Bava Kamma 61A

אלא למאן דאמר טמון באש קמיבעיא ליה, מאי איבעי ליה קראי? אמר לך: טמון וחדא מהנך קמיבעיא ליה.

But according to Rava, who cited Rav Naḥman, the one who says that David asked with regard to the halakha of a concealed article damaged by a fire, for what purpose does he require the two verses that describe a field of lentils and a field of barley? Rav Naḥman could have said to you that David was asking both about concealed articles damaged by a fire and one of these other two dilemmas.

בשלמא למאן דאמר הני תרתי, היינו דכתיב: ״ולא אבה (דוד) לשתותם״⁠ – אמר: כיון דאיכא איסורא, לא ניחא לי. אלא למאן דאמר טמון באש קא מבעיא ליה ⁠– מכדי גמרא הוא דשלחו ליה, מאי ״לא אבה (דוד) לשתותם״?

Granted, according to the one who says one of these two explanations, that David was asking either about repaying barley with lentils or burning the stacks of barley, this is as it is written of David: “But he would not drink it” (II Samuel 23:16). David said to himself: Since there is a prohibition involved in this action, it is not satisfactory to me to act in this manner, even though technically it is permitted for a king. But according to the one who says that David was raising a dilemma with regard to the halakha of a concealed article damaged by a fire, since they sent him an answer that was a tradition with regard to the halakha, what is the meaning of: “But he would not drink it”?

דלא אמרינהו משמייהו. אמר, כך מקובלני מבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי: כל המוסר עצמו למות על דברי תורה ⁠– אין אומרים דבר הלכה משמו.

The Talmud answers: This means that he did not say the halakha in their names. He did not transmit the ruling in the name of those who went in the time of battle to ask the rabbis what the halakha is. David said to himself: This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel of Rama: With regard to anyone who hands himself over to die for the sake of words of Torah, the rabbis do not say a matter of halakha in his name, so that others will not follow this ruling and endanger their lives.