Responsa 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
Teshuvot Maharam
A. The question is not sufficiently clear for us to express an opinion. If the widow told the trustee, in A's presence, to give the money to A after the ceremony, the money belongs to A; since this money is simply a gift which the trustee received for A's benefit. But, if the widow said nothing while she gave the money to the trustee, A's words are of no avail, and she can reclaim her money in payment of her ketubah.
SOURCES: Cr. 65: Pr. 30; L. 339; Mord. Yeb. 24.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. The matchmaker is only entitled to reasonable compensation for the time and effort he has spent. However, if because of his preoccupation with this match, he was hindered from devoting himself to other matches (from which, it is reasonable to expect, he would have earned a similar amount), he is entitled to the two marks.
SOURCES: Cr. 123. Cf. Pr. 498; ibid. 708; ibid. 952; L. 308; Mord. B. K. 172; Agudah B. K. 140.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A person who is not a professional matchmaker is entitled to compensation in accordance with the time and effort spent in concluding the match. But, a professional matchmaker is entitled to his full fee since he could have earned the same amount had he devoted his time and energy to another match. However, even the professional matchmaker is not entitled to his full fee unless it be almost certain that he could have earned the same amount from another match. Thus, the case came before me of a matchmaker whom a man promised a sum of money upon successfully concluding a match between himself and a certain woman. After the match was concluded and the man paid the promised sum to the matchmaker, the latter demanded a particular sum from the woman, claiming that she had also promised to pay him a fee. The woman denied his claim. I freed the woman from obligation for the following reason: Even if the woman promised a fee to the matchmaker he would not be entitled to collect it since he occupied himself with this match because of the money promised to him by her husband. The woman's promise of a fee to the matchmaker and the effort he spent as a consequence thereof, did not deprive him of any income, since his time had to be spent anyway on consummating this match.
SOURCES: L. 308. Cf. Agudah B. K. 140.