Bava Kamma - Daf 116
- ירד להציל ועלה שלו מאליו, או לא הציל
Rav Kahana asked Rav, regarding one who stipulated to be reimbursed for allowing his donkey to be lost to save his fellow’s donkey: ירד להציל ועלה שלו מאליו– if he went down to save his fellow’s donkey, and his own donkey came up from the river on its own, can he still claim reimbursement? Since he was mafkir it at the time, he simply acquired an ownerless donkey, so perhaps his retrieval would not impact his right to reimbursement. He answered: משמיא רחימו עליה – From Heaven they had mercy on him to keep his donkey alive, and he retains his right to reimbursement. Rav Safra was once traveling in a caravan which was being escorted by a lion protecting them. Each day, one member would give his donkey to the lion to eat, but the lion did not eat Rav Safra’s donkey on his day. Rav Safra quickly re-acquired his donkey and did not owe anything more to the caravan. [Although it was not truly hefker, since he only abandoned it to the lion, he acquired it to avoid it being contested.] Rav asked Rebbe: ירד להציל ולא הציל – If he abandoned his donkey and went down to rescue his fellow’s donkey, but did not succeed to rescue it, does he still receive his stipulated reimbursement? Rebbe answered that he does not.
- Dividing the cost of saving a caravan, etc.
A Baraisa taught regarding a caravan traveling in the wilderness, ועמד עליה גייס לטורפה – and a troop came against it to plunder it, but accepted a ransom, מחשבין לפי ממון – they calculate the members’ contributions to the ransom by the amount of money they are carrying, ואין מחשבין לפי נפשות – and do not calculate it by the number of people in the caravan, because the threat was only a financial one. If they hired a guide to lead them and avoid both financial and physical dangers, then they also calculate the number of people protected. Still, they must follow the standard practice of donkey drivers.
Another Baraisa teaches that a ship which was threatened by a gale at sea, and the passengers threw cargo overboard to lighten the load, the loss is divided based on the weight of each passenger’s cargo, not the value. Still, they follow the standard practice of sailors. A third Baraisa discusses a single caravan member who rescued it from a marauding troop and considers when he may keep the rescued property for himself.
- Liability for causing someone’s field to be confiscated
The next Mishnah states: הגוזל שדה מחבירו – If someone steals a field from his fellow, ונטלוה מסיקין – and extortionists take it from the robber, אם מכת מדינה היא – if it is a province-wide “plague,” i.e., they also took fields from others, he is not liable, since land cannot legally be stolen, and the land’s confiscation was not caused by his possessing it. אם מחמת הגזלן – If it was taken because of the robber, he must reimburse the owner. The Gemara asks that the last clause seems superfluous, since the first case already implies that if property was only taken from the robber (indicating it was taken because it was in his possession) he would be liable. It answers that this case is not literally a robber, but: דאחוי אחוויי – where he showed someone’s field to agents of the king who were seeking property to seize, causing them to confiscate it. Tosafos explains he is liable for this indirect damage under the principle of דינא דגרמי. In another version, the Gemara says the robber was forced to show extortionists his properties, and he showed them this stolen field along with his.
