Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/181

Paragraph 1- If a caravan was travelling in the desert and a thief attacked them and seized their items and they cannot rescue them and one of the members went ahead and rescued, whatever he rescued belongs to him. If they are able to rescue and one member went ahead and rescued, even if he said he is rescuing solely for himself, anything he rescues would belong to the pot and everyone would take that which belongs to him. If they are only able to rescue with much difficulty, any rescue would go to the pot unless one rescuer said he is only rescuing for himself, in which chase he would rescue for himself because since the others heard him say he is rescuing for himself they should have made the effort to rescue. Because they sat back and did not rescue, it is as if they gave up hope on everything.

Paragraph 2- If there were two partners and one rescued he will have rescued for the pot. If he says he is rescuing for himself, he has split from his partner and can rescue for himself up to the amount that he would receive as his portion. If he rescues more than that, however, it would belong to both of them. This is only where they are able to rescue. If they are not able to rescue, however, everything would belong the rescuer. See above 176:28. If the rescuer claims he said he is rescuing for himself and has no witnesses, he would take an oath that he said it and retain the items for himself.

Paragraph 3- Similarly, if one hires an employee to rescue, whatever he rescues belongs to the employer. If the employee says he is rescuing for himself, he has retracted from the employment arrangement, and anyone who rescues would be able to keep what he rescues.