אין לו אלא שכרו ואם אמר אציל את שלך ואתה נותן לי דמי שלי חייב ליתן לו the owner of the wine has the right to collect only his wage, i.e., compensation for the effort he put into salvaging the honey. He is not, however, entitled to compensation for the wine itself. But if the owner of the wine said: I will salvage your honey and you will pay me the value of my wine, the owner of the honey is obligated to pay him compensation for the wine.
שטף נחל חמורו וחמור חבירו שלו יפה מנה ושל חבירו מאתים והניח זה את שלו והציל את של חבירו אין לו אלא שכרו ואם אמר לו אני אציל את שלך ואתה נותן לי את שלי חייב ליתן לו: Similarly, if a river washed away his donkey and the donkey of another, and his donkey was worth one hundred dinars and the donkey of the other was worth two hundred, and the individual with the less valuable donkey abandoned his donkey and instead salvaged the donkey of the other, he has the right to collect only his wage, i.e., compensation for the effort he put into salvaging his fellow’s donkey. But if he said to the owner of the more valuable donkey: I will salvage your donkey and you will pay me the monetary value of mine in exchange, the owner of the more valuable donkey is obligated to pay the rescuer compensation for his donkey.
גמ׳ ואמאי לימא ליה מהפקירא קא זכינא מי לא תניא הרי שהיה טעון כדי יין וכדי שמן וראה שהן משתברות לא יאמר הרי זה תרומה ומעשר על פירות שיש לי בתוך ביתי ואם אמר לא אמר כלום GEMARA: And why does one who pours out wine have the right to collect only this wage? Let him say to the owner of the honey: I have acquired your honey from ownerless property. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who was laden with jugs of wine and jugs of oil and saw that they were breaking and their contents were leaking out should not say: This is hereby separated as teruma and tithe for the produce that I have in my house. And even if he said this, it is as though he did not say anything. The fact that one cannot separate produce that is about to be lost as teruma or tithe indicates that such property is considered ownerless.
כדא"ר ירמיה כשעקל בית הבד כרוך עליה ה"נ כשעקל בית הבד כרוך עליה The Gemara answers that it is as Rabbi Yirmeya says in a different context, that the ruling discussed there is referring to a case where the basket of the olive press was wrapped around it so that the barrel would not break completely, and some of the contents would remain inside. So too, here, the mishna issued its ruling only when the basket of the olive press was wrapped around the honey barrel so that it would not break completely, and the contents are therefore not rendered ownerless.
ואם אמר לא אמר כלום והתניא מי שבא בדרך ומעות בידו ואנס כנגדו לא יאמר הרי פירות שיש לי בתוך ביתי מחוללים על מעות הללו ואם אמר דבריו קיימין The Gemara challenges the baraita that stated: And even if he said that the wine or oil is separated as teruma or tithe, it is as though he did not say anything. But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: If one was traveling on the road and had money in his possession, and he saw a ruffian moving toward him, he should not say: The second-tithe produce that I have in my house is hereby desacralized onto these coins, i.e., the sanctity of the produce is hereby transferred to the coins. But if he said so, his statement stands, and the produce is desacralized while the coins attain the sanctity of the second tithe.
הכא במאי עסקינן בשיכול להציל אי בשיכול להציל לכתחלה אמאי לא יאמר בשיכול להציל על ידי הדחק The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he is capable of saving his money from the ruffian and that is why he may transfer the sanctity of the second tithe to the coins. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where he is capable of saving the money, why should he not say that the produce should be desacralized ab initio? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he is capable of saving the money only with difficulty. Consequently, he should not transfer the sanctity of the second tithe to the coins, as it may be lost; but if he does so, the transfer takes effect, as it is not certain that the money will be lost.
וכל היכא דאיכא הפסידא לכתחלה לא יאמר והתניא הרי שהיו לו עשר חביות של טבל טמא וראה אחת מהן שנשברה או שנתגלתה אומר הרי היא תרומת מעשר על תשע חברותיה ובשמן לא יעשה כן מפני הפסד כהן The Gemara asks: And is it so that wherever there is a potential loss one should not say that the sanctity is transferred to the money ab initio? But isn’t it taught otherwise in the following baraita: If one had ten barrels of ritually impure, untithed wine, i.e., first-tithe wine from which the teruma of the tithe had not yet been separated, and he saw that one of them had broken and that its contents were leaking out, or that it had been exposed and is forbidden for consumption, he may say: This barrel is hereby separated as the teruma of the tithe for the other nine barrels. But with regard to oil, he should not do so due to the priest’s loss.
א"ר ירמיה כשעקל בית הבד כרוך עליה בשלמא שנשברה חזיא אלא נתגלתה למאי חזיא The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yirmeya said: The baraita issued its ruling only when the basket of the olive press was wrapped around the barrel so that some of its contents would remain inside. The Gemara asks: Granted, this rationale applies to a barrel that was broken, as the remaining contents are still fit for use, but with regard to a barrel that was exposed, for what use is it fit?
וכ"ת חזיא לזילוף והתניא מים שנתגלו הרי זה לא ישפכם ברשות הרבים ולא יגבל בהן את הטיט ולא ירבץ בהן את הבית ולא ישקה מהם את בהמתו ולא בהמת חבירו And if you would say that the exposed wine is fit for sprinkling, in order to spread its pleasant aroma, isn’t it taught otherwise in the following baraita? With regard to water that was exposed, one may not pour it out in the public domain, nor mix clay with it, nor settle dust with it by sprinkling it in a house, nor give it to his animal to drink, nor give it to the animal of another. This proves that exposed liquids may not be used even for sprinkling.
