If a money changer mistakenly tells a customer that a coin is valid and causes a loss to the customer, is the money changer responsible for reimbursing for the loss? If the money changer is a real professional, then he/she is exempt but if not, he/she is responsible. However, Rabbi Chiya reimbursed a woman for her loss based on his mistake, even though he was a professional as he decided to go beyond the letter of the law (lifnim meshurat hadin). There is a case with Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish and Reish Lakish explains to Rabbi Elazar that he is relying on his valuation of the coin. If Rabbi Elazar made a mistake, he would need to reimburse Reish Lakish as this would be a case of garmi, and Reish Lakish held by Rabbi Meir who obligates one for garmi-type damages. Where can we find Rabbi Meir’s ruling on garmi? Four different sources are suggested – only the last is accepted as the answer. The Mishna discusses three different cases where the dyer did something different from what the customer asked – burned, did a poor job, or colored it the wrong color. What is the halakha in each case?
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Bava Kamma 100
בֵּית חַיֵּיהֶם. ״אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ״ – זוֹ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. ״יֵלְכוּ״ – זוֹ בִּיקּוּר חוֹלִים. ״בָּהּ״ – זוֹ קְבוּרָה. ״אֶת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה״ – זֶה הַדִּין. ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן״ – זוֹ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.
the core of their existence, i.e., Torah study, which is the source of life. “The way”; this is referring to acts of kindness. “They must walk”; this is referring to visiting the sick. “Wherein”; this is referring to the burial of the dead. “The work”; this is referring to conducting oneself in accordance with the law. “That they must do”; this is referring to conducting oneself beyond the letter of the law. This indicates that the Torah mandates that people conduct themselves beyond the letter of the law.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַחְוִי לֵיהּ דִּינָרָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אֲמַר: מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי דַּעֲלָךְ קָא סָמַכְינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי סָמְכַתְּ עֲלַי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא, דְּאִי מִשְׁתְּכַח בִּישָׁא – בָּעֵינָא לְאַיחְלוֹפֵי לָךְ? וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הוּא, דְּדָאֵין דִּינָא דִּגְרָמֵי. מַאי, לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר – וְלָא סְבִירָא לַן כְּווֹתֵיהּ?
The Gemara relates: Reish Lakish presented a dinar to Rabbi Elazar so that the latter would assess it. Rabbi Elazar said: It is a proper coin. Reish Lakish said to him: Realize that I am relying on you. Rabbi Elazar said to him: What is the purpose of stating that you are relying on me? Is it so that if this dinar is later found to be bad, I will be required to exchange it for you with a good dinar? But it is you who said that it is Rabbi Meir who is of the opinion that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action, even if he did not directly cause damage to the property. What, is it not that you intended to say: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but we do not hold in accordance with his opinion?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר – וּסְבִירָא לַן כְּווֹתֵיהּ.
Reish Lakish said to him: No, I intended to say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and we do hold in accordance with his opinion.
הֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר (ד׳ ל׳ מ׳ פ׳ סִימָן)
The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Meir is Rabbi Elazar referring to? If we say it is this statement of Rabbi Meir, that is difficult. Parenthetically, the Gemara states that the letters dalet, lamed, mem, peh serve as a mnemonic device for the four statements of Rabbi Meir that will be cited. It stands for: Judged [dan], to dye [litzboa], covers [mesakekh], and broke open [pirtza].
דִּתְנַן: דָּן אֶת הַדִּין; זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב; חִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי; טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר; טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.
The Gemara returns to the matter at hand. As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 28b): If a judge issued a judgment and erred, and he acquitted one who was in fact liable, or deemed liable one who should have in fact been acquitted, or if he ruled that a pure item is impure, or ruled that an impure item is pure, and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands, and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds. He is therefore liable to pay the damages even though he caused the loss indirectly.
הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁנָּטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד!
The Gemara explains why this cannot be the statement of Rabbi Meir that Shmuel was referring to: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Ile’a says that Rav says: And this mishna is discussing a case where the judge not only issued a ruling, but actively took the money from the one whom he found liable, and gave it to the other party by his own hand. This is not a case of causation but of direct action.
אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דִּתְנַן: לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. הָתָם קָא עָבֵיד בְּיָדַיִם!
Rather, Rabbi Elazar must be referring to this statement of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him, and he dyed it black, or to dye it black, and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner the value of his wool. The Gemara responds: This too does not prove that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir one is liable even if the loss was brought about by causation, since there he does cause damage through direct action.
אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דִּתְנַן: הַמְסַכֵּךְ גַּפְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תְּבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה קִידֵּשׁ, וְחַיָּיב. הָתָם נָמֵי קָא עָבֵיד בְּיָדַיִם!
