Bava Kamma 116b — the Talmud in English

Rav raised an objection to Rabbi:

it was taught:

One who hires a laborer

exact page location

to bring cabbage and durmaskanin [a type of herb]

[name of an herb]

for a sick person, and he went and found that

the sick person

had died or had recovered, he gives him his full wage.

Thus, although the laborer did not benefit through his agency, nevertheless they are obligated to pay him his entire wage; and why here should he not have to pay him because he did not succeed in saving his donkey?

Rabbi said to him:

Rabbi:

Are the cases comparable!?

For the case of the beraita is not similar to our matter. For

there,

in the beraita,

the agent performed his agency.

The agent fulfilled his agency, except that there was no longer a need for it. But

here, the agent did not perform his agency.

The rescuer did not perform his agency at all, for he did not succeed in saving the donkey, and therefore he has only his wage.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

A caravan that was traveling in the desert, and a troop rose against it to plunder it,

to despoil it, and they made a settlement with the troop in exchange for a certain sum of money—

they calculate

the share of each member of the caravan in the expense

according to wealth,

according to the money each person carries with him, and one who has more money participates more in the expense;

but they do not calculate

the share of each member of the caravan in the expense

according to

the number of

persons

in the caravan, for the troop came because of the money, and did not come to take lives, and therefore the payment that they paid the troop was for the money, and consequently they calculate each person’s expense according to the money he has with him.

And if they hired a guide who travels before them—

a guide who will show them the way, then

they calculate

the share of each person in the expense for the guide

also according to persons,

because mistaking the way in the desert is a danger to life, and therefore the expense is also for the persons.

And they do not deviate

with regard to payment for the guide

from the custom

of the donkey drivers,

according to what they practice in that place concerning this matter: if the guides customarily collect from the members of the caravan according to the amount of money each person brings with him, or according to the number of persons in the caravan, they must pay according to the custom of the donkey drivers.

The donkey drivers

who go out in a caravan

are permitted to stipulate

among themselves

that anyone

among the donkey drivers

whose donkey is lost, the caravan shall provide him

the caravan

with another donkey,

so that he will take the donkey and devote himself to guarding with them at night against animals and bandits, and their stipulation is valid.

Nevertheless, even though they stipulated thus, if the donkey driver lost his donkey

through negligence,

through negligence—

they do not provide

him with another donkey. But if he lost the donkey

without negligence,

without negligence—

they provide him with

another donkey.

And if

the donkey driver who lost his donkey said

give me

its value, and I do not want an animal,

and I will guard

your donkeys with you—they

do not heed him,

for when he has a donkey, he assists them in guarding, and when he has no donkey, he does not urge himself in guarding the other donkeys; and if he said, “Give me the money and I will take a donkey for myself,” they do not heed him, lest he not take a donkey.

And we ask: Why was it necessary to teach us that they do not heed him? For

it is obvious

that they need not give him the value of the donkey!

It is necessary,

they needed to teach this only in a case

where he has another donkey,

where he has another donkey.

You might say: He is guarding it,

we might have thought to say that since he has an additional donkey that he guards, he may demand the value of the donkey instead of the donkey;

it teaches us

the beraita that

the guarding of one is different from the guarding of two,

the guarding of one donkey differs from the guarding of two, and he devotes himself more for two. Therefore, even if he claims that he guards better when he has only one donkey, they do not heed him, since he will devote himself more when he has two.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

A ship that was traveling on the sea, and a wave rose against it [a wave]

[a wave]

to sink it,

and they threw into the sea some of the cargo that was upon it

and lightened its load—

they calculate

for each person who throws something from his load

according to his load,

according to weight,

and they do not calculate according to

the value of

the property

of the load; and if one threw a weight of one hundred litra of gold, the other may throw a weight of one hundred litra of iron.

And they do not deviate from the custom of the sailors

for if they customarily have each person throw according to the value of the property, they must act according to their custom.

And the sailors

who sail together

are permitted to stipulate that anyone whose ship was lost shall be provided with another ship.

