Bava Kamma 230

אין לו אלא שכרו ואם אמר אציל את שלך ואתה נותן לי דמי שלי חייב ליתן לו

HE WOULD BE ABLE TO CLAIM NO MORE THAN THE VALUE OF HIS SERVICES;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not for the value of the wine. For a different view cf. supra p. 679 and Tosef, B.K. X, 13. ');">¹</span> BUT IF HE SAID [AT THE OUTSET], 'I AM GOING TO RESCUE YOUR HONEY AND I EXPECT TO BE PAID THE VALUE OF MY WINE,' THE OTHER HAS TO PAY HIM [ACCORDINGLY]. SO ALSO IF A RIVER SWEPT AWAY HIS ASS AND ANOTHER MAN'S ASS, HIS ASS BEING ONLY WORTH A <i>MANEH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²</span> AND HIS FELLOW'S ASS TWO HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²</span>

שטף נחל חמורו וחמור חבירו שלו יפה מנה ושל חבירו מאתים והניח זה את שלו והציל את של חבירו אין לו אלא שכרו ואם אמר לו אני אציל את שלך ואתה נותן לי את שלי חייב ליתן לו:

AND HE LEFT HIS OWN ASS [TO ITS FATE], AND RESCUED THE OTHER MAN'S ASS, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO CLAIM NO MORE THAN THE VALUE OF HIS SERVICES; BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM [AT THE OUTSET], 'I AM GOING TO RESCUE YOUR ASS AND I EXPECT TO BE PAID AT LEAST THE VALUE OF MY ASS,' THE OTHER WOULD HAVE TO PAY HIM [ACCORDINGLY]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But why [should the rescuer] not be entitled to say, 'I have acquired title to the rescued object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the honey by receiving it in my receptacle. ');">³</span> as it became ownerless'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when the jug cracked and the loss of the honey became imminent there is implied Renunciation on the part of the owner; v. also supra p. 670 and B.M. 22a. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ואמאי לימא ליה מהפקירא קא זכינא מי לא תניא הרי שהיה טעון כדי יין וכדי שמן וראה שהן משתברות לא יאמר הרי זה תרומה ומעשר על פירות שיש לי בתוך ביתי ואם אמר לא אמר כלום

Was it not taught [in a Baraitha]: 'If a man carrying pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil noticed that they were about to be broken, he may not say, "I declare this <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁵</span> or tithe with respect to other produce which I have at home," and if he says so, his statement is of no legal validity'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when the loss of the wine and oil becomes imminent the ownership comes to an end; Tosef. M.Sh. I, 6. ');">⁶</span> — As R. Jeremiah said in another connection, 'Where the bale<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 151, n. 6. ');">⁷</span>

כדא"ר ירמיה כשעקל בית הבד כרוך עליה ה"נ כשעקל בית הבד כרוך עליה

of the press-house was twined around it [it would not become ownerless]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the liquid would then merely leak out drop by drop, but not be lost instantly. ');">⁸</span> so also here in the case of the barrel [we suppose] the bale of the press-house was twined around it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the honey would not flow out straight away there is no immediate lapse of ownership. ');">⁹</span> [Still, how does the Baraitha state:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the bale of the press-house was not twined around it. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואם אמר לא אמר כלום והתניא מי שבא בדרך ומעות בידו ואנס כנגדו לא יאמר הרי פירות שיש לי בתוך ביתי מחוללים על מעות הללו ואם אמר דבריו קיימין

'And if he says so, his statement is of no legal validity'? Surely it was taught: If a man was walking on the road with money in his possession, and a robber confronted him, he may not say, 'The produce which I have in my house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And which was set aside as a second tithe, cf. Lev. XXVII, 30. ');">¹¹</span> shall become redeemed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with ibid. 31 and Deut. XIV, 25. ');">¹²</span> by virtue of these coins,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which were about to be misappropriated by the robber. ');">¹³</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בשיכול להציל אי בשיכול להציל לכתחלה אמאי לא יאמר בשיכול להציל על ידי הדחק

yet if he says so, his statement has legal validity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the produce in his house would become redeemed. This contradicts the former Braitha. ');">¹⁴</span> — Here [in the latter case] we suppose that he was still able to rescue the money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From being taken away by the robber. ');">¹⁵</span> But if he was still able to rescue the money why then should he not be allowed to say so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the produce should be redeemed by the coins. ');">¹⁶</span>

