The Burdensome Beast
‘He Put His Donkey on the Ferryboat’
(Bava Kamma 117b)
Our daf rules that one who damages his fellow’s property or possession in an effort to save his own life is nevertheless obligated to reimburse that damage.
The Gemara (supra 117a) cites the example of an individual who was accosted by highwaymen. In an effort to save his life, he gave the bandits the money of another that was in his possession. Though the money was used to save him from mortal danger, it is nevertheless incumbent on him/her to reimburse the money to its rightful owner.
Similarly, we find a baraitha (supra 116b) that rules in the same manner. A ship encountered stormy waters and the passengers feared for their lives. Seeking to lighten the load, they threw some cargo overboard. Even though this was a case of pikuach nefesh – which we know supersedes Shabbos (Shabbos 132a), nevertheless, the rule is that if one saves his life using the possession of his fellow, he must recompense that loss.
A Rodef?
Our Gemara relates an incident where a man brought his donkey onto a ferryboat, almost causing the boat to capsize. One of the passengers on board threw the donkey overboard.
Abaye initially reasoned that the man (or all the passengers) should compensate the animal’s owner for his loss because, as explained above, one who saves himself with his fellow’s property is required to compensate that loss. Rava, however, ruled that in such a case there is no such obligation since he considered the animal a rodef (lit. a pursuer out to kill).
Rashi (s.v. “malach leh” ad loc.) explains that it is the owner of the donkey who is to be considered the rodef, due to his action of bringing the [wild] donkey aboard.
The Gemara reasons that since it is permitted to kill a rodef to save one’s life, it was certainly permitted to damage the rodef’s property as well, to save the lives of the ship’s passengers.
Chamra – A Cask of Wine
The Rambam (Hilchos Chovel U’Mazik 8:15) in codifying this halacha only mentions a boat overloaded with cargo, and he makes no mention of a donkey. Mirkeves HaMishna suggests, in fact, that Rambam had an alternate text that read “chamra” – meaning [barrels of] wine.
Gerama
The Raavad (to Rambam ad loc.) asks why the owner of the overthrown donkey (or wine) is not entitled to compensation as is the owner of cargo overthrown in the storm (116b, mentioned above).
In answering, the Maggid Mishna (to Rambam ad loc.) explains that in this case the person who brought extra cargo on board is considered a rodef because he endangered the lives of all the passengers.
Therefore, it is a mitzvah to throw his cargo overboard and there is no obligation to pay for it. However, in the case of the stormy sea, the baraitha is not referring to a boat with a standard load that needed to be reduced due to an unexpected storm. In that case, no one on board was guilty of being a rodef and, therefore, all the passengers were responsible for sharing in the expense.
The Raavad (as explained by the Mirkeves HaMishna) is of the opinion that even if someone brought extra cargo on board he is not classified as a rodef since he is only an indirect cause (gerama) of the boat’s sinking, and is not actively sinking the ship with his own hands.
The Raavad is of the opinion that in the case of our Gemara, the donkey was deemed a rodef because it was actively sinking the ship by running and jumping wildly on the ship.
He says that only in the case of a wild donkey does Rava exempt the passengers for throwing it overboard.