And if

his

ship was lost

through negligence,

through negligence—

they do not provide

him with another ship. But if his ship was lost

without negligence,

without negligence—

they provide him with

another ship.

And if he sailed

in his ship

to a place where ships do not travel—

they do not provide

him with another ship.

And we ask:

It is obvious

that they do not provide him with another ship, for he was negligent in going to a place where ships do not travel.

And we answer:

It is necessary,

they needed to teach this only in a case

where, in Nisan,

the river grows from the melting of the snow and the rainwater,

they distance one rope,

they distance the ship only the length of one rope from the riverbank, since the water is deeper.

And in Tishrei,

when the river is smaller,

they distance two ropes,

they distance the ship the length of two ropes from the riverbank.

And he went

and traveled in his ship

during the days of Nisan

into the depth of the river

to the place

where they travel during the period of

Tishrei,

and because the river is large and strong during the period of Nisan, the ship sank.

You might say

we might have thought to say that

he followed his accustomed path and went,

he took and followed his way, and since he traveled on a path to which he was accustomed, he is not called negligent;

it teaches us

that it is considered negligence.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

A caravan that was traveling in the desert, and a troop rose and plundered it,

and despoiled it,

and one of them stood up and rescued

the property from the troop—

what he rescued is for the middle,

that is, they divide among themselves what he rescued, and each one takes his own.

And if

the rescuer said,

I will rescue

the property

for myself—

what he rescued

the property

is for himself,

and he need not divide it among the members of the caravan, since he rescued property from which the members of the caravan had despaired, and the property is ownerless.

And we pondered this:

What are the circumstances?

How is the case?

If

the case is

that each one is able

each member of the caravan

to rescue

his property from the troop, then

even the latter clause likewise,

where the rescuer said that he was rescuing the property for himself, he must divide the property

for the middle,

and each one takes his own, for their property is not ownerless.

And if

the case is

that each one is unable

each member of the caravan

to rescue

his property from the troop, and only the rescuer was able to rescue it, then

even the first clause likewise,

where the rescuer said nothing, he may take all the property

for himself,

for their property is ownerless.

Rami bar Hama said: Here

here

we are dealing with partners,

we are dealing with them; and although ordinarily a jointly owned asset cannot be divided without the consent of all the partners, nevertheless

in a case such as this,

where the property was about to be lost, in such a case

a partner divides without the knowledge of his fellow.

Therefore, if

the rescuer said

that he was rescuing only for himself—

he divides,

he divides the jointly owned asset and retains for himself the portion that he rescued; and if

he said nothing

at the time he rescued it—

he does not divide,

he does not divide the jointly owned asset, for it is customary to trouble oneself over the entire asset even if only part of it belongs to him.

Rava said

to reconcile the beraita:

here

here

with hired laborers

whom they hired to guard the caravan

we are dealing,

and it is referring to a case where the other people in the caravan are unable to rescue [their property],

and in accordance with Rav, for Rav said: A laborer may withdraw

even in the middle of the day.

Therefore,

as long as he has not withdrawn

as long as the laborer has not withdrawn from being a laborer,

it is considered as being in the employer’s possession,

the property that he rescued is considered as being in the employer’s possession,

and when he withdraws

and when he withdraws from being a laborer, he acquires it for himself from property without an owner, because no one can rescue the property and it becomes ownerless.

And the reason that the laborer can withdraw is not because every laborer is not in the employer’s possession, but rather

it is another reason

he can withdraw for another reason,

as it is written:

[Leviticus 25:55]

“For the Children of Israel are servants to Me,”

and they expound: for only to the Lord are the Children of Israel servants,

and not

do they become

servants

to servants,

meaning, they do not become servants to others who are servants [of the Lord] , for a laborer is not like a slave, and therefore he can withdraw from this point onward.

Rav Ashi said

to reconcile the beraita: it is referring to a case

where each one can

each one

rescue

his property

with difficulty,

therefore, if the rescuer

reveals his intention

reveals by his intention that he is rescuing the property for himself—he takes the property

for himself,

because the fact that the owners heard him and remained silent, and did not devote themselves to rescuing, is a sign that they diverted their attention from the property and revealed that they had despaired of the property and were not interested in devoting themselves to rescuing their property.

