About this episode
This week's learning is sponsored in honor of Shoshana Baker. "Mazal tov on completing 4.039 daf yomi cycles of marriage! With love and joy, Mark." Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of the birth of a granddaughter Hallel Rus, daughter of Esther and Shai Goldman and in loving memory of her father Harav Reuvain ben Chaim, whose yahrzeit was on the 17th Tevet. "My father completed Shas many times and was an anav as gabbai rishon for the white shul." Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Cashdan in loving memory of her father יצחק בן משה חונה ז"ל and for the refua shleima of their little grandson Ziv Shimon ben Shulamit Chaya and Shulamit Chaya bat Sara Devora. In Shmuel 2 Chapter 23, David desires water from Beit Lechem and three of his warriors bring water for him from inside the Philistine camp in Beit Lechem. When they return, David refuses to accept the water as they endanger their lives unnecessarily. This story is understood by the sages homiletically - that David was looking for an answer to a halakhic question and refused to accept the answer. What was the halakhic question and why did he refuse to accept the answer? The Gemara brings three different suggestions and analyzes them based on the story in the text of Shmuel 2 and Chronicles. Regarding laws of fire, the Mishna discusses cases where one is exempt from damage caused by a fire, such as, if there is a non-flammable fence between the fire and the neighbor's property four cubits high, or a public thoroughfare or river in between. If the fire is in a field of thorns, the four cubits of the fence are measured from the height of the thorn bushes. Rav and Shmuel disagree about what type of fire one is exempt from in the Mishna - one that blazes high or one that blazes low. The Mishna quotes a debate between several tannaim - if one lights a fire in one's field, up to what distance can the fire travel and the owner will still be liable for damages? The final opinion in the Mishna, Rabbi Shimon, seems to say that there is no limit and one is always responsible for damages caused by his fire. Is it possible that Rabbi Shimon said this as elsewhere he says there is a limit? Rav Nachman explains that Rabbi Shimon's statement in the Mishna meant something else - that it all depends on the height of the fire. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree on whether or not there is an exception from paying damages for a fire that burns something hidden. Items inside a building are not considered hidden, whereas items in a stack of grains would be. Rav Kahane holds that the debate is only when one lights a fire on one's own property and it spreads to a neighbor's property, but if one lit a fire on someone else's property, all agree that one is liable for hidden items as well. Rava disagrees and holds that they disagree in both cases. However, he distinguishes within the case of one who lit a fire in another's property between items typically and non-typically hidden.