Bava Kamma 115b (קטו:) — the Talmud in English

The owner of the wine has no right

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

but

he takes only

his wage

due to him for the effort he expended in saving the honey [and payment for the barrel as well].

And if he said

the owner of the wine barrel explicitly:

I will save

the honey

that is 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, since he stipulated this explicitly.

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

and

his was worth

only

one hundred dinars, 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 effort in saving it.

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?

After all,

let the one who saved it say to him:

I

acquired it from ownerless property,

all the honey, because an object that is going to be lost is ownerless even while it is still in its owner’s possession. For

was it not taught in a beraita: If there was one who was

carrying

a quantity of wine and a quantity of oil, and he saw that they were breaking

and that the wine and oil would be lost,

he may not say: Let this be teruma and maaser for produce

of tevel

that I have inside my house! And if he said

so,

he has said nothing,

since from that moment the wine and oil no longer belong to him.

This beraita proves that an object that is going to be lost no longer belongs to its owner; rather, it is ownerless.

The Gemara answers that our Mishna is dealing with a case in which the honey is not going to be lost, despite the fact that the barrel has cracked and a little honey is leaking from it.

And this is similar to what we find

as Rabbi Yirmeya said,

elsewhere, as will be explained below:

when the olive press’s hoop is wrapped around it,

and as a result of the barrel’s being tightened by the “olive press’s hoop,” the oil does not pour out of the barrel but merely drips from it slightly.

Here too,

also regarding the jug of honey in our Mishna, the case is one in which the honey does not become ownerless, despite the fact that the jug has cracked,

when the olive press’s hoop is wrapped around it,

and prevents the honey from pouring out of the jug.

The Gemara discusses the statement of the beraita:

And if he said

that the wine or oil in the barrels that were breaking should be teruma or maaser for the tevel in his house,

he has said nothing.

The Gemara objects:

But it was taught in a beraita: One who was traveling,

with money in his hand, and

there came

a robber opposite him

who was about to take his money from him,

he may not say: The produce that I have in my house is redeemed onto 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 in which he can save

his money from the robber.

But the Gemara objects:

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

It answers:

With a case in which 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 objects:

And wherever there is a loss

may one not say it initially?

It was taught in a beraita: If a Levite had

a Levite

ten barrels of impure tevel [

for example, wine that was maaser rishon and was subject to the terumat maaser, and since it was impure, the terumat maaser separated from it was not fit to be given to a kohen for drinking; rather, the kohen could use it only for sprinkling as a pleasant fragrance in his house]

, and he saw

one of them

break or become uncovered, he says: Let it be terumat maaser for its nine fellows!

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

Impure oil can be used by a kohen to kindle a lamp, and if he designates the oil in the cracked barrel as terumat maaser, the kohen will lose the oil. But if the barrel contained impure wine, it is not worth much to the kohen, since it is fit only for sprinkling [and below the Gemara establishes the case as one involving new wine, which has little fragrance, so that the kohen’s loss is slight]; therefore, he may designate it as terumat maaser.

This proves that after the fact the designation takes effect with regard to oil that is going to be lost; it is only initially that he may not do so because of the loss to the kohen. Why, then, did we learn in the earlier beraita that if he said so, his words are ineffective?

Regarding this objection,

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

This oil is not going to be lost; rather, only a little of it drips, because the case here is one

in which the olive press’s hoop is wrapped around it.

But the Gemara continues to discuss the statement of the last beraita:

Granted,

a barrel

that broke is fit;

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

But

if it

became uncovered,

as there is concern that a snake may have drunk from it and injected venom into it,

what is it fit for!?

And if you would say that it is fit for sprinkling,

that cannot be said.

For it was taught in a beraita: Water that became 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 walk barefoot over it and the venom should enter his body through a wound on his foot,

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 the animal be slaughtered and the venom pass to a person who eats it.

And since it is fit for nothing, it is considered as though it does not exist. How, then, can it be designated as teruma?

And we answer: He passes it

through the wine in the barrel

with a strainer, in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya.

As it was taught in a beraita: A strainer

into which wine sediment is placed, with the wine filtering from the sediment into a vessel beneath it,

has

a prohibition against drinking the wine if it was left unattended,

because of exposure.

Therefore, the strainer must also be covered.

Rabbi Neḥemya said: When is this so? When

the

lower barrel is uncovered.

But when the lower barrel is covered,

then

even though

the

upper strainer is uncovered, it is not subject to the prohibition of exposure, because snake venom resembles a sponge: It floats and remains in its place.

But the Gemara still raises an objection:

Was it not stated concerning this: Rabbi Simon said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: They taught

that one may rely on the straining

only when he did not shake it,

that is, he did not jostle or mix the wine, as in the case of a fixed strainer that no one touches.

But if he shook it, it is prohibited.

Here, however, when he filters the uncovered barrel, the wine mixes with the venom and does not filter 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 cloth

over the mouth of the barrel, through which it flows,

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

The Gemara asks: If we establish the beraita concerning the ten barrels in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya, this presents a difficulty:

And

according to

Rabbi Neḥemya,

do we designate impure produce as teruma for impure produce?

For it was taught in a beraita: One may designate teruma from impure produce for impure produce, from pure produce for pure produce, and from pure produce for impure produce. But not from impure produce for pure produce.

Rabbi Neḥemya says: Even from impure produce for impure produce, they permitted one to designate teruma only in the case of demai!

And we answer:

Here too,

the case is

that 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 may not do so because of the loss to the kohen,

because it is fit to kindle with it; wine, too, is fit for sprinkling.

And if you would say

to answer

that sprinkling is not a significant use

in terms of

importance,

but did not Samuel say in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: One drinks a log

of wine

for one sela, but

if one were to

sprinkle a log, it would be for two

sela? That is, 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 benefit when used for sprinkling is not significant.

But this still presents a difficulty:

But

new wine

is fit to be aged!

And we answer: It may not be set aside in order to age, because

it could lead to a mishap,

as people might come to drink impure wine of teruma.

And we ask: If so,

oil

that is impure

too

should not be designated as teruma, lest

it could lead to a mishap!

And we answer: There is a remedy for this:

He places it in an objectionable vessel,

and people will not come to drink it.

And we ask:

Wine too

has a remedy for aging it, as

he can place it in an objectionable vessel.

And we answer:

Now, he needs it for sprinkling—would he place it in an objectionable vessel!?

And

the Gemara

says:

The issue of a mishap itself,

whether one must be concerned about it or not, is subject to a dispute between tanna’im.

As it was taught in a beraita: A barrel of wine of teruma that became impure: