you are king.

The Talmud’s line is taken from the Mishnah elsewhere (Sanhedrin 2:4; = Sanhedrin/20b#4):

ופורץ לעשות לו דרך

ואין ממחה בידו.

דרך המלך אין לו שיעור

and [a king] breaches fences of anyone in his way to create a pathway for himself for his various needs,

and no one can protest his power.

The pathway of the king has no measure,

neither lengthwise nor widthwise, and one cannot protest that this pathway is wider than necessary.