וכל היכא דאיכא הפסידא לכתחלה לא יאמר והתניא הרי שהיו לו עשר חביות של טבל טמא וראה אחת מהן שנשברה או שנתגלתה אומר הרי היא תרומת מעשר על תשע חברותיה ובשמן לא יעשה כן מפני הפסד כהן

even directly? — We suppose he would be able to rescue it with [some] exertion. But still even where there is likely to be a loss,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., where he is able to rescue with some exertion.] ');">¹⁷</span> why should he not be allowed to say so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the produce should be redeemed by the coins. ');">¹⁶</span> even directly?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some authorities, however, read thus: 'But still even where there is a definite loss why should his statement be of no legal validity?' V. Tosaf. a.l. but also Rashi and BaH. ');">¹⁸</span>

א"ר ירמיה כשעקל בית הבד כרוך עליה בשלמא שנשברה חזיא אלא נתגלתה למאי חזיא

Surely it was taught: If a man has ten barrels<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of wine. ');">¹⁹</span> of unclean <i>tebel</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., produce prior to the separation of the priestly and levitical portions as required by law. ');">²⁰</span> and notices one of them on the point of becoming broken or uncovered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And will thus become forbidden for use, for fear that a venomous snake partook of the liquid and injected there poison, v. Ter. VIII, 4-7. ');">²¹</span>

וכ"ת חזיא לזילוף והתניא מים שנתגלו הרי זה לא ישפכם ברשות הרבים ולא יגבל בהן את הטיט ולא ירבץ בהן את הבית ולא ישקה מהם את בהמתו ולא בהמת חבירו

he may say, 'Let this be the <i>terumah</i> [portion] of the tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the tithe of the tithe mentioned in Num. XVIII, 26. ');">²²</span> with respect to the other nine barrels,' though in the case of oil he should not do so as he would thereby cause a great loss to the priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference between oil and wine is that, since the produce was already defiled, in the case of wine the priest would in any case be unable to make any use of it, whereas in the case of oil he can use it for the purposes of heating and lighting; v. Ter. XI, 10. [Now assuming that the loss involved in the case of the wine, being small (v. infra), is to be compared with a loss that is not definite, does this not prove that where there is only likely to be a loss, the relevant declaration may be made directly?] ');">²³</span> — Said R. Jeremiah: [In this case we suppose that] the bale of the presshouse was still twined around it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the loss is insignificant. ');">²⁴</span>

דעבר לה במסננת כר' נחמיה דתניא מסננת יש בה משום גילוי אמר רבי נחמיה אימתי בזמן שהתחתונה מגולה אבל בזמן שהתחתונה מכוסה אף על פי שהעליונה מגולה אין בה משום גילוי לפי שארס של נחש דומה לספוג וצף ועומד במקומו

This is a sufficient reason in the case where the barrel broke, as [the wine remaining] is still fit to be used, but in the case where the barrel became uncovered, for what use is the wine fit any more? For should you argue that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is no more good as a drink. ');">²⁵</span> it is still fit for sprinkling purposes, was it not taught: Water which became uncovered should not even be poured out on public ground, and should neither be used for stamping clay, nor for sprinkling the house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the venom which it might contain might injure persons walking there barefooted. ');">²⁶</span> nor for feeding either one's own animal or the animal of a neighbour?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef Ter. XVII, and A.Z. 30b. ');">²⁷</span>

לאו איתמר עלה א"ר סימון אריב"ל לא שנו אלא שלא טרקו אבל טרקו אסור

— He may make it good by using a strainer, in accordance with the view of R. Nehemiah as taught: A strainer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., liquid poured therein to be strained. ');">²⁸</span> is subject to the law of uncovering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the venom, if any, will pass through the strainer. ');">²⁹</span> R. Nehemiah, however, says that this is so only where the receptacle underneath was uncovered, but if the receptacle underneath was covered, though the strainer on top was uncovered the liquid [strained into the receptacle beneath] would not be subject to the law of uncovering as the venom of a serpent resembles a fungus and thus remains floating in its previous position.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the strainer without passing on to the receptacle underneath (Tosef. Ter. ibid. 14.) ');">³⁰</span>

