## Bava Kamma Daf 116a

###### Bava Kamma 116a:1
[Bava Kamma 116a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:1)

תִּשָּׁפֵךְ הַכֹּל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: תֵּעָשֶׂה זִילּוּף. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲנִי אַכְרִיעַ; בַּבַּיִת – תֵּעָשֶׂה זִילּוּף, וּבַשָּׂדֶה – תִּשָּׁפֵךְ הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The wine must **all be poured out** in order to prevent a possible mishap. **And Beit Hillel say:** Let the wine **be used** for **sprinkling. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I will decide** the *halakha* by proposing an intermediate opinion: If the wine became impure **in a house, it may be used** for **sprinkling,** as it can be used immediately, **but** if it became impure **in the field, it must all be poured out,** as it is possible that by the time it is brought to the house and used for sprinkling, someone may drink it.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:2
[Bava Kamma 116a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:2)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּיָשָׁן – תֵּעָשֶׂה זִילּוּף, וּבְחָדָשׁ – תִּשָּׁפֵךְ הַכֹּל. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין הַכְרָעָה שְׁלִישִׁית מַכְרַעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that he decided the *halakha* as follows: **With regard to aged** wine, **it may be used** for **sprinkling,** as it is fit to be sprinkled immediately, **but with regard to new** wine, which does not yet have a pleasant aroma, **it must all be poured out** in order to prevent a possible mishap. **They said to** Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: **A decision** by **a third** party **does not** conclusively **decide** the *halakha*.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:3
[Bava Kamma 116a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:3)

אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״אַצִּיל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְכוּ׳״. אַמַּאי? וְנֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״מְשַׁטֶּה אֲנִי בָּךְ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **if** the owner of the wine **said to** the owner of the honey: **I will salvage your** honey and you will pay me the value of my wine, the owner of the honey is obligated to give him compensation for the wine. The Gemara asks: **Why** is the stipulation binding? **Let** the owner of the honey **say to him: I was** merely **fooling with you** when I accepted your condition, and I did not agree to it at all.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:4
[Bava Kamma 116a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:4)

מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹרֵחַ מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין וְהָיְתָה מַעְבּוֹרֶת לְפָנָיו, אָמַר לוֹ: ״טוֹל דִּינָר, וְהַעֲבִירֵנִי״ – אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכָרוֹ. אַלְמָא אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״מְשַׁטֶּה אֲנִי בָּךְ״; הָכָא נָמֵי, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״מְשַׁטֶּה אֲנִי בָּךְ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: In a case **where one was fleeing from prison and there was a ferry before him,** and **he said to** the ferryman: **Take** this entire **dinar and take me across** the river, the ferryman **has** the right to collect **only his** usual **wage,** but not the entire dinar. **Apparently,** the prisoner could have **said to him: I was** merely **fooling with you** and never intended to pay you a full dinar. **Here also, let** the owner of the honey **say to** the owner of the wine: **I was** merely **fooling with you.**


###### Bava Kamma 116a:5
[Bava Kamma 116a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:5)

הָא לָא דָּמֵי אֶלָּא לְסֵיפָא – וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״טוֹל דִּינָר זֶה בִּשְׂכָרְךָ, וְהַעֲבִירֵנִי״ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מִשָּׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** case in the mishna **is not comparable** to the case cited above; **rather,** it is comparable **to the latter clause** of that same *baraita*, which states: **And if he said to** the ferryman: **Take this dinar as your wage and take me across** the river, the prisoner must **give him his wage in the full amount,** i.e., the entire dinar.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:6
[Bava Kamma 116a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:6)

מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: בְּצַיָּיד הַשּׁוֹלֶה דָּגִים מִן הַיָּם, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: אַפְסֵדְתַּנִי כְּווֹרֵי בְּזוּזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is different** in **the first clause,** which states that the ferryman receives only his regular wage, **and what is different** in **the latter clause,** which states that he receives the full dinar? **Rami bar Ḥama said:** The latter clause deals **with a trapper who scoops fish from the sea,** i.e., a fisherman, **and he** can **say to** the prisoner: **You have caused me a loss** of **fish [*kavrei*]** worth **a dinar,** which I would have caught had I not taken you across the river. Similarly, in the case in the mishna, the owner of the wine sustains a financial loss in order to save the honey, and therefore he is entitled to the compensation that the owner of the honey agreed to pay.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:7
[Bava Kamma 116a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:7)

