QUESTIONS: The Beraisa teaches that when a person fans a fire at the same time that the wind fans the fire, if his fanning alone is able to flare up the fire, he is liable, but if his fanning the flame is effective only together with the wind, he is exempt. The Gemara asks that even if he fans together with the wind he should be liable, like a person who does an act of winnowing on Shabbos is liable even though -- when he throws the grain up to the wind to separate the chaff -- the separating is done with the help of the wind. Abaye answers that the reason why the person is exempt is that he fans the fire from one direction, while the wind blows from the opposite direction. Rebbi Zeira answers that the person is exempt because he merely puffs (which is not considered an act of fanning at all) and is not actually blowing with the wind.

There are a number of questions on this Sugya.

(a) According to Abaye who says that the wind was blowing in a different direction, why does the Beraisa say that if the person could have fanned it hard enough that his fanning alone would have caused the fire to take hold, then he is liable? The Beraisa implies that the wind helped start the fire together with him, but that even without the wind his fanning would have started the fire. If the wind is blowing in a different direction, then the wind is not helping him at all! If his blowing fans the fire, it is effective despite the wind, and not with the wind. The Beraisa should have said that if the wind ultimately causes the fanning he is exempt, and if he ultimately causes the fanning he is liable.

(b) According to Rebbi Zeira, when the Beraisa says that if his fanning was enough to fan the flame he is liable, it actually means that if his fanning helps the wind fan the flames, he is liable. If he only puffs and does not blow at all he is exempt. Why, then, does the Beraisa find it necessary to teach that if all he does is puff, he is exempt? His puffing contributes nothing to fanning the flame!

(a) The Rishonim explain that Abaye does not mean that the person was working against the wind. Rather, both he and the wind contributed to fanning the flame, in one of the following ways:

1. TOSFOS (DH Liba) and TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ explain that even when wind blows in the opposite direction from that in which the person blows, it sometimes helps to fan the flame. Nevertheless, the person who blows did not expect the wind to help him fan the flames because it is unusual for a wind in the opposite direction to help cause a flame to be fanned.

2. TOSFOS (in his second answer) and the RASHBA explain that the Gemara does not mean that the wind was blowing in a different direction. Rather, the wind was blowing on a different side of the fire. The person blew on half of the fire, and the wind blew on the other half. Normally, the fire would not have flamed up if he blew only on one half, since the fire would not have been strong enough to take hold. Now that the wind blew on the other half, the two halves joined and created a strong fire. Nevertheless, the person who blew is exempt since he did not do any action, even together with the wind, that in itself would have caused the fire to flame up. Rather, he and the wind did two separate actions, each of which would not have sufficed to cause a fire by itself.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Rebbi Zeira) explains that Rebbi Zeira does not mean that the person puffed in a manner that could not cause the fire to flame up at all. Rather, he puffed in a manner which theoretically would have caused the fire to flame up had there been no wind. However, the wind that blew in the same direction at the same time that he blew was cold and neutralized the warm air he blew from his mouth. Even if the combination of his puffing and the blowing of the wind does cause the fire to flame up, he certainly does not expect it to do so.

The RE'AH cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes writes that puffing does not normally cause the fire to flame up, but it does cause the fire not to become extinguished. Since it does contribute in some manner to the fire, one might have thought that his puffing, in combination with the wind, was what caused the fire to flame up. Rebbi Zeira therefore teaches that puffing does not contribute to the fanning of the flame.

The RA'AVAD follows a similar approach. He writes that although puffing can even fan a flame, it is not the way one normally goes about fanning it. Since the person who puffed did not contribute to the wind's effect in the normal manner, it cannot be compared to one who throws grain up in the air to become winnowed. RASHI (DH Tzamrah) seems to take a similar approach.

QUESTIONS: The Gemara records the incident of David ha'Melech who asked, "Who will give me water to drink from the gate in Beis Lechem?" The Gemara explains that David ha'Melech was interested in clarifying a Halachah, which he called "water" since Torah is compared to water. Three of his mighty men (Giborim) risked their lives to bring back the answer to his Halachic question. The Gemara explains that the Halachah he asked about was related to the incident discussed a few verses earlier, in which Shama ben Agei, one of David's Giborim, saved a field full of barley (Divrei ha'Yamim I 11:13) and lentils (Shmuel II 23:11) by miraculously defeating the Plishtim. One Amora explains that David wanted to know whether one is permitted to save himself by destroying someone else's property (and it is not necessary to compensate the person whose property was destroyed), because he wanted to burn down the field with the piles of barley and lentils in which the Plishtim were hiding in order to save himself from them. Another Amora says that David ha'Melech wanted to know whether he was permitted to use the barley in the fields as fodder for his animals, on the condition that he later returns to the owners piles of lentils that he will take from the Plishtim upon defeating them. A third Amora says that David ha'Melech was asking whether one is obligated to pay the full value of an object that was covered ("Tamun") by the grain of a field that was burned together with the grain.

When the Navi says that Shama ben Agei "saved the field," according to the Amora who says that David ha'Melech was asking whether he could burn the field to save himself, the verse means that Shama defeated the Plishtim by hand, making it unnecessary to burn the field. According to the opinion that David ha'Melech wanted to feed the fodder to his animals and repay with lentils, Shama stopped the troops from using the produce as animal fodder. Even according to the opinion that David ha'Melech was asking whether he must pay for objects that were hidden in the piles of grain which his troops burned, David ha'Melech also asked about one of the other two Halachos, and Shama saved the field in one of the abovementioned ways.