דעבר לה במסננת כר' נחמיה דתניא מסננת יש בה משום גילוי אמר רבי נחמיה אימתי בזמן שהתחתונה מגולה אבל בזמן שהתחתונה מכוסה אף על פי שהעליונה מגולה אין בה משום גילוי לפי שארס של נחש דומה לספוג וצף ועומד במקומו The Gemara answers: The wine is fit for use because he passed it through a strainer, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, as it is taught in a baraita: A vessel covered with a strainer is subject to the halakha of exposure if the vessel is left unsupervised. Rabbi Neḥemya said: When is this so? It is so when the lower vessel, in which the liquid collects after passing through the strainer, is exposed. But when the lower vessel is covered, even if the upper vessel is exposed, it is not subject to the halakha of exposure, because the venom of a snake is like a sponge in that it floats and stays in place.
לאו איתמר עלה א"ר סימון אריב"ל לא שנו אלא שלא טרקו אבל טרקו אסור The Gemara questions this explanation: Wasn’t it stated with regard to Rabbi Neḥemya’s ruling that Rabbi Simon says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: They taught Rabbi Neḥemya’s ruling only where one did not mix it, but if one mixed the wine, any venom found in it becomes capable of penetrating the strainer? Consequently, the wine remains forbidden even if it is passed through a strainer.
התם נמי אפשר דמנח מידי אפומא דחביתא דשפי ליה The Gemara answers: There, too, it is possible to prevent the venom from mixing with the wine by placing something upon the mouth of a barrel that will filter it slowly so that the venom will not penetrate the strainer, and the wine may therefore be used.
ורבי נחמיה (מטמא אטמא) מי תרמינן It has now been established that the baraita, which states that if one’s barrel of untithed, impure wine is breaking, he may separate it as teruma of the tithe for other barrels of untithed, impure wine, may be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Neḥemya, may we separate teruma from impure produce for other impure produce?
והתניא תורמין מן הטמא על הטמא ומן הטהור על הטהור ומן הטהור על הטמא אבל לא מן הטמא על הטהור ר' נחמיה אומר אף מן הטמא על הטמא לא התירו לתרום אלא בשל דמאי הכא נמי בשל דמאי But isn’t it taught in another baraita: One may separate teruma from produce that is impure for other produce that is impure, and from produce that is pure for other produce that is pure, and from produce that is pure for produce that is impure, but not from produce that is impure for produce that is pure. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Even with regard to separating from produce that is impure for produce that is impure, the Sages permitted one to separate teruma in this manner only in the case of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. Consequently, how can the aforementioned baraita unequivocally permit one to separate impure wine as teruma of the tithe for other impure wine? The Gemara answers: Here too, in the baraita, it is discussing a case of demai.
אמר מר ובשמן לא יעשה כן מפני הפסד כהן מאי שנא שמן דראוי להדליק יין נמי ראוי לזילוף וכי תימא זילוף לאו מילתא היא והאמר שמואל משום רבי חייא שותין מלוג בסלע ומזלפין מלוג בשתים The Gemara discusses the continuation of the baraita cited previously: The Master said in the baraita: But with regard to oil, he should not do so, due to the priest’s loss. The Gemara asks: What is different about a leaking barrel of impure oil, which one may not separate as teruma, because if he does so the priest will suffer a loss? That case is different because the impure teruma oil is fit to be used to kindle a fire, and the priest will now not receive that oil. The Gemara challenges: But wine is also fit to be used, as the priest is able to sprinkle it in order to impart a pleasant aroma. Why is there is no concern that the priest will suffer a loss? And if you would say that sprinkling is nothing, i.e., it is insignificant, doesn’t Shmuel say in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: One drinks from a log of wine worth one sela, and one sprinkles from a log of wine worth two sela, which indicates that there is greater benefit in sprinkling wine than in drinking it?
הכא במאי עסקינן בחדש והא ראוי לישנו אתי ביה לידי תקלה The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with new wine that has not yet developed an aroma and is therefore not fit for sprinkling. The Gemara counters: But isn’t it fit to allow it to age so that it will become fit for sprinkling? The Gemara responds: If one waits for it to age, he might come to experience a mishap with it, as he will forget that it is impure teruma, which is forbidden for consumption.
שמן נמי אתי ביה לידי תקלה דמנח בכלי מאוס יין נמי מנח ליה בכלי מאוס השתא לזילוף קא בעי ליה בכלי מאוס קא מנח ליה The Gemara asks: Oil should also be subject to the concern that one might come to experience a mishap with it, as he might forget that it is forbidden and mistakenly drink it. The Gemara explains: The halakha is that the priest must place the oil in a foul vessel, and there is no concern that he will consume it, as such oil is used only for kindling. The Gemara asks: Let the wine also be placed in a foul vessel, in which case there would be no concern that he would drink it. The Gemara responds: Now that he desires to use it for sprinkling, would he place it in a foul vessel? This would ruin its aroma. Consequently, the wine may not be kept due to concern over a possible mishap, while the oil may be kept.
ותקלה עצמה תנאי היא דתניא חבית של יין של תרומה שנטמאת בית שמאי אומרים The Gemara notes: And the concern with regard to a mishap itself is a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that became impure and is therefore forbidden for consumption, Beit Shammai say: