(Mishnah): (If Yehudah came and blew the flame...)

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Both "Libah" and "Nivah (blew)" are reasonable texts of the Mishnah.

(Mishnah): If the wind fanned the flame, all are exempt.

(Beraisa): If Yehudah blew and the wind fanned the flame, if Yehudah's blowing was enough, he is liable. If not, he is exempt.

Question: Why is this? This should be like one who winnows with the wind (one is liable for this on Shabbos)!

Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, Yehudah blew from one side, and the wind from the other (so Yehudah did not assist the wind).

Answer #2 (Rava): When Yehudah was blowing, a normal wind was blowing. Later, an abnormal wind spread the flame.

Answer #3 (R. Zeira): He did not really blow, he just exhaled like one warming his hands.

Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): One who winnows with the wind is liable only regarding Shabbos, in which the Torah forbids intended labor;

Here, the blower only helped cause damage. Causation of damage is exempt.

(Mishnah): If Reuven sent a fire, and it consumed wood, stones or dirt, he is liable - "when a fire will go and find thorns, and consume a stack, Kamah (standing crop) or the field, the one who burned will pay."

(Gemara - Rava) Question: Why did the Torah need to write "thorns", "a stack", "Kamah" and "the field"?

Answer: Had it written only "thorns", one might have thought that one is liable only for thorns, since they are used for fires and people are not careful with them;

Had it written only "a stack", one might have thought that one is liable only for a stack, for this is a big loss, but not for thorns.

We need "Kamah" to teach that one is liable only for exposed things.

Question: R. Yehudah obligates fire even for concealed things. What does he learn from "Kamah"?

Answer: This includes everything of stature (trees and animals).

Chachamim learn this from "or the Kamah."

R. Yehudah says, we need "or" to know that one liable for burning even one of these!

Chachamim learn that from "or" written before "field".

R. Yehudah says, since it needed to write "or" once, it was repeated for parallel structure.

We need "the field" to obligate for scorching a plowed field or rocks.

Question: The Torah could have written only "the field", and we would know that all the more so one is liable for thorns, stacks and Kamah!

Answer: That would not have sufficed. Had it written only "the field", one might have thought one is liable only for what is in the field (but not for the ground itself).

(Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani): Punishments come to the world only when the wicked are in the world. The punishments start with the Tzadikim - "when a fire will go and find thorns" - the fire erupts when there are thorns (Resha'im);

We learn that it starts with the Tzadikim from "and a stack (Tzadik) was consumed", not "and it will consume a stack" - it was already consumed.

(Rav Yosef - Beraisa): "No one may leave his house until morning (on the night of Makos Bechoros)" - once permission to destroy is given (to the angel of death), he does not distinguish between Tzadikim and Resha'im (i.e. e kills both);

Further, he begins with the Tzadikim - "I will cut off from you Tzadik and Rasha."

Rav Yosef: What does the Tzadik's righteousness help him?

Abaye: It is good that he (dies first and) doesn't see the destruction - "before the evil, the Tzadik dies".

(Rav Yehudah): One should always start traveling and end traveling when the sun is out - "no one may leave his house until morning."

(Beraisa): When pestilence is in the city, stay inside. It says "no one may leave his house until morning"; also, "go my nation, in your room, close the door in back of you"; also, "the sword (of the angel of death) will kill outside, and inside, fear."

Question: Why were all three verses needed?

Answer: From the first verse, we would not know (that one must stay inside at a time of pestilence) during the day;

From the second verse, we would not know to stay inside even when there is fear inside. Perhaps it is better to be with people outside!

Rava would shut the windows when there was pestilence - "for death has come in our windows."

(Beraisa): If there is famine in the city, leave - "there was a famine in the land, and Avram descended to Mitzrayim to sojourn there." Also, "if we will go to the city, and there is famine in the city, we will die there".

Question: Why was the second verse needed?

Answer: The first verse does not teach about when there is possible mortal danger outside the city;

We learn this from the continuation of the second verse, "let us come...(and if we will die, we will die)."

(Beraisa): If there is pestilence in the city, one should not walk in the middle of the street, for the angel of death goes there. Since he has permission to kill, he goes openly.

If there is peace in the city, one should not walk on the sides of the street, for the Angel of death goes there. Since he has no permission, he goes covertly.

(Beraisa): If there is pestilence in the city, one should not go alone to the Beis ha'Keneses, for the angel of death leaves his Kelim there.

This is only when children do not learn there, and 10 men do not pray there.

(Beraisa): If dogs cry, this shows that the angel of death is in the city. If they laugh, this shows that Eliyahu has come;

This does not apply if a female dog is there.

(R. Yitzchak Nafcha): "When a fire will go and find thorns, and a stack is consumed or Kamah or the field, the one who burned will pay" - Hash-m said 'I must pay for burning the Mikdash. I will rebuild it with fire - "I will be like a wall of fire around (Yerushalayim)"';

The verse initially discusses damage of a man's property ("when a fire will go" - by itself) and concludes with a man's damage ("the one who burned"). This teaches that one is liable for fire like for his arrows.

Question: "David desired and said 'who will give me water (Torah) to drink from the well of Beis Lechem in the gate (the Sanhedrin)?' Three mighty ones... (drew the water and gave it to David, but he did not want to drink it)." What did David want to know?

Answer #1 (Rava): He wanted to know whether fire is exempt for something concealed in a fire (like Chachamim, or if one is liable, like R. Yehudah).

Answer #2 (Rav Huna): Pelishtim were hiding in stacks of barley of Yisrael. He wanted to know if may use others' money (burn the stacks) to save himself;

The answer was that a commoner may not, but a king may break down walls to make a path for himself, and no one may protest (and all the more so, here he is permitted).

Answer #3 (Rabanan): There were stacks of barley of Yisrael, and stacks of lentils of Pelishtim. He wanted to know if he may feed his animal from the barley, on condition that he will pay with lentils;

The answer was "the security he will return, a Rasha will return the theft" (i.e. (a commoner) who steals and pays back is called a Rasha), but a king may break down walls to make a path for himself, and no one may protest.

Question: According to Rabanan, we can resolve the verses "there was a field full of lentils", "There was a field full of barley";

According to Rav Huna, why do the verses differ?

Answer: There were also stacks of lentils, in which Pelishtim were hiding.

Question: According to Rav Huna, we understand "he stood in the field and saved it" (from being burned).

According to the Rabanan, what was saved?

Answer: They did not take the barley on condition to repay lentils.

Question: According to Rava, how do we understand the verses?

Answer: David asked whether fire is liable for concealed things, and also the question of Rav Huna or Rabanan.