But if the rescuer

does not reveal his intention

that he is rescuing the property for himself—he has rescued it

for the common pool,

and each one takes his own property, since there is no proof that the owners despaired of their property.

But in a case where each one can rescue his property without difficulty, even if they heard the rescuer say that he was rescuing the property for himself and they remained silent, the rescuer has not acquired their property, since presumably they did not despair of their property.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses one who robs land, and others rob it from him or a river washes it away: how does he return the robbed property?

The robbery of land differs from the robbery of movable property, for land cannot be robbed, and it always remains in the possession of its owners. If the robber sold it to another, the owners take it from the buyer immediately, without payment, and the buyer claims his money from the robber who sold it to him.

One who robs a field from his fellow, and the tax-collectors took it —

violent men robbed it from the robber,

If it is a decree affecting the entire state

that they also took the fields of others ,

he says to him

the robber says to the owner of the field,

behold

the field

is yours before you,

if you want it, take it, for even if the field had been in your possession, they would have taken it.

If it was because of the robber,

that gentiles compelled him to show them all his fields, and he showed them this robbed field as well,

he is obligated

the robber

to provide him

for the owner of the field

another field.

Gemara:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: One who teaches

the version in the Mishna

“tax-collectors,” is not mistaken, and one who teaches

the version in the Mishna

“oppressors” is not

mistaken.

One who teaches “oppressors” is not mistaken, as it is written:

[Deuteronomy 28:53]

“In siege and in oppression .”

And one who teaches “tax-collectors” is not mistaken, as it is written:

[Deuteronomy 28:42] “All your trees and the fruit of your land

the locust shall inherit,”

which means that the locust shall make it poor [impoverished] from the fruit.

And we translate: “The locust shall inherit it,”

which is an expression of “tax-collector.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“If it was because of the robber” —

he is obligated,

the robber.

And we raised the question:

What are the circumstances

of the case in which the robber is obligated to provide another field for the owners?

If you say that they forcibly took his land and did not forcibly take all the land

if it is referring to a case in which they robbed only his field and did not rob other fields,

you have already learned it from the first clause

for we already learned from the first clause of the Mishna that he is liable in such a case, as it is written in the first clause:

“If it is a decree affecting the entire state”

that they took the fields of all the inhabitants of the city, the robber says to the owner of the field, “Behold, the field is yours before you”; and it is precise:

if not

they took the fields of others—the robber

does not

have the option of saying to the owner of the field, “Behold, yours is before you,” but rather he must provide the owners with another field.

And we answer:

It is not necessary,

the law in the latter clause was written only to teach that he is liable also in a case of

showing by pointing

where he himself did not rob it, but heard from the royal house that they were seeking to rob fields and showed them, “Take this land of so-and-so.”

Alternatively: with what are we dealing here?

The latter clause is speaking

of a case in which gentiles forced him and said to him, “Show your land,”

show your fields

and he showed that one together with them,

and he showed that field of so-and-so together with his own fields.

An incident:

a certain man showed the wheat heaps belonging to the house of the Exilarch

that he showed the oppressors the wheat heaps of the house of the Exilarch.

He came before

he came before

Rav Nahman

so that he would rule for him what his law was.

Rav Nahman obligated him to pay

the owners another field.

Rav Yosef was sitting behind Rav Huna bar Hiyya, and Rav Huna bar Hiyya was sitting before Rav Nahman. Rav Huna bar Hiyya said to Rav Nahman:

Is what the informer was obligated to pay the owners—another field—

a legal liability or a penalty ?

He said to him: It is a Mishna!

For we learned: “If on account of the robber

the oppressors seized the robbed field

he is liable to provide him

to the owner of the field

a field

another.

And we established

and established this law in the Gemara

as referring to achuyei achvuyei,

where he himself did not rob it, but heard from the royal house that they were seeking to rob fields and showed them, “Take this land of so-and-so.” And in this manner the Mishna obligated him to provide the owner of the field another field.