Siman 181

A caravan traveling in the desert and bandits stood over them and plundered them, and each of them had merchandise and items and they were not partners—if they are unable to rescue from their hand and one of them stood and rescued, he has rescued for himself, even though he did not say "I am rescuing for myself" [Tur]. And even if he rescued what was not his, because the owners desisted and it became ownerless, and whoever comes first acquires it. And even if the owners of the items were not here, it is not considered "despair without knowledge," for this is like a lost object swept away by a river, which is permitted even with despair without knowledge, as has been explained in siman 259 [Netivot HaMishpat]. But if it was within their power to rescue and one of them preceded and rescued the property of others, even though he said "I am rescuing for myself," he returns them to the owners. And even if he rescued the property of others and did not rescue his own, the others take theirs and his is lost [Sma]. And even if they remained silent at the time he said he was rescuing for himself, it is nothing, for why should they cry out because of his statement? And behold, this is like one who enters the house of his fellow and takes, for his actions are nothing. And such is the law regarding a fire [it appears to me].

And if the owners were able to rescue through great effort, if he rescued without specification, he returns it to the owners and each one takes his own [Levush]. And if he said in the presence of the owners, "I am rescuing for myself," and the owners remained silent, behold, he rescues for himself; for since they heard from him that he would take it for himself, they should not have remained silent, and they should have exerted themselves and rescued. Since they did not do so, they presumably despaired. And if the owners were not present, he must return it to them; even though it would have been lost by the time they arrived, nevertheless, it is "despair without knowledge," and we establish that it is not considered despair. And if the owners are present and he said, "I am rescuing for myself," and the owners answered, "We will rescue for ourselves," but they sat and did not perform an action to rescue, there is nothing to their words; since they did not go down to rescue and the rescue requires great effort, these are empty words and they have despaired [as is evident from the language of the poskim and from Rashi, Bava Kamma 116b, s.v. Rav Ashi amar].

If there were two partners and one of them rescued the merchandise of the partnership, what he rescued, he rescued for the middle, and they divide it between them, whether his fellow was able to rescue or whether he was not able to rescue, for it is the way of partners to exert effort one for the sake of his fellow; and since he did not say "I am rescuing for myself," certainly his intent was for the partnership. But if he said in his presence, "I am rescuing for myself," the partnership is divided regarding these matters; and even though a partner may not divide without the knowledge of his fellow when the time has not arrived, nevertheless, in a case such as this where there is a sudden loss, he may divide without his knowledge, and what he rescued, he rescued for himself up to his portion—for why did the partner not risk his life to rescue as well? And if he rescued more than his portion: if his partner was able to rescue, he did not despair, and the remainder beyond his portion belongs to the partner; and if he was not able to rescue, he has surely despaired, and it all belongs to him, as has been written in the previous seifim. And if there are no witnesses in the matter, and the rescuer claims that he said in the presence of his partner, "I am rescuing for myself," and the partner denies him, the rescuer swears a shevuat hesset and keeps it for himself if he has a migo of "the matter never occurred" or "I returned it to you." But when he has no migo, such as where there are witnesses that they are partners in this and they saw the merchandise in his possession, he is not believed with an oath [Netivot HaMishpat], for the merchandise of partners is in the hazakah of the partners even when they are in the possession of one of them, as has been written in siman 179, and he is not believed to take with an oath. And if the partner was not here, an utterance is not required, and it is sufficient if he thought in his heart that he is rescuing for himself [Bach], and he swears that he thought so in his heart, for regarding a partner one swears even on a claim of doubt [ibid.]. And even though matters of the heart are not matters, nevertheless, in a sudden loss they are matters if he only thought so in his heart, and it is a great estimation that when he thought so, he intended to divide [Netivot HaMishpat].

And similarly, one who hires a worker to rescue, everything that he rescues belongs to the owner. And if the worker said, "I am rescuing for myself," and the object is completely lost such that the owners were not able to rescue it, he may retract his hiring, and what he rescued, he rescued for himself, for a worker may retract as has been written in siman 333. And this specifically applies to a day laborer, but if he was a contractor, whom he did not hire by the day but rather to rescue these goods in general, if there was no kinyan he may retract, and with a kinyan he may not retract, as has been written there [Netivot HaMishpat]. But as long as he did not retract, we say that he rescued for the owners. And if the worker says that he retracted and the owners contradict him, if there are no witnesses in the matter, they are in the possession of the owners and the worker is not believed even with an oath. And if the worker has a migo of "the things never happened" or "I returned it," he is believed with an oath. And if he must retract in the presence of the owners who hired him, it appears that if it was completely lost, his retraction is effective even not in the presence of the owners. But if they were able to rescue even with difficulty, his retraction is not effective not in their presence, for the owners can say, "Had we known that you would retract, we would have exerted ourselves to rescue it ourselves and we would not have relied upon you; and we hired you so that you would rescue for us and we relied upon you that you would not commit an injustice to change from that which you agreed" [it appears to me]. And let it not be difficult for you regarding what has been explained in this siman, that there is a distinction between when they were not able to rescue at all and when they were able to rescue with difficulty—and how do you find a case where they were not able to rescue at all, for behold, this one stood and rescued them? For it can be said, for example, that according to the owners' strength it was an impossibility that they would rescue in a place of such danger, and this rescuer's strength is greater than the owners' and he risked his life and rescued them.

From all that has been explained, one can learn regarding all types of sudden occurrences in the world, such as the sinking of ships and rescue from fire and all types of tribulations, may Hashem protect His people Israel: