Baba Kama 10:4-5

Baba Kama 10:4

Let’s say that one person has a cask of wine and another has a jar of honey. The jar breaks so the other person empties out his cask in order to save the honey. The owner of the honey only has to pay for rental of the cask (and not for the wine that the other person chose to spill out). If the owner of the cask says that he’ll save the honey on condition that the other person reimburse him, then he is obligated to do so. Let’s say that a river carried away two donkeys, each belonging to a different owner, one worth 100 zuz and the other worth 200 zuz. If a person lets his own donkey go and saves the other person’s donkey, he is only paid for his time (and not for the donkey that he chose to forfeit). If he agreed to save the other person’s donkey on the condition that the other person reimburse him for his loss, then the other must pay.

Baba Kama 10:5

Let’s say that one person steals a field from another, after which it is confiscated by government agents. If the government agents have overtaken the whole area, the thief can simply tell the rightful owner that his field is right there for the taking (the owner’s inability to do so notwithstanding). If the field was taken from the thief by another thief, then he must repay the original owner with another field. If someone steals a field and it is flooded by a river, the thief can simply tell the rightful owner that his field is right there for the taking (again, the owner’s inability to do so notwithstanding).