שָׁטַף נָהָר חֲמוֹרוֹ וַחֲמוֹר חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁלּוֹ יָפֶה מָנֶה וְכוּ׳. וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא, הָתָם הוּא דְּכִי פֵּירֵשׁ יָהֵיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְיָדַיִם קָא פָסֵיד; אֲבָל הָכָא דְּמִמֵּילָא, נֵימָא: אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכָרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **a river washed away his donkey and the donkey of the other** man, and **his donkey is worth one hundred dinars,** etc. The Gemara notes: **And it** is **necessary** to teach both the case of the barrels of wine and honey and the case of the donkeys, **as if it** had **taught us** only **the first** case, that of the wine and honey, it might be said that **it is** only **there,** in that case, **that when** the owner of the wine **states** his stipulation, the owner of the honey **gives him the value of** the **entire** loss. Why is this? It is **because** the wine **is lost through** the direct **action** of its owner. **But here,** in the case of the donkeys, **since** the donkey is lost **by itself** in the river, **let us say:** The one who salvages the donkey of his fellow **has** the right to **only his wage,** i.e., compensation for his labor.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:8
[Bava Kamma 116a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:8)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן סֵיפָא, הָכָא הוּא דְּבִסְתָמָא אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכָרוֹ, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִמֵּילָא; אֲבָל הָתָם, דִּבְיָדַיִם, אֵימָא אֲפִילּוּ בִּסְתָמָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי כּוּלֵּהּ; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the mishna had **taught us** only the case of **the latter clause,** it might be said: **It is here,** in the case of the donkeys, **that** if the intention of the one who saved the donkey was **unspecified,** i.e., he did not stipulate that the owner of the other donkey would compensate him for the loss of his own donkey, he **has** the right to **only his wage, because** the donkey is lost **by itself. But there,** where the barrel of wine is lost **through** the direct **action** of its owner, one might **say: Even in** a case where the intention of the owner of the wine was **unspecified,** the owner of the honey must **give him the value of** the **entire** barrel of wine. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, both cases are **necessary.**


###### Bava Kamma 116a:9
[Bava Kamma 116a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:9)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא מֵרַב: יָרַד לְהַצִּיל, וְעָלָה שֶׁלּוֹ מֵאֵלָיו, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשְּׁמַיָּא רְחִימוּ עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a relevant discussion. **Rav Kahana raised a dilemma before Rav:** If one **descended** into the river **to rescue** another’s donkey instead of his own after stipulating that he would be compensated for the loss of his own donkey, **and his** own donkey **emerged** from the river **by itself, what is** the *halakha*? Is the rescuer still entitled to payment from the owner of the donkey that he saved, despite the fact that he did not suffer a monetary loss? Rav **said to him:** The rescuer is still compensated because it was **from Heaven** that **mercy was bestowed upon him,** and his good fortune does not affect the stipulation.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:10
[Bava Kamma 116a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:10)

כִּי הָא דְּרַב סָפְרָא הֲוָה קָא אָזֵיל בִּשְׁיָירְתָּא, לַוִּינְהוּ הָהוּא אֲרִי. כֹּל לֵילְיָא קָא (שַׁדַּר) [שָׁדוּ] לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא דְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְקָא אָכֵיל. כִּי מְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ דְּרַב סָפְרָא, (שַׁדַּר) [שְׁדָא] לֵיהּ חֲמָרֵאּ וְלָא אַכְלֵיהּ. קְדֵים רַב סָפְרָא וּזְכָה בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This **is like that** case where **Rav Safra was traveling in a caravan,** and **a certain lion** followed them, **accompanying them** along the way. **Every night,** the travelers **would send one of their donkeys to** the lion, **and** the lion **would eat** it. **When Rav Safra’s time arrived** to provide the lion with prey, **he sent it** his **donkey but** the lion **did not eat it. Rav Safra went ahead and acquired it** back, as his donkey had become ownerless when he presented it to the lion. Although Rav Safra did not lose his donkey, he had fulfilled his obligation to provide the lion with a donkey, and his good fortune did not affect his obligation vis-à-vis the other travelers.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:11
[Bava Kamma 116a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִיזְכֵּי בֵּיהּ? נְהִי דְּכִי אַפְקְרֵיהּ – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְיָה אַפְקְרֵיהּ, אַדַּעְתָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא אַפְקְרֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַב סָפְרָא לְרַוְוחָא דְמִילְּתָא הוּא דַּעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this episode, **Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Why** was it necessary **for him to acquire** the donkey again? **Although** Rav Safra **made it ownerless** by sending it to the lion, it was **made ownerless** only **with the intention that the lion** would consume it, but **it was not made ownerless with the intention that everyone** else could acquire it. Accordingly, no one else could have acquired the donkey. Ravina **said to him: Rav Safra did** so **as an added precaution.**


###### Bava Kamma 116a:12
[Bava Kamma 116a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:12)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב מֵרַבִּי: יָרַד לְהַצִּיל וְלֹא הִצִּיל, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: וְזוֹ שְׁאֵילָה, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכָרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav raised a dilemma before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: If one **descended** into the river in order **to rescue** another’s donkey instead of his own, **but** he **did not** manage to **rescue** it, **what is** the *halakha*? Does the stipulation still apply so that the owner of the donkey he attempted to rescue must compensate him for the loss of his own donkey? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him: And is this a question?** It is clear that **he has** the right to collect **only his wage,** but he is not entitled to the value of his own donkey.


###### Bava Kamma 116a:13
[Bava Kamma 116a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/116a:13)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav **raised an objection to** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling from a *baraita*: In a case of **one who hires a laborer**