Bava Kamma 231

תשפך הכל וב"ה אומרים תעשה זילוף אמר ר' ישמעאל ב"ר יוסי אני אכריע בבית תעשה זילוף ובשדה תשפך הכל

that the whole of it must immediately be poured out, whereas Beth Hillel maintain that it could be used for sprinkling purposes. R. Ishmael b. Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who lived in a much later period than Shammai and Hillel; Rashi, Pes. 20b. ');">¹</span>

איכא דאמרי בישן תעשה זילוף ובחדש תשפך הכל אמרו לו אין הכרעה שלישית מכרעת:

said: I will suggest a compromise: [If it was already] in the house it might be used for sprinkling purposes, but [if it was still] in the field it would have to be poured out entirely,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For while bringing it home it might inadvertently be partaken of. ');">²</span>

אם אמר לו אציל את שלך וכו': אמאי ונימא ליה משטה אני בך

or as some say: If it was old it might be used for sprinkling purposes, but if it was fresh it should be poured out entirely. They rejoined to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his contemporaries; Rashi, Pes. ibid. ');">³</span>

מי לא תניא הרי שהיה בורח מבית האסורין והיתה מעבורת לפניו אמר לו טול דינר והעבירני אין לו אלא שכרו אלמא אמר ליה משטה אני בך הכא נמי לימא ליה משטה אני בך

A compromise based on an independent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'third'. ');">⁴</span>

הא לא דמי אלא לסיפא ואם אמר לו טול דינר זה בשכרך והעבירני נותן לו שכרו משלם

reasoning cannot be accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having no basis in either of the conflicting views, but constituting an opinion by itself, and thus being in principle opposed to both of them. V. Pes. 21a. ');">⁵</span>

מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אמר רמי בר חמא בצייד השולה דגים מן הים וא"ל אפסדתני כוורי בזוזא:

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]. But why should the other party not say to him [subsequently], 'I am merely jesting with you'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To urge you to help. ');">⁶</span>

שטף נהר חמורו וחמור חבירו שלו יפה מנה וכו': וצריכא דאי אשמעינן קמייתא התם הוא דכי פירש יהיב ליה דמי כוליה משום דבידים קא פסיד אבל הכא דממילא נימא אין לו אלא שכרו

Surely it was taught: If a man running away from prison came to a ferry and said to the boatman, 'Take a <i>denar</i> to ferry me across,' he would still have to pay him not more than the value of his services.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 106a. ');">⁷</span>

ואי אשמעינן סיפא הכא הוא דבסתמא אין לו אלא שכרו משום דממילא אבל התם דבידים אימא אפילו בסתמא יהיב ליה דמי כולה צריכא

This shows that he is entitled to say, 'I was merely jesting with you'? Why then also here should he not be entitled to say to him, 'I was merely jesting with you'? — The comparison is rather with the case dealt with in the concluding clause: But if he said to him, 'Take this <i>denar</i> as your fee for ferrying me across,' he would have to pay him the sum stipulated in full. But why this difference between the case in the first clause and that in the second clause? — Said Rami b. Hama: [In the second clause] the other party was a fisher catching fishes from the sea in which case he can surely say to him, 'You caused me to lose fish amounting in value to a <i>zuz</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the denar you offered me; in the case in the Mishnah the same argument holds good, hence the same ruling. ');">⁸</span>

בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב ירד להציל ועלה שלו מאליו מהו א"ל משמיא רחימו עליה

SO ALSO IF A RIVER SWEPT AWAY HIS ASS AND ANOTHER MAN'S ASS, HIS ASS BEING WORTH A MANE HAND THE OTHER'S ASS TWO HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>, etc. [Both cases] had to be [stated]. For had we only the former case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the wine and honey. ');">⁹</span>

כי הא דרב ספרא הוה קא אזיל בשיירתא לוינהו ההוא ארי כל לילא קא שדר ליה חמרא דחד מינייהו וקא אכיל כי מטא זמניה דרב ספרא שדר ליה חמרא ולא אכליה קדים רב ספרא וזכה ביה

we might think that it was only there where a stipulation was made that the payment should be for the whole value [of the wine], since its owner sustained the loss by direct act of his own hands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he directly spilt his wine. ');">¹⁰</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא למה ליה למיזכי ביה נהי דכי אפקריה אדעתא דאריה אפקריה אדעתא דכ"ע לא אפקריה א"ל רב ספרא לרווחא דמילתא הוא דעבד

whereas here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the two asses. ');">¹¹</span>

בעא מיניה רב מרבי ירד להציל ולא הציל מהו אמר לו וזו שאילה אין לו אלא שכרו

where the loss came of itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his ass was drowned by accident. ');">¹²</span>

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. ');">¹¹</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. ');">¹²</span> whereas in the other case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the wine and honey. ');">¹³</span> where the loss was sustained through his own act,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he directly spilt his wine. ');">¹⁰</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. ');">¹⁴</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. ');">¹⁵</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. ');">¹⁶</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. ');">¹⁷</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. ');">¹⁸</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