Reference for Bava Kamma 231:13
איתיביה השוכר את הפועל
it might have been said that [in all circumstances] he would have no more than the value of his services. So also if we had had only the second case, we might have thought that it was only here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the two asses. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> where no stipulation was made, that he would have no more than the value of his services, since the loss came of itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his ass was drowned by accident. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> whereas in the other case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the wine and honey. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> where the loss was sustained through his own act,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he directly spilt his wine. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> I might have said that even where no stipulation was made the payment would have to be for the whole value [of the honey]. It was therefore necessary [to state both cases]. R. Kahana asked Rab: What would be the law if the owner [of the inferior ass] went down to rescue the other's ass [with the stipulation of being paid the value of his own ass], and it so happened that his own ass got out by itself? — He replied: This was surely an act of mercy towards him on the part of Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which should therefore not affect in any way the stipulation made that the full amount be paid. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> A similar case happened with R. Safra when he was going along with a caravan. A lion followed them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To guard them against robbers and beasts. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> and they had every evening to abandon to it [in turn] an ass of each of them which it ate. When the turn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., time. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> of R. Safra came and he gave it his ass, the lion did not eat it. R. Safra immediately hastened to take possession of it. Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Why was it necessary for him to take possession of it again? For though he had [implicitly] abandoned it, he surely had abandoned it only with respect to the lion, whereas with respect to anybody else in the world he certainly had not abandoned it at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then was it necessary for him to take possession of it again? The ass would in any case have remained his. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> He replied: R. Safra did it as an extra precaution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there should be no argument in the matter. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Rab asked Rabbi: What would be the law where he went down to rescue [the more valuable ass] but did not succeed in rescuing it? — He replied: Is this a question? He would surely have no more than the value of his services. An objection was raised: 'If a labourer was hired