Bava Kamma

a snake coiled round it. He said: 'Snake, snake, open thy mouth  and let the Master go in to the disciple.' But the snake did not open its mouth. He then said: 'Let the colleague go in to [his] associate!' But it still did not open [its mouth, until he said,] 'Let the disciple enter to his Master,' when the snake did open its mouth.  He then prayed for mercy and raised him.  He said to him, 'Had I known that the natural appearance of the Master was like that, I should never have taken offence; now, therefore let the Master go with us.' He replied, 'If you are able to pray for mercy that I should never die again [through causing you any annoyance],  I will go with you, but if not I am not prepared to go with you. For later on you might change again.' R. Johanan thereupon completely awakened and restored him and he used to consult him on doubtful points, R. Kahana solving them for him. This is implied in the statement made by R. Johanan: 'What  I had believed to be yours  was In fact theirs.' There was a certain man who showed a silk  ornament of R. Abba [to heathen ruffians]. R. Abbahu and R. Hanina b. Papi and R. Isaac the Smith were sitting in judgment with R. Elai sitting near them. They were inclined to declare the defendant liable, as we have learnt: Where a judge in deciding [on a certain case], declared innocent the person who was really liable, or made liable the person who was really innocent, declared defiled a thing which was [levitically] clean, or declared clean a thing which was really defiled, his decision would stand, but he would have to make restitution out of his own estate.  Thereupon Elai said to them: Thus stated Rab: provided the defendant  actually took and gave it away with his own hand.  They therefore said to the plaintiff: Go and take your case to R. Simeon b. Eliakim and R. Eleazar b. Pedath who adjudicate liability for damage done by Garmi.  When he went to them they declared the defendant liable on the strength of our Mishnah: IF THIS WAS CAUSED THROUGH THE ROBBER HE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH ANOTHER FIELD, which we intrepreted  to refer to a case where he showed [the field to oppressors]. A certain man had a silver cup which had been deposited with him, and being attacked by thieves he took it and handed it over to them. He was summoned before Rabbah  who declared him exempt. Said Abaye to Rabbah: Was this man not rescuing himself by means of another man's money?  R. Ashi said: We have to consider the circumstances. If he was a wealthy man,  the thieves came [upon him] probably with the intention of stealing his own possessions, but if not, they came for the silver cup. A certain man had a purse  of money for the redemption of captives deposited with him. Being attacked by thieves he took it and handed it over to them. He was thereupon summoned before Raba  who nevertheless declared him exempt. Said Abaye to him: Was not that man rescuing himself by means of another man's money? — He replied: There could hardly be a case of redeeming captives more pressing than this. A certain man managed to get his ass on to a ferry boat before the people in the boat had got out on to shore.  The boat was in danger of sinking, so a certain person came along and pushed that man's ass over in to the river, where it drowned. When the case was brought before Rabbah  he declared him exempt. Said Abaye to him: Was that person not rescuing himself by means of another man's money? — He, however, said to him: The owner of the ass was from the very beginning in the position of a pursuer.  Rabbah follows his own line of reasoning, for Rabbah [elsewhere] said: If a man was pursuing another with the intention of killing him, and in his course broke utensils, whether they belonged to the pursued or to any other person, he would be exempt, for he was at that time  incurring capital liability.  If, however, he who was pursued broke utensils, he would be exempt only if they belonged to the pursuer, whose possessions could surely not be entitled to greater protection than his body,  whereas if they belonged to any other person he would be liable, as it is forbidden to rescue oneself by means of another man's possessions. But if a man ran after a pursuer with the intention of rescuing [some one from him] and [in his course accidentally] broke utensils, whether they belonged to the pursued or to any other person he would be exempt; this,  however, is not a matter of [strict] law, but is based upon the consideration that if you were not to rule thus,  no man would ever put himself out to rescue a fellow-man from the hands of a pursuer. MISHNAH. IF A RIVER FLOODED [A MISAPPROPRIATED FIELD, THE ROBBER] IS ENTITLED TO SAY TO THE OTHER PARTY, 'HERE IS YOURS BEFORE YOU'. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a man robbed another of a field and a river flooded it, he would have to present him with another field. This is the opinion of R. Eleazar  but the Sages maintain that he would be entitled to say to him: 'Here is yours before you.'  What is the ground of their difference? — R. Eleazar expounds [Scripture] on the principle of amplifications and limitations.  [The expression,] And lie unto his neighbour,  is an amplification;  In that which was delivered him to keep …  constitutes a limitation;  Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely  forms again an amplification;  and where an amplification is followed by a limitation which precedes another amplification,  everything is included. What is thus included? All articles. And what is excluded?  Bills.  But the Rabbis expound [Scripture] on the principle of generalisation and specification,  [thus: The expression,] and lie  is a generalisation;  In that which was delivered him to keep …  is a specification;  Or all that [about which he has sworn falsely]  is again a generalisation;  and where a generalisation is followed by a specification that precedes another generalisation  you surely cannot include anything save what is similar to the specification.  So here, just as the specification is an article which is movable and of which the intrinsic value lies in its substance, you include any other matter which is movable and of which the intrinsic value lies in its very substance. Land is thus excluded  as it is not movable; so also are slaves excluded  as they are compared [in law] to lands,  and bills are similarly excluded,  for though they are movables, their substance does not constitute their intrinsic value. But was it not taught: If one misappropriated a cow and a river swept it away, he would have to present him with another cow,  according to the opinion of R. Eleazar, whereas the Sages maintain that he would be entitled to say to him: 'Here is yours before you'?  Now in what principle did they differ there [in the case of the cow]?  — Said R. papa: We are dealing there with a case where, e.g., he robbed a man of a field on which