Tana'im argue about whether or not we are concerned for a pitfall.

(Beraisa - Beis Shamai): If a barrel of Terumah wine became Tamei, we spill it all out;

Beis Hillel say, it may be used to sprinkle on the floor.

R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi: I will be Machri'a (give an intermediate opinion; the Halachah always follows the Machri'a):

Version #1: If it became Tamei in the house, he may sprinkle it (for he need not delay). If it became Tamei in the field, he spills it out (lest there be a pitfall before he brings it to the house to sprinkle).

Version #2: If old wine became Tamei, he may sprinkle it. If the wine was new (it is not yet ready for sprinkling), he spills it out.

Chachamim: You are not a Machri'a, since Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not distinguish (between the house and the field, or between new and old).

(Mishnah): If Levi said, I will save your (honey... Yehudah must pay for his wine).

Question: Why can't Yehudah say 'I was only joking!'?

(Beraisa): If Reuven was fleeing from jail, and he told the ferryman 'I will give you a Dinar to take me to the other side', he need pay only the standard fare.

This is because he can say 'I was only joking! We should say the same here!

Answer: Our case is like the Seifa;

(Seifa): If he said 'take a Dinar for your wages', he must pay the full wage.

Question: What is the difference between this and when he said 'I will give you a Dinar'?

Answer (Rami bar Chama): The Seifa discusses a ferryman who was taking fish from the sea. By crossing the river, he lost a Dinar's worth of fish.

(Mishnah): A flooding river overcame their donkeys; Reuven's was worth 100...

The Mishnah needed to teach both cases;

Had it taught only about wine, one might have thought that only there he is compensated for his loss when he stipulated, for he actively caused his own loss (he spilled out the wine);

Had it taught only about donkeys, one might have thought that only here he is not fully compensated unless he stipulated, for his loss came by itself.

Question (Rav Kahana): If Reuven stipulated that he will save Shimon's donkey and be compensated for his own, and he went to save Shimon's, and his own donkey came to safety by itself, what is the law?

Answer (Rav): Hash-m was gracious (to give Reuven a gift). Shimon must pay like he agreed.

This is like Rav Safra's case;

Rav Safra was in a caravan; a lion accompanied them. Each night, a member of the caravan would give his donkey to the lion, and the lion ate it.

On Rav Safra's night, the lion did not eat the donkey; Rav Safra made an acquisition on the donkey.

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Why did he need to make an acquisition? He only made it Hefker for the lion, not for others!

Answer (Ravina): Really, no acquisition was needed. Rav Safra did so lest someone contest him.

Question (Rav): If Reuven stipulated that he will save Shimon's donkey and be compensated, and he was unable to save it, what is the law?

Answer (Rebbi): This is obvious! He only receives the normal wage for his exertion.

Question (Rav - Beraisa): If Levi hired Yehudah to bring cabbage and plums to a sick person, and by the time he brought it, the patient died or recovered, Yehudah gets his full wage.

Answer (Rebbi): There, Yehudah fulfilled his mission. Regarding the donkey, he did not.

(Beraisa): If a caravan was traveling in the wilderness; a troop was about to despoil it. The troop agreed to take a sum of money instead. Members of the caravan pay according to their wealth (since there was no mortal danger);

If they hired a guide, for this they may pay a fixed amount per person (since getting lost is mortal danger). They adhere to the custom of donkey- drivers.

Donkey-drivers may stipulate that anyone who loses a donkey, will get another donkey, but not if it was lost through negligence.

If he says 'give to me the money for a donkey, and I will buy it', we do not accede (lest he not buy it).

Objection: This is obvious! (The whole agreement is s that he will be motivated to guard well.)

Answer: This is a Chidush when he already has a donkey;

One might have thought that he will guard well in any case. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. He will guard better if he has two donkeys.

(Beraisa): If a storm was about to sink a ship, and the passengers were throwing things overboard to lighten the ship, they must throw equal weights, regardless of the value. They stick to the custom of ship-drivers.

Ship-drivers may stipulate that anyone who loses a ship will get another ship, but not if it was lost through negligence;

If he went to a part of the river where ships do not go, he does not get another ship.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: The case is, he went in spring (when the river is overflowing) to a part of the river normally traveled in fall (when the water level is low). One might have thought that he adopted a normal course. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): If a caravan was traveling in the wilderness, and a troop despoiled it, and a member of the caravan saved some of what the troop took, everyone gets back his own things;

If he told them that he is saving for himself, he keeps it all.

Question: What is the case?

If the others can also save, why should his declaration help?

If they cannot save, why does he need to declare?

Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): The case is, they were partners. In case as this, a partner can divide the property by himself;

Unless he said that he is saving for himself, they are still partners.

Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, the one who saved was working for the caravan. The Tana holds like Rav, that a worker can quit his job in the middle;

Until he says he is quitting, he acts on their behalf;

When he said that he is saving for himself, he acquires for himself from Hefker.

"To Me (Hash-m) Bnei Yisrael are slaves." They are not slaves of slaves (therefore, a worker can quit when he wants).

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The case is, the others could have saved with difficulty.

If he never said that he saves for himself, they did not despair of their property;

If he said that he saves for himself, and they did not protest, this shows that they despaired of their property.

(Mishnah): If Reuven stole Shimon's field, and extortionists stole it from Reuven:

If extortionists are taking fields from everyone, Reuven can say 'your field is still there';

If they took it due to Reuven, he must give another field to Shimon.

(Gemara) - Question: What is the case when they took it due to Reuven?

If they took only Reuven's field, the Reisha teaches this! He is exempt only if everyone is afflicted!

Version #1 - Answer: The case is, Reuven never stole the field, he merely showed it to Sheluchim of the king who were looking to take land.

Version #2 - Answer: The case is, Nochrim forced Reuven to show them his fields. He also showed them the field he stole from Shimon.

A case occurred in which Levi showed a pile of wheat of the Reish Galusa (to extortionists). Rav Nachman obligated him to pay.

Rav Huna bar Chiya: Was this letter of the law, or a fine?

Rav Nachman: This is the law of our Mishnah. If they took it due to Reuven, he must give another field to Shimon. We established this to be when Reuven showed it (to people who would take it).

Rav Yosef (to Rav Huna): What difference does it make if it was letter of the law, or a fine?

Rav Huna: If it was letter of the law, one may learn to other cases. If it was a fine, one may not.