״וַיִּתְאַוֶּה דָוִד וַיֹּאמַר: מִי יַשְׁקֵנִי מַיִם מִבֹּאר בֵּית לֶחֶם אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁעַר. וַיִּבְקְעוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַגִּבּוֹרִים בְּמַחֲנֵה פְלִשְׁתִּים, וַיִּשְׁאֲבוּ מַיִם מִבֹּאר בֵּית לֶחֶם אֲשֶׁר בַּשַּׁעַר [וְגוֹ׳]״. מַאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִי כְּרַבָּנַן, וּפְשַׁטוּ לֵיהּ מַאי דִּפְשַׁטוּ לֵיהּ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: גְּדִישִׁים דִּשְׂעוֹרִים דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הֲווֹ, דַּהֲווֹ מִטַּמְּרִי פְּלִשְׁתִּים בְּהוּ, וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ? שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: אָסוּר לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ; אֲבָל אַתָּה מֶלֶךְ אַתָּה, [וּמֶלֶךְ] פּוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין מוֹחִין בְּיָדוֹ. וְרַבָּנַן וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר מָרִי אָמְרוּ: גְּדִישִׁים דִּשְׂעוֹרִין דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הֲווֹ, וּגְדִישִׁין דַּעֲדָשִׁים דִּפְלִשְׁתִּים; וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִיטּוֹל גְּדִישִׁין שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִיתֵּן לִפְנֵי בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, עַל מְנָת לְשַׁלֵּם גְּדִישִׁין שֶׁל עֲדָשִׁים דִּפְלִשְׁתִּים? שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: ״חֲבֹל יָשִׁיב רָשָׁע, גְּזֵלָה יְשַׁלֵּם״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגְּזֵילָה מְשַׁלֵּם, רָשָׁע הוּא. אֲבָל אַתָּה מֶלֶךְ אַתָּה, וּמֶלֶךְ פּוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין מוֹחִין בְּיָדוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְאַחְלוֹפֵי – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב חַד קְרָא: ״וַתְּהִי שָׁם חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עֲדָשִׁים״, וּכְתִיב חַד קְרָא: ״וַתְּהִי חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה מְלֵאָה שְׂעוֹרִים״; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמִקְלֵי, מַאי אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ לְהָנֵי תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי? אָמַר לָךְ: דַּהֲווֹ נָמֵי גְּדִישִׁים דַּעֲדָשִׁים דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, דַּהֲווֹ מִיטַּמְּרוּ בְּהוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמִקְלֵי – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתְיַצֵּב בְּתוֹךְ הַחֶלְקָה וַיַּצִּילֶהָ״; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְאַחְלוֹפֵי, מַאי ״וַיַּצִּילֶהָ״? דְּלָא שְׁבַק לְהוּ לְאַחְלוֹפֵי. בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי;
§ The Gemara 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 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. 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. He wanted to know whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 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. And the Sages in Bethlehem answered him what they answered him. Rav Huna stated a different explanation of the verse: There were stacks 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. He raised the dilemma: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to save oneself by destroying the property of another? They sent the following answer to him: It is prohibited to save oneself by destroying the property of another. 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, i.e., the normal halakhot of damage do not apply to you since you are king. 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. And David raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha? I know that I may take the lentils belonging to a gentile 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 Sages 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). 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. 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. The Gemara discusses the different explanations: Granted, according to the one who says that David was asking whether he could take the stacks of barley and exchange them, i.e., repay the owners of the barley, with stacks of lentils, this is as it is written in one verse: “And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines” (II Samuel 23:11), and it is written in one other verse: “He was with David at Pas Dammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where 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. But according to Rav Huna, the one who says that David’s question was asked because he wanted to burn the stacks of barley, for what purpose does he require these two verses? How does he explain this contradiction? Rav Huna could have said to you that there were also stacks of lentils belonging to Jews, inside which the Philistines were hiding. Granted, according to the one who says that David asked his question because he wanted to burn the stacks, this is as it is written in the following verse with regard to David: “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). But according to the one who says that David’s question was asked with regard to exchanging the lentils for the barley, what is the meaning of the phrase: “And saved it”? The Rabbis answer that David saved it in that he did not permit them to exchange the value of the barley with the lentils. Granted, according to both of these two opinions, this is as it is written in two distinct verses, one describing the field of lentils and one describing the field of barley.
