Bava Kamma 115b — the Talmud in English

The owner of the wine does not have

the right to take the price of his wine that he poured out in order to save the honey,

but

he takes only

his wage

that is due to him for his exertion in saving the honey [and also the payment for the barrel].

And if he said

the owner of the wine barrel explicitly:

“I will save

the honey

of yours

by pouring my wine out of the barrel,

and you will give me the value of

my wine,

he is obligated to give him

the value of his wine, for he stipulated this explicitly.

If a river swept away his donkey and his fellow’s donkey,

and the donkey was

his, worth

only

one hundred, while his fellow’s

was worth

two hundred, and this one abandoned his own

donkey worth one hundred,

and saved the

donkey

of his fellow

worth two hundred,

he has only his wage

for his exertion in the rescue.

And if he said to him: “I will save yours, and you will give me mine,” he is obligated to give him:

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses why one who saves the honey has only his wage:

And why?

For surely

he can say to him

the one who saves it: “I

acquired it from ownerlessness

—all the honey, because an object that is proceeding toward loss is ownerless even while it is still in its owner’s possession,” for

is it not taught: If there was

a person

carrying jugs of wine and jugs of oil, and he saw that they were breaking

and the wine and oil would be lost,

he may not say: “Here it is teruma and tithe for the produce

of untithed produce

that I have inside my house!” And if he said

so,

he has said nothing,

since from now on the wine and oil are no longer his.

And it is proved from this beraita that an object proceeding toward loss no longer belongs to its owner; rather, it is ownerless.

The Gemara answers that our Mishna is speaking in a case where the honey is not proceeding toward loss, despite the fact that the barrel has cracked and a little honey is flowing from it.

And as we find

as Rabbi Jeremiah said,

elsewhere, as will be explained below,

when the press-basket is wrapped around it,

and as a result of the tightening of the barrel by means of the “press-basket,” the oil does not spill from the barrel but merely drips a little from it.

Here too,

also in the case of the jug of honey in our Mishna, it is speaking of a case where the honey does not become ownerless, despite the fact that the jug has cracked,

when the press-basket is wrapped around it,

and prevents the honey from spilling from the jug.

The Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

And if he said

that the wine or oil in the barrels that are breaking should be teruma or tithe for the untithed produce in his house,

he has said nothing.

The Gemara wonders:

But it is taught: One who was traveling on the road,

with money in his hand, and

there came

a robber opposite him

and was about to take his money from him,

he may not say: “The produce that I have inside my house is redeemed upon this money.” And

however,

if he said

so,

his words are valid.

The Gemara answers:

Here,

in the second beraita, which says that after the fact his words are valid,

with what are we dealing? With a case where he can save

his money from the robber.

But the Gemara wonders:

If he can save it, why may he not say it initially!?

It answers:

With a case where he can save it only with difficulty,

and therefore only after the fact are his words valid, but initially he may not say this.

But the Gemara still wonders:

And wherever there is a loss

[may he not say it initially]?

It is taught: If he had

the Levite

ten barrels of impure untithed produce

[such as wine that was first tithe and was still subject to the tithe of terumat maaser; and since it is impure, the terumat maaser separated from it is not fit to be given to a kohen to drink, but the kohen can only sprinkle it for a pleasant fragrance in his house]

, and he saw

the Levite

that one of them had broken or had been uncovered, he says: “Let it be the tithe of the other nine!”

But with oil he may not do so, because of the loss to the kohen.

For the kohen has a use for impure oil, to kindle it for illumination, and if he separates the oil in the cracked barrel as terumat maaser, the kohen will lose the oil. But if there was impure wine in the barrel, it is not worth much to the kohen, since it is fit only for sprinkling [and below the Gemara establishes this as new wine, which does not have much fragrance, so that the loss of the kohen is slight], and therefore he is permitted to separate it as terumat maaser.

And it is proved that after the fact the separation takes effect upon oil that is proceeding toward loss; rather, he should do so only initially because of the loss to the kohen. And why, then, did we learn in the beraita above that if he said so, his words contain nothing?

