We are studying Bava Kamma, chapter 10, Mishnah 4. The topic of the Mishnah before us is a person who sacrifices his own property in order to save his fellow's property. In truth, this concept belongs in Bava Metzia, in the second chapter, which deals with returning lost items, but since it arises here, we will introduce it with a brief background.
Background: Returning a Lost Item and the Rescuer's Expenses:
The mitzvah of returning a lost item: It is a mitzvah from the Torah that one who finds an item his fellow lost is obligated to return it to its owner, and he must do this for free - he is not allowed to charge a fee for the return.
Financial loss of the one returning it: There is a separate rule that if returning it involves a financial loss - for example, he will need to take time off from work and lose his wages - he is permitted not to perform the rescue of the lost item and not to incur expenses.
The amount of compensation: One who nevertheless chooses to absorb the expense is entitled to compensation, but only at the rate of an unemployed worker - like someone earning a minimal wage - and not his full wages. This applies unless he stipulated in advance: "I am taking leave from my work to return your lost item on the condition that I receive full wages" - under such a condition, he has the right to do so.
It is worth noting: Even though a person is not obligated to absorb losses in order to save his fellow's property, it is proper to act beyond the letter of the law and not be exact in this. One who sees his fellow losing something of value, and the rescue involves minimal expense on his part, should make the effort to help him and minimize his loss.
The First Case: The Wine and the Honey:
The Mishnah describes two people walking on the road: "Zeh ba bechavito shel yayin vezeh ba bekado shel devash" - one is carrying a large barrel of wine, and the other is carrying a jug of honey. The honey is much more expensive than the wine, and therefore its value is greater. "Nisdekah chavit shel devash" - a crack forms in the honey vessel (the Mishnah uses the word "jug" and then "barrel", but these are synonymous), and the honey is leaking out, and its owner is going to lose all of it if nothing is done.
What does the owner of the wine do? "Veshafach zeh et yeino vehitzil et hadevash letocho" - he pours all his wine onto the ground, and saves the honey by putting it into the vessel he just emptied. Is the owner of the wine entitled to compensation for the wine he lost? The Mishnah states: "Ein lo ela secharo" - he does not receive compensation for the wine, since it was not his obligation at all, and he chose to act on his own accord. All he is entitled to is payment for his labor and his expenses.
What is his "payment"?
The fair payment is the amount that would be required for these two things: renting such a vessel, and hiring a person to bring the vessel to the location. This is his actual loss, and for this he receives compensation. He absorbs the rest of the loss, since he brought it upon himself and no one asked him to do it.
To clarify matters: If the owner of the honey had not been present, and the owner of the wine had acted on his own initiative, he would indeed be entitled to compensation for his loss. This is because it is a simple assumption that the owner of the honey would have agreed to this under normal circumstances - it is better for him to be left with something rather than nothing. Anytime a person absorbs a loss and we know clearly that this is the owner's desire, he is entitled to compensation. But here the two owners are present together and they could have spoken and reached an agreement between them, and since they did not do so, the owner of the honey can say, "We never agreed to this, and I am not paying you" - and this is his absolute right, since he was there.
"Ve'im amar atzil et shelcha ve'atah noten li demei sheli":
If the owner of the wine said, "I am saving your honey, provided that you pay me for my wine," and the owner of the honey agreed - "chayav liten lo" - by virtue of the agreement between them, the owner of the honey is obligated to pay the owner of the wine, since this is what they agreed upon.
This seems to be obvious, so what is the novel teaching? The novel teaching is learned by comparison to another case: A person walking along the road with an empty barrel sees the owner of the honey in his distress and seeks to take advantage of his moment of pressure, and says to him, "For one hundred, I will lend you my vessel." Even if the owner of the honey agreed, he can say afterward, "They extorted me. I only agreed because I did not want to lose the honey, and this is not a fair deal." A Beis Din will rule that it is indeed unfair, as it is forbidden to exploit another's distress. When a person is in a pressed situation and agrees to pay an exorbitant sum, the owner of the vessel is only entitled to the standard cost of renting a vessel and the wage of a person to transport it.
So, the novel teaching of our Mishnah is that all this applies when the owner of the vessel loses nothing. But here, the owner of the wine suffers a real loss, and therefore his demand for compensation does not constitute extortion at all, and he is entitled to receive it.
The Second Case: The Donkeys:
The Mishnah brings a second case, which is essentially identical to the first: "Shatav nahar chamoro vachamor chaveiro" - a river swept away his donkey and his friend's donkey. There are two people and each has a donkey. The river overflows its banks and sweeps away both donkeys with it. One person can save either of the two donkeys, and his friend is completely unable to act. The question is what the halachah is if the owner of the cheaper donkey abandons his own donkey and saves the expensive one - can he demand compensation?
The principles are the same principles: "Shelo yafeh maneh veshel chaveiro masayim" - his donkey is worth one hundred and his friend's donkey is worth two hundred. "Hiniach zeh es shelo vehitzil es shel chaveiro" - he leaves his donkey to the water and saves his friend's donkey, which is worth two hundred. The halachah is "ein lo ela secharo" - even though he lost an entire donkey, he is only entitled to the amount it would have cost to hire someone to pull the donkey out of the flood, whatever that may be. Just like in the previous case, this was not his obligation but an act beyond the letter of the law, and since both owners were in the same place at the same time and they should have reached an agreement but did not do so, the owner of the expensive donkey is not obligated to compensate him for his loss.
And if they stipulated between them - "Im amar lo ani atzil es shelcha ve'atah nosein li es sheli" - meaning the owner of the cheaper donkey said, "I am only able to save one; I will save yours, whose value is greater, and you will reimburse me for mine," and the other agreed: "Chayav littein lo" - by virtue of the agreement, the owner of the expensive donkey is obligated to compensate the one who gave up his own donkey in order to save his.
Here too, the novel teaching is along the same lines: Had a person acted with extortion - standing on the riverbank and saying, "I see that you do not know how to swim and I do; I will extract your donkey in exchange for one hundred" - which is an exorbitant price, as a normal person would do it for a fraction of that amount, then even if the donkey's owner agreed, this is nothing but extortion. He agreed because he had no choice. If they come to a Beis Din, they will obligate him to pay only the fair wage for someone doing such work, even though he previously agreed to a different amount, since he was under duress at that moment and his agreement is not binding.
The Gemara's Question:
The Gemara asks: Why were both cases taught, the case of the honey and the case of the donkey, when they share the exact same halachah? It answers that there is a difference between them - a difference that does not affect the practical halachah, but one might have thought that it does: In the first case, the person chooses and acts with his own hands, pouring out his wine and sacrificing it intentionally; whereas in the second case, his donkey was lost due to a natural cause and against his will. There was room to mistakenly say that this makes a difference, so the Mishnah comes to teach us that there is no difference between them at all.
In Summary: We learned that a person is not obligated to lose his own property in order to save the property of his friend, and if he did so of his own accord in the presence of the owner - "ein lo ela secharo" - meaning only the cost of the vessel and its transport. If they stipulated between them beforehand - "chayav littein lo" - since the demand for compensation in a place where there is an actual loss is not extortion; whereas one who demands an exorbitant sum from someone in distress, even if the latter agreed, is only entitled to a fair wage. The two cases in the Mishnah - the wine and the honey, and the donkeys - have one halachah, even though in one the loss was done intentionally and in the other against his will.