Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 23

says to the boatman, * I will give you a dinar if you will pass me,' he shall pay him only what is due to him " ; hence he can say, what I said a dinar was only jesting, why not the same in our case ? Our case is to be compared with the later part of the same Boraitha; namely, " If, however, he says: Here is a dinar, take it and pass me, he may keep the whole dinar for his job " (and so in our case when he gives him the honey for the purpose of saving it, it is considered as if he had paid him in advance). But what is the reason for this statement ? Said Rami bar Hama: " The case is when the man of the boat has caught fish at the same time he was waiting for passengers, and he may claim that he could make the same money catching fish." " With a stream,'' etc. And both cases were necessary to teach ; namely, if the first only would be stated, one may say, because it was so spoken of, that he shall lose his own wine for the purpose of saving the other's honey. But in the other case, which was accidental, it is not so ; and if the latter only would be stated, one may say because it was an accident he gets only for his trouble when it was not arranged otherwise ; but in the first case, when he has destroyed his property for the benefit of the other he must be paid, even when it was not spoken of; therefore both are stated. R. Kahana questioned Rabh: " If 266 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the condition was made, he shall save the two hundred one, and for his one hundred ass, which would be lost, he shall be paid ; and he descended and did so, and in the meantime it hap- pened that his own ass was saved by itself, what is the law ?" And Rabh answered: " The agreement shall be fulfilled never- theless, and the saving of his ass is heavenly favor. As it hap- pened with R. Safra, who was going with a caravan and a lion had followed them, and every night the caravan used to throw an ass for the lion; when the time arrived that R. Safra should throw his ass he did so, but the lion did not touch it, and on the morrow he took it back and acquired title of it." R. Aha of Difti questioned Rabbina: " Why was it necessary for R. Safra to acquire title to it ? It is true he renounced his owner- ship of it, but it was done only for the sake of the lion, but not for the sake of others." R. Safra did so to prevent murmur of those who are not thoroughly acquainted with the law. Rabh questioned Rabbi: " What is the law when upon the above condition he descended to save the ass, but did not suc- ceed?" And he answered: " Is this a question? Certainly his trouble only is to be paid." Rabh objected from the fol- lowing Boraitha: " If one was hired to deliver some medicine to a sick one, and he finds him dead or cured, the messenger gets his full payment?" And Rabbi answered: " What com- parison is this ? There the messenger has fulfilled his mission, but here he did not." The rabbis taught: " A caravan in the desert which was in danger of being destroyed by robbers, and they paid for their redemption, the sum must not be collected equally from each person, but proportionately to the amount each of them pos- sessed. If, however, they have hired a guide, each of them should pay his share equally. At any rate, it must be done according to the custom of the caravan. The drivers are allowed to make a condition with the proprietors, that in case an ass will be lost, they shall furnish them another ass. If, however, the ass was lost by wilful negligence, they are free. But if he says: " Give me the money for the lost one and I will buy me another one myself," he is not to be listened to (because he may not buy, and will neglect to take care of the other asses). Is this not self-evident ? The case is even so when he has another ass. Lest one say he will not neglect to take care of the asses of the caravan, as his own ass is among them; he comes to teach us that the taking care of one is not equal to that of two. TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 267 The rabbis taught: If a ship upon the open sea, when it was necessary to decrease the weight, the weight of the loading must be counted {i.e., to throw away the same weight of the loading of each passenger without any consideration of the value); however, the law of the ship must be observed. The owners of the ship (who are sailing together) may make a con- dition among themselves, that if one ship will be lost another shall be furnished. If there were wilful carelessness, however, or he departed himself and sailed on a place where the other ships usually did not go, the conditions are of no avail. " Is this not self-evident?" It means even when usually in the month of Nissan they go the distance of one cord, and in the month of Tishri on the distance of two cords, and the ships in question did go in Nissan, when they usually go in Tishri. Lest one say that this is not to be considered wilfulness, he comes to teach us that it is not so. The rabbis taught: " A caravan that was attacked by rob- bers, and one of them succeeds in saving some goods from them, this must be divided among the passengers; if, however, he said to them, ' I will try to save for myself,' it is of avail." Let us see how was the case. If each of them could do the same, but he preceded them even if he has said, " I will save for myself," he must not do so. (It is not of avail because all of them have not renounced the hope of regaining it.) And, on the other hand, if it was impossible for them to save their goods, and the one succeeded nevertheless in saving some, why must he divide among the caravan ? (They have already renounced their hope of regaining.) Said Rami bar Hama: " It means when they were partners, and in such a case a partner may separate himself against the will of his partner; therefore if he said, I will do so, he is separated; but not if he did it silently." R. Ashi, how- ever, says: " The case was that they could save only with great trouble. If he did it silently, he must divide; but if he said, I will take the trouble on myself, it is of avail." MISHNA VI. : If one has robbed a field and it was taken away from him by land robbers, when the land robbers were a plague of this country, the robber may say: The land is in the same place, and take it if you can ; if, however, it was robbed because of the robbers, he must buy another field for him. GEMARA: " Because of the robber:' How was the case ? If it was taken only from him and not from others, this is already stated in the first part. "If it was a plague of the 268 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. country," etc. The case was that the government compelled him to show such land of which they could take possession, and