There are a number of points in the Gemara that need clarification.

(a) The verse states that the field was "full" of lentils or barley. Why does the Gemara explain that the field contained a "Gadish," a large pile of harvested produce? (RA'AVAD cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes, 117b)

(b) How could Shama have saved the field based on the ruling that David received (that one who is not a king must pay for what he burns or what he feeds to his animals), if it is evident from the order in the verses that the question was first asked after Shama saved the field? (RADAK)

(c) Since the opinion that maintains that David asked about the Halachah of "Tamun" agrees that David also asked one of the other two questions, he obviously must have understood that the field of barley or lentils was mentioned because of David's second question (whether he could burn it or exchange it). What source, then, does he have that David asked any question about "Tamun"? (RA'AVAD)

(d) According to the opinion that David's troops wanted to use the barley for animal fodder, in what way was Shama's preventing them from using the grain for fodder related to the "great victory" against the Plishtim which is recorded in that verse?

(a) The RA'AVAD explains that the Plishtim attacked twice. They first attacked when the field was full of produce, before the harvest, and they were repelled. Later they attacked again, after the harvest, and Shama again repelled them, when there were piles of harvested produce in the field. This is inferred from the word "Ketzir" mentioned in the verse.

The RADAK in Sefer Shmuel explains that the field was "filled" with bundles of harvested crop, since the crop from the neighboring field was piled into that field.

(b) The Ra'avad explains that although the verse records David's question after the story of Shama's great salvation, it does not mean that it occurred in that order. Rather, the verse mentions that Shama performed the salvation upon having heard the question that David sent to the Sanhedrin, as related in the verses that follow.

(c) The Ra'avad answers the third question based on his answer to the previous question. The Gemara infers that there was a second question involving "Tamun" because of the fact that the verses are recorded out of order. The Navi recorded David's question after the account of the salvation in order to show that another question was asked as well, which was not directly related to the salvation.

The Ra'avad adds (according to those who say that only one question was asked by David ha'Melech) that the reason the question is recorded out of order, after the salvation of Shama, is that the verse is relating the might of David's three Giborim, one of whom was Shama. It first records the acts which each of them did individually, and afterwards it records David's question which all three bravely brought together to the Sanhedrin at the risk of their lives.

However, as the MAHARSHA and PNEI YEHOSHUA point out, this does not provide the source that the second question involved "Tamun." According to the Ra'avad, there is no indication at all in the verse that the question involved "Tamun" or troops of David ha'Melech who burned a field.

The Maharsha explains that the opinion which maintains that David asked about "Tamun" was bothered by why the verse needs to mention both the lentils and the barley that were in the field. If David ha'Melech asked about burning down the field, what difference does it make if the field also contained barley? If David's question was whether he could trade the barley of the Jews for the lentils of the Plishtim, why does the verse say that "Shama stood in the field and saved [the barley and the lentils]"? Shama saved only the Jews' barley from being taken! He certainly did not defend the lentils of the Plishtim, which likely were taken by the Jews anyway (see TOSFOS DH d'Lo). From this point in the verse the Gemara derives that there was a second question that David asked, which involved the other type of produce.

Why, though, does the Gemara assume that David asked a question about "Tamun"? Perhaps the answer is as follows. David ha'Melech apparently saw that his men were too weak to fight against the army of the Plishtim at that point. He therefore came up with a plan to burn the field in which the Plishtim were hiding in order to defeat them easily. The problem was that the field belonged to Jews, and David at that point did not have enough money to compensate the owners for the damages done to a field of lentils. (As the Radak writes, David was hiding from Shaul at this stage and was not yet accepted as the king of Yisrael. Nevertheless, the Gemara calls him a king since he was already anointed by Shmuel as king.) This explains why David needed to ask the Sanhedrin whether a person who saves his life with another person's money must compensate the other person. Alternatively, this is why he asked whether it would be permitted for him to burn the barley and to compensate the owners only afterwards when he would take the lentils of the Plishtim. (According to this view, he did not have enough money even to compensate for the barley.)

According to the view that David asked about "Tamun," his question was also directly related to his conquest of the Plishtim. David originally thought that the field contained only barley, which was much less costly than lentils and for which he would be able to compensate the owner. After his men began to ignite the barley, David noticed that there were lentils hidden underneath the barley, which were too costly for him to reimburse. He therefore asked the Sanhedrin if it would be necessary to compensate for all of the hidden lentils that would be burned.

According to Rebbi Yehudah, they replied that he must pay for all of the hidden lentils, and therefore he refrained from using this method of conquering the Plishtim. According to the Chachamim, they answered that he is exempt from paying what was already burned, because one does not expect lentils to be in a field of barley. However, now that he knew that all of the piles contained lentils underneath, he would be liable for burning those lentils with the barley, since one who starts a fire in someone else's field is obligated to pay for anything hidden in the field which is expected to be there (61b). (M. Kornfeld)

When the Gemara asks -- according to the opinion that David asked about "Tamun" -- "What are the verses saying," it means to ask how can the verse say that Shama saved the field if the "Tamun" (which David asked about) was already burned? If it was not burned yet, how did David know that it was there such that he knew to ask a question about it? (KOS YESHU'OS)

(d) Apparently, the Giborim of David were not strong enough to overpower the Plishtim without the help of cavalry. However, the horses were also weak, and David wanted to feed them the barley so that they would have the strength to battle. When David heard the answer of the Sanhedrin, Shama saw that David's army would not be able to defeat the Plishtim, so he single-handedly overpowered them in a miraculous manner.