התם נמי אפשר דמנח מידי אפומא דחביתא דשפי ליה

But was it not taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. J. Ter. VIII, 5. ');">³¹</span> in reference to this that R. Simeon said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that this ruling applies only if it has not been stirred, but if it had been stirred it would be forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Here likewise, since he cannot avoid stirring the wine while pouring it from the barrel into the strainer, the venom will pass into the receptacle.] ');">³²</span> — Even there it is possible [to rectify matters by] putting some [cloth] on the mouth of the barrel and straining the liquid gently through. But if we follow R. Nehemiah, is it permitted to make unclean produce <i>terumah</i> even with respect to other unclean produce? Surely it has been taught: It is permitted to make unclean produce <i>terumah</i> with respect to other unclean produce, or clean produce with respect to other clean produce, but not unclean produce with respect to clean produce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ter. II, 2, and Yeb. 89a. ');">³³</span>

ורבי נחמיה (מטמא אטמא) מי תרמינן

whereas R. Nehemiah said that unclean produce is not allowed to be made <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the setting aside of terumah must be in such a way as to enable it to be given to a priest whilst clean. ');">³⁴</span> even with respect to unclean produce except in the case of <i>demai</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., produce bought from a person who could not be trusted to have set aside the necessary tithes. V. Glos. (cf. Ter. II, 2, and Yeb. 89a). ');">³⁵</span> — Here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the ten barrels of unclean tebel. ');">³⁶</span>

והתניא תורמין מן הטמא על הטמא ומן הטהור על הטהור ומן הטהור על הטמא אבל לא מן הטמא על הטהור ר' נחמיה אומר אף מן הטמא על הטמא לא התירו לתרום אלא בשל דמאי הכא נמי בשל דמאי

we are dealing with a case of <i>demai</i>. The Master stated: 'Though in the case of oil he should not do so as he would thereby cause a great loss to the priest'. But why is oil different? Surely because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When unclean and thus unfit for consumption by the priest. ');">³⁷</span> it can be used for lighting; cannot wine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When unclean and thus unfit for consumption by the priest. ');">³⁷</span>

אמר מר ובשמן לא יעשה כן מפני הפסד כהן מאי שנא שמן דראוי להדליק יין נמי ראוי לזילוף וכי תימא זילוף לאו מילתא היא והאמר שמואל משום רבי חייא שותין מלוג בסלע ומזלפין מלוג בשתים

similarly be used for sprinkling purposes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. 20b. ');">³⁸</span> And should you argue that sprinkling is not a thing of any consequence, did Samuel not say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. 20b. ');">³⁸</span> in the name of R. Hiyya that for drinking purposes one should pay a <i>sela'</i> per <i>log</i> [of wine], whereas, for sprinkling purposes, two sela's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As wine for sprinkling is more useful than for drinking. ');">³⁹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בחדש והא ראוי לישנו אתי ביה לידי תקלה

per <i>log</i>? We are dealing here with fresh wine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not fit for sprinkling. ');">⁴⁰</span> But could it not be kept until it becomes old? — He may happen to use it for a wrong purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For through keeping it for some time he might inadvertently partake of it; it should therefore be forbidden to keep it at all. ');">⁴¹</span> But why not also in the case of oil apprehend that he may happen to use it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he keeps it for heating and lighting. ');">⁴²</span>

שמן נמי אתי ביה לידי תקלה דמנח בכלי מאוס יין נמי מנח ליה בכלי מאוס השתא לזילוף קא בעי ליה בכלי מאוס קא מנח ליה

for a wrong purpose? — We suppose he keeps it in a filthy receptacle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a safeguard against partaking of it. ');">⁴³</span> But why not keep the wine also in a filthy receptacle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a safeguard against partaking of it. ');">⁴³</span> — Since it is needed for sprinkling purposes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus dependent upon its odour. ');">⁴⁴</span>

ותקלה עצמה תנאי היא דתניא חבית של יין של תרומה שנטמאת בית שמאי אומרים

how could it be placed in a filthy receptacle? The apprehension of illicit use<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For through keeping it for some time he might inadvertently partake of it; it should therefore be forbidden to keep it at all. ');">⁴¹</span> is in itself a point at issue between Tannaim, as taught: If a barrel of <i>terumah</i> wine became unclean, Beth Shammai maintain