1. May a king do whatever they want? If so, are they still evil?
2. In a time of war, are there different rules of morality?
3. Are we resonsible for unforseen consequences?
4. What is responsibility for the actions of subordinates who misunderstand, misinterpret or overstep?
(יט) כִּֽי־תָצ֣וּר אֶל־עִיר֩ יָמִ֨ים רַבִּ֜ים לְֽהִלָּחֵ֧ם עָלֶ֣יהָ לְתׇפְשָׂ֗הּ לֹֽא־תַשְׁחִ֤ית אֶת־עֵצָהּ֙ לִנְדֹּ֤חַ עָלָיו֙ גַּרְזֶ֔ן כִּ֚י מִמֶּ֣נּוּ תֹאכֵ֔ל וְאֹת֖וֹ לֹ֣א תִכְרֹ֑ת כִּ֤י הָֽאָדָם֙ עֵ֣ץ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה לָבֹ֥א מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ בַּמָּצֽוֹר׃ (כ) רַ֞ק עֵ֣ץ אֲשֶׁר־תֵּדַ֗ע כִּֽי־לֹא־עֵ֤ץ מַאֲכָל֙ ה֔וּא אֹת֥וֹ תַשְׁחִ֖ית וְכָרָ֑תָּ וּבָנִ֣יתָ מָצ֗וֹר עַל־הָעִיר֙ אֲשֶׁר־הִ֨וא עֹשָׂ֧ה עִמְּךָ֛ מִלְחָמָ֖ה עַ֥ד רִדְתָּֽהּ׃ {פ}
(19) When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city? (20) Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siegeworks against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced.
(י) וְלֹא הָאִילָנוֹת בִּלְבַד. אֶלָּא כָּל הַמְשַׁבֵּר כֵּלִים. וְקוֹרֵעַ בְּגָדִים. וְהוֹרֵס בִּנְיָן. וְסוֹתֵם מַעְיָן. וּמְאַבֵּד מַאֲכָלוֹת דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה. עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַשְׁחִית. וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם:
(10) This prohibition does not apply to trees alone. Rather, anyone who breaks utensils, tears garments, destroys buildings, stops up a spring, or ruins food with a destructive intent transgresses the command 'Do not destroy.' However, he is not lashed. Instead, he receives stripes for rebellious conducts instituted by the Sages.
(ז) כְּשֶׁצָּרִין עַל עִיר לְתָפְשָׂהּ. אֵין מַקִּיפִין אוֹתָהּ מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ אֶלָּא מִשָּׁלֹשׁ רוּחוֹתֶיהָ. וּמַנִּיחִין מָקוֹם לַבּוֹרֵחַ וּלְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לְהִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשׁוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לא, ז) "וַיִּצְבְּאוּ עַל מִדְיָן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' אֶת משֶׁה". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁבְּכָךְ צִוָּהוּ:
(7) When a siege is placed around a city to conquer it, it should not be surrounded on all four sides, only on three. A place should be left for the inhabitants to flee and for all those who desire, to escape with their lives, as it is written Numbers 31:7: 'And they besieged Midian as God commanded Moses.' According to tradition, He commanded them to array the siege as described.
ונרדף ששיבר את הכלים של רודף פטור של כל אדם חייב של רודף פטור שלא יהא ממונו חביב עליו מגופו של כל אדם חייב שמציל עצמו בממון חבירו
Rava continues: And if the pursued party broke vessels while fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels belonged to the pursuer, the pursued party is exempt. But if they belonged to anyone else, he is liable to pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels belonged to the pursuer, he is exempt. The reason for this is so that the pursuer’s property should not be more precious to the pursuer than his own body. Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer’s vessels. And if the vessels belonged to anyone else, he is liable, as he saved himself at the expense of another’s property, and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.