Bava Kamma

HE WOULD BE ABLE TO CLAIM NO MORE THAN THE VALUE OF HIS SERVICES;  BUT IF HE SAID [AT THE OUTSET], 'I AM GOING TO RESCUE YOUR HONEY AND I EXPECT TO BE PAID THE VALUE OF MY WINE,' THE OTHER HAS TO PAY HIM [ACCORDINGLY]. SO ALSO IF A RIVER SWEPT AWAY HIS ASS AND ANOTHER MAN'S ASS, HIS ASS BEING ONLY WORTH A MANEH  AND HIS FELLOW'S ASS TWO HUNDRED ZUZ,  AND HE LEFT HIS OWN ASS [TO ITS FATE], AND RESCUED THE OTHER MAN'S ASS, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO CLAIM NO MORE THAN THE VALUE OF HIS SERVICES; BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM [AT THE OUTSET], 'I AM GOING TO RESCUE YOUR ASS AND I EXPECT TO BE PAID AT LEAST THE VALUE OF MY ASS,' THE OTHER WOULD HAVE TO PAY HIM [ACCORDINGLY]. GEMARA. But why [should the rescuer] not be entitled to say, 'I have acquired title to the rescued object  as it became ownerless'?  Was it not taught [in a Baraitha]: 'If a man carrying pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil noticed that they were about to be broken, he may not say, "I declare this terumah  or tithe with respect to other produce which I have at home," and if he says so, his statement is of no legal validity'?  — As R. Jeremiah said in another connection, 'Where the bale  of the press-house was twined around it [it would not become ownerless]';  so also here in the case of the barrel [we suppose] the bale of the press-house was twined around it.  [Still, how does the Baraitha state:]  'And if he says so, his statement is of no legal validity'? Surely it was taught: If a man was walking on the road with money in his possession, and a robber confronted him, he may not say, 'The produce which I have in my house  shall become redeemed  by virtue of these coins,'  yet if he says so, his statement has legal validity?  — Here [in the latter case] we suppose that he was still able to rescue the money.  But if he was still able to rescue the money why then should he not be allowed to say so  even directly? — We suppose he would be able to rescue it with [some] exertion. But still even where there is likely to be a loss,  why should he not be allowed to say so  even directly?  Surely it was taught: If a man has ten barrels  of unclean tebel  and notices one of them on the point of becoming broken or uncovered,  he may say, 'Let this be the terumah [portion] of the tithe  with respect to the other nine barrels,' though in the case of oil he should not do so as he would thereby cause a great loss to the priest?  — Said R. Jeremiah: [In this case we suppose that] the bale of the presshouse was still twined around it.  This is a sufficient reason in the case where the barrel broke, as [the wine remaining] is still fit to be used, but in the case where the barrel became uncovered, for what use is the wine fit any more? For should you argue that  it is still fit for sprinkling purposes, was it not taught: Water which became uncovered should not even be poured out on public ground, and should neither be used for stamping clay, nor for sprinkling the house,  nor for feeding either one's own animal or the animal of a neighbour?  — He may make it good by using a strainer, in accordance with the view of R. Nehemiah as taught: A strainer  is subject to the law of uncovering;  R. Nehemiah, however, says that this is so only where the receptacle underneath was uncovered, but if the receptacle underneath was covered, though the strainer on top was uncovered the liquid [strained into the receptacle beneath] would not be subject to the law of uncovering as the venom of a serpent resembles a fungus and thus remains floating in its previous position.  But was it not taught  in reference to this that R. Simeon said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that this ruling applies only if it has not been stirred, but if it had been stirred it would be forbidden?  — Even there it is possible [to rectify matters by] putting some [cloth] on the mouth of the barrel and straining the liquid gently through. But if we follow R. Nehemiah, is it permitted to make unclean produce terumah even with respect to other unclean produce? Surely it has been taught: It is permitted to make unclean produce terumah with respect to other unclean produce, or clean produce with respect to other clean produce, but not unclean produce with respect to clean produce,  whereas R. Nehemiah said that unclean produce is not allowed to be made terumah  even with respect to unclean produce except in the case of demai!  — Here also  we are dealing with a case of demai. The Master stated: 'Though in the case of oil he should not do so as he would thereby cause a great loss to the priest'. But why is oil different? Surely because  it can be used for lighting; cannot wine  similarly be used for sprinkling purposes?  And should you argue that sprinkling is not a thing of any consequence, did Samuel not say  in the name of R. Hiyya that for drinking purposes one should pay a sela' per log [of wine], whereas, for sprinkling purposes, two sela's  per log? We are dealing here with fresh wine.  But could it not be kept until it becomes old? — He may happen to use it for a wrong purpose.  But why not also in the case of oil apprehend that he may happen to use it  for a wrong purpose? — We suppose he keeps it in a filthy receptacle.  But why not keep the wine also in a filthy receptacle?  — Since it is needed for sprinkling purposes,  how could it be placed in a filthy receptacle? The apprehension of illicit use  is in itself a point at issue between Tannaim, as taught: If a barrel of terumah wine became unclean, Beth Shammai maintain