Concerning this difficulty,

Rabbi Jeremiah said:

This oil is not proceeding toward loss; rather, only a little drips from it, because here it is speaking of a case

when the press-basket is wrapped around it.

But the Gemara still discusses the words of the final beraita:

Granted,

the barrel

that broke is fit,

the wine is still fit for sprinkling, and therefore he can separate it as teruma.

But

if it

was uncovered,

for there is concern lest a snake drank from it and injected venom into it,

for what is it fit!?

And if you say that it is fit for sprinkling,

it is impossible to say so.

For it is taught: Water that was uncovered,

and there is concern that a snake injected venom into it,

one may not pour it out in the public domain,

so that a person should not pass over it barefoot and the venom should enter through a wound on his foot into his body,

nor knead clay with it, nor sprinkle

the house with it, nor give it to his animal to drink, nor to his fellow’s animal,

lest he slaughter it and the venom pass to the person who eats it.

And since it is fit for nothing, it is like something that does not exist; so how can it be separated as teruma?

And we answer: He passes it

the wine of the barrel

through a strainer, in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah.

For it is taught: A strainer

into which wine sediment is placed, and the wine is filtered from the sediment into a vessel beneath it,

has

a prohibition against drinking the wine if it was left unattended

because of exposure.

And therefore the strainer also must be covered.

Rabbi Nehemiah said: When? At a time when

the barrel

beneath is uncovered.

But when the lower one is covered,

then

even though

the strainer

above is uncovered, it does not have the status of exposed liquid, because the venom of a snake resembles a sponge and floats and remains in its place.

But the Gemara still raises a difficulty:

Was it not said concerning it: Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: They taught

that one may rely upon the straining of the strainer

only when he did not shake it,

when he did not move or mix the wine, such as a fixed strainer that no one touches.

But if he shook it, it is forbidden.

Yet here, when he strains the uncovered barrel, the wine becomes mixed with the venom, and it is not filtered through the strainer.

And we answer:

There,

in the case of an uncovered barrel,

too, it is possible that he places something

such as a garment

over the mouth of the barrel, from which he pours it,

over the mouth of the barrel and pours the wine gently, without the venom becoming mixed with it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If we establish the beraita of the ten barrels according to Rabbi Nehemiah, this is difficult:

And

according to

Rabbi Nehemiah,

[do we] separate [the] impure from the impure?

For it is taught: One separates from the impure for the impure, from the pure for the pure, and from the pure for the impure. But not from the impure for the pure.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: Even from the impure for the impure, they permitted one to separate only in the case of demai!

And we answer:

Here too

it is speaking

of demai.

The Master said: “But with oil he may not do so, because of the loss to the kohen.”

The Gemara discusses this:

What is different about oil

that he should not do so because of the loss to the kohen,

because it is fit for kindling? Wine too is fit for sprinkling.

And if you would say

to answer that

sprinkling is not a matter

of importance

it is.

But did Samuel not say in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: They drink a log

of wine

for one sela, and

if they

sprinkle a log, [they pay] two

sela’im? That is to say, the benefit of sprinkling is greater than the benefit of drinking, and therefore a person will purchase more expensive wine for sprinkling.

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With

wine that is

new,

whose sprinkling benefit is not considered important.

But this is still difficult:

But

new wine

is fit to be aged!

And we answer: It may not be left to age, because

it can lead to a mishap,

lest they come to drink impure teruma wine.

And we ask: If so,

oil

impure

also

should not be separated as teruma, lest

it can lead to a mishap!

And we answer: There is a remedy for this:

He places it in a repulsive vessel,

and they will not come to drink it.

And we ask:

Wine too

has a remedy for aging it, for

he places it in a repulsive vessel.

And we answer:

Now, if he needs it for sprinkling, would he place it in a repulsive vessel!?

And

the Gemara says:

And the mishap itself,

whether there is concern for it or not,

is subject to a dispute among the tannaim.

For it is taught: A barrel of teruma wine that became impure: