Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : to bring cabbage and plums to an ill person, and he went and found that the patient had already died or recovered, the employer nevertheless gives the worker his entire wage. Evidently, one is paid for his efforts even if the desired result is not accomplished. Accordingly, the rescuer’s stipulation should apply, and one should be obligated to pay another for attempting to salvage his donkey even if he did not actually succeed in doing so.
לְהָבִיא כְּרוּב וְדוּרְמַסְקָנִין לַחוֹלֶה, וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ שֶׁהִבְרִיא – נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מִשָּׁלֵם!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Are those two cases comparable? There, in the case of the ill person, the agent performed his assignment, as he procured and delivered the foods to the ill person, but here, in the case of the donkeys, the agent did not perform his assignment, as he was unable to rescue the animal from the river.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם עָבֵיד שָׁלִיחַ שְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ, הָכָא לָא עָבֵיד שָׁלִיחַ שְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § Apropos the episode involving Rav Safra, the Gemara discusses the division of expenses among travelers in a caravan. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a caravan that was traveling in the desert and a troop of bandits stood over it in order to attack and pillage it, and the members of the caravan agreed to pay ransom to the bandits, they calculate each traveler’s contribution according to the amount of money he is carrying, and they do not calculate according to the number of souls in the caravan, i.e., the expense is not divided equally among the travelers.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁיָירָא שֶׁהָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְעָמַד עָלֶיהָ גַּיִיס לְטוֹרְפָהּ – מְחַשְּׁבִין לְפִי מָמוֹן, וְאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין לְפִי נְפָשׁוֹת.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : But if they hired a scout who travels in front of them and leads them safely through the desert, the travelers calculate each one’s contribution to paying the scout’s wages even according to the number of souls. And they should not differ from the usual custom of donkey drivers, who often have set procedures for such situations.
וְאִם שָׂכְרוּ תַּיָּיר הַהוֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם – מְחַשְּׁבִין אַף לְפִי נְפָשׁוֹת; וְלֹא יְשַׁנּוּ מִמִּנְהַג הַחַמָּרִין.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The donkey drivers are permitted to stipulate that with regard to anyone whose donkey becomes lost, the caravan will provide him with a different donkey. If the donkey was lost through negligence, they do not provide him with another donkey, but if it was lost not through negligence, they provide him with another donkey. And if the individual whose donkey became lost said: Give me money instead of the donkey and I will guard the caravan along with everyone else, they do not listen to him.
רַשָּׁאִין הַחַמָּרִין לְהַתְנוֹת שֶׁכׇּל מִי שֶׁיֹּאבַד לוֹ חֲמוֹרוֹ נַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר. בְּכוּסְיָא – אֵין מַעֲמִידִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּכוּסְיָא – מַעֲמִידִין לוֹ. וְאִם אָמַר: ״תְּנוּ לִי, וַאֲנִי אֶשְׁמוֹר״ – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? No, it is necessary to teach this for a case where he already has another donkey, lest you say that he will guard the caravan for its sake. Since he still owns one donkey, he never lost his incentive to guard the caravan, and the other drivers should therefore give him money if he wishes. The baraita therefore teaches us that guarding one donkey is different from guarding two donkeys, and the driver will be more likely to guard the caravan properly if they supply him with another donkey.
פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא אַחֲרִינָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָא קָא מְינַטַּר לֵיהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – שָׁאנֵי נְטִירוּתָא דְחַד מִנְּטִירוּתָא דְבֵי תְרֵי.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The Gemara cites another baraita that discusses the division of expenses among a group. The Sages taught: In a case of a boat that was traveling on the sea when a gale arose and threatened to sink it, and the sailors lightened its load by throwing some of their belongings overboard, the sailors calculate the amount that each must throw out according to weight, but they do not calculate it according to how much money the items are worth. And they should not differ from the usual custom of sailors.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סְפִינָה שֶׁהָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בַּיָּם; עָמַד עָלֶיהָ נַחְשׁוֹל לְטוֹבְעָהּ, וְהֵקֵילּוּ מִמַּשָּׂאָהּ – מְחַשְּׁבִין לְפִי מַשּׂאוֹי, וְאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין לְפִי מָמוֹן; וְלֹא יְשַׁנּוּ מִמִּנְהַג הַסַּפָּנִים.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And if a number of boats are traveling together, the sailors are permitted to stipulate that with regard to anyone whose boat was lost, the others will provide him with a different boat. If his boat was lost through negligence, the other sailors do not provide him with another boat, but if it was lost not through negligence, the sailors provide him with another boat. And if the boat sailed to a place where the boats do not travel, the other sailors do not provide him with a different boat.
