Bava Kamma

that the whole of it must immediately be poured out, whereas Beth Hillel maintain that it could be used for sprinkling purposes. R. Ishmael b. Jose  said: I will suggest a compromise: [If it was already] in the house it might be used for sprinkling purposes, but [if it was still] in the field it would have to be poured out entirely,  or as some say: If it was old it might be used for sprinkling purposes, but if it was fresh it should be poured out entirely. They rejoined to him:  A compromise based on an independent  reasoning cannot be accepted. 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]. But why should the other party not say to him [subsequently], 'I am merely jesting with you'?  Surely it was taught: If a man running away from prison came to a ferry and said to the boatman, 'Take a denar to ferry me across,' he would still have to pay him not more than the value of his services.  This shows that he is entitled to say, 'I was merely jesting with you'? Why then also here should he not be entitled to say to him, 'I was merely jesting with you'? — The comparison is rather with the case dealt with in the concluding clause: But if he said to him, 'Take this denar as your fee for ferrying me across,' he would have to pay him the sum stipulated in full. But why this difference between the case in the first clause and that in the second clause? — Said Rami b. Hama: [In the second clause] the other party was a fisher catching fishes from the sea in which case he can surely say to him, 'You caused me to lose fish amounting in value to a zuz.' SO ALSO IF A RIVER SWEPT AWAY HIS ASS AND ANOTHER MAN'S ASS, HIS ASS BEING WORTH A MANE HAND THE OTHER'S ASS TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, etc. [Both cases] had to be [stated]. For had we only the former case,  we might think that it was only there where a stipulation was made that the payment should be for the whole value [of the wine], since its owner sustained the loss by direct act of his own hands,  whereas here  where the loss came of itself  it might have been said that [in all circumstances] he would have no more than the value of his services. So also if we had had only the second case, we might have thought that it was only here,  where no stipulation was made, that he would have no more than the value of his services, since the loss came of itself,  whereas in the other case,  where the loss was sustained through his own act,  I might have said that even where no stipulation was made the payment would have to be for the whole value [of the honey]. It was therefore necessary [to state both cases]. R. Kahana asked Rab: What would be the law if the owner [of the inferior ass] went down to rescue the other's ass [with the stipulation of being paid the value of his own ass], and it so happened that his own ass got out by itself? — He replied: This was surely an act of mercy towards him on the part of Heaven.  A similar case happened with R. Safra when he was going along with a caravan. A lion followed them  and they had every evening to abandon to it [in turn] an ass of each of them which it ate. When the turn  of R. Safra came and he gave it his ass, the lion did not eat it. R. Safra immediately hastened to take possession of it. Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Why was it necessary for him to take possession of it again? For though he had [implicitly] abandoned it, he surely had abandoned it only with respect to the lion, whereas with respect to anybody else in the world he certainly had not abandoned it at all.  He replied: R. Safra did it as an extra precaution. Rab asked Rabbi: What would be the law where he went down to rescue [the more valuable ass] but did not succeed in rescuing it? — He replied: Is this a question? He would surely have no more than the value of his services. An objection was raised: 'If a labourer was hired