וְרַשָּׁאִין הַסַּפָּנִים לְהַתְנוֹת, שֶׁכׇּל מִי שֶׁאָבְדָה לוֹ סְפִינָה נַעֲמִיד לוֹ סְפִינָה אַחֶרֶת. אָבְדָה לוֹ בְּכוּסְיָא – אֵין מַעֲמִידִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּכוּסְיָא – מַעֲמִידִין לוֹ. וְאִי פֵּירַשׁ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַסְּפִינוֹת הוֹלְכִין – אֵין מַעֲמִידִין.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary because in the month of Nisan, the boats distance themselves from the shore by one rope length, and in the month of Tishrei, they distance themselves by two rope lengths. And in this case, the boat was traveling during Nisan and sailed to the place where boats sail during Tishrei. Lest you say that the sailor is not considered negligent because he is taking his usual route and traveling as he is accustomed to, the baraita teaches us that his actions are considered negligent.
פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּבְנִיסָן מְרַחֲקִי חַד אַשְׁלָא, וּבְתִשְׁרִי מְרַחֲקִי תְּרֵי אַשְׁלֵי, וְקָא אָזֵיל בְּיוֹמֵי נִיסָן לִמְקוֹם תִּשְׁרֵי; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: דַּוְושֵׁיהּ נָקֵיט וְאָזֵיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case of a caravan that was traveling in the desert and a troop of bandits stood over it and pillaged it, and one of the travelers arose and rescued the caravan from the bandits, he has rescued the property for the common good, i.e., each member of the caravan receives back his property. And if he stated: I will rescue the property from the bandits for myself, then he has effectively rescued the items for himself, and he is now the legal owner of all the property.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁיָירָא שֶׁהָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בַּמִּדְבָּר וְעָמַד גַּיִיס וּטְרָפָהּ, וְעָמַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְהִצִּיל – הִצִּיל לָאֶמְצַע. וְאִם אָמַר: ״אֲנִי אַצִּיל לְעַצְמִי״ – הִצִּיל לְעַצְמוֹ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If each member of the caravan is able to rescue his property, then even in the latter clause, where the rescuer states that he is saving the property for himself, the halakha should also be that the possessions are rescued for the common good, as the other members of the caravan did not despair of retrieving their property. And if each member of the caravan is unable to rescue his property, they despair of retrieving their property and relinquish ownership of it. Consequently, even in the first clause, the halakha should also be that the possessions are saved for himself, so that he is their legal owner. Why is there a discrepancy between the halakha in the first clause and the halakha in the latter clause?
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל, אֲפִילּוּ סֵיפָא נָמֵי לָאֶמְצַע! וְאִי דְּלֹא יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל, אֲפִילּוּ רֵישָׁא נָמֵי לְעַצְמוֹ!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: Rami bar Ḥama said: Here, in the case of the baraita, we are dealing with a caravan whose members are partners and jointly own the confiscated property, and in a case such as this, a partner may divide the property without the other partner’s consent. Therefore, if he said that he intends to save the property for himself, he has dissolved the partnership and divided the property so that if he is able to rescue only some of the property, the property he rescues is his share of the joint property. If he did not say that he intends to save the property for himself, he has not divided the property, and whatever he rescues is jointly owned by the partners.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הָכָא בְּשׁוּתָּפִין עָסְקִינַן, וּכְגוֹן זֶה – שׁוּתָּף חוֹלֵק שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת חֲבֵירוֹ; אֲמַר – פָּלֵיג, לָא אֲמַר – לָא פָּלֵיג.