Rather, Rabbi Elazar must be referring to this statement of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 7:4): One who drapes his grapevine atop another’s grain has rendered them forbidden due to the prohibition against growing diverse kinds in a vineyard, and he is liable to pay the owner of the grain for the damage. The Gemara responds: This too does not prove that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir one is liable even if the loss was brought about by causation, since there too he does cause damage by direct action.
אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דְּתַנְיָא: מְחִיצַת הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה –
Rather, it must be referring to this statement of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Kilayim 3:4): If there was a partition of a vineyard that is adjacent to a wheat field, and that partition broke open,
אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״גְּדוֹר״. נִפְרְצָה – אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״גְּדוֹר״, נִתְיָיאֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה וְלֹא גְּדָרָהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה קִידֵּשׁ, וְחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.
the owner of the wheat field may tell the owner of the vineyard to repair the breach before the vines intermingle with the grain and cause it to become forbidden. If the partition broke open again, he may again tell him to repair it. If the owner of the vineyard abandoned the partition and did not repair it, he has rendered the grain forbidden, and is obligated to pay restitution for it. This demonstrates that one is liable to pay damages even if he did not perform any action at all, and consequently proves that Rabbi Meir rules there is liability for damage caused by indirect action.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹתֵן צֶמֶר לַצַבָּע, וְהִקְדִּיחוֹ יוֹרָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. צְבָעוֹ כָּאוּר – אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה, נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַיְּצִיאָה; וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח, נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח.
MISHNA: In the case of one who gives wool to a dyer and it was burned in the cauldron during the dyeing process, thereby completely ruining the wool so that there is no enhancement, only loss, the dyer gives the owner the value of his wool. If he dyed it unattractively [ka’ur] so that the dye is not absorbed well by the wool, if the enhancement, i.e., the amount that the value of the wool has increased by being dyed, exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.
לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַיְּצִיאָה, וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח.
If the owner gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and instead he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Rabbi Yehuda says: Here too, if the value of the enhancement exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״כָּאוּר״? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: כַּלְבּוֹס. מַאי כַּלְבּוֹס? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל:
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: What does the mishna mean by unattractively? Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Kelabus. The Gemara asks: What does kelabus mean? Rabba bar Shmuel said:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Bava Kamma 100
בֵּית חַיֵּיהֶם. ״אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ״ – זוֹ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. ״יֵלְכוּ״ – זוֹ בִּיקּוּר חוֹלִים. ״בָּהּ״ – זוֹ קְבוּרָה. ״אֶת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה״ – זֶה הַדִּין. ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן״ – זוֹ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.
the core of their existence, i.e., Torah study, which is the source of life. “The way”; this is referring to acts of kindness. “They must walk”; this is referring to visiting the sick. “Wherein”; this is referring to the burial of the dead. “The work”; this is referring to conducting oneself in accordance with the law. “That they must do”; this is referring to conducting oneself beyond the letter of the law. This indicates that the Torah mandates that people conduct themselves beyond the letter of the law.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַחְוִי לֵיהּ דִּינָרָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אֲמַר: מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי דַּעֲלָךְ קָא סָמַכְינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי סָמְכַתְּ עֲלַי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא, דְּאִי מִשְׁתְּכַח בִּישָׁא – בָּעֵינָא לְאַיחְלוֹפֵי לָךְ? וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הוּא, דְּדָאֵין דִּינָא דִּגְרָמֵי. מַאי, לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר – וְלָא סְבִירָא לַן כְּווֹתֵיהּ?
The Gemara relates: Reish Lakish presented a dinar to Rabbi Elazar so that the latter would assess it. Rabbi Elazar said: It is a proper coin. Reish Lakish said to him: Realize that I am relying on you. Rabbi Elazar said to him: What is the purpose of stating that you are relying on me? Is it so that if this dinar is later found to be bad, I will be required to exchange it for you with a good dinar? But it is you who said that it is Rabbi Meir who is of the opinion that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action, even if he did not directly cause damage to the property. What, is it not that you intended to say: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but we do not hold in accordance with his opinion?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר – וּסְבִירָא לַן כְּווֹתֵיהּ.
Reish Lakish said to him: No, I intended to say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and we do hold in accordance with his opinion.
הֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר (ד׳ ל׳ מ׳ פ׳ סִימָן)
The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Meir is Rabbi Elazar referring to? If we say it is this statement of Rabbi Meir, that is difficult. Parenthetically, the Gemara states that the letters dalet, lamed, mem, peh serve as a mnemonic device for the four statements of Rabbi Meir that will be cited. It stands for: Judged [dan], to dye [litzboa], covers [mesakekh], and broke open [pirtza].
דִּתְנַן: דָּן אֶת הַדִּין; זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב; חִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי; טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר; טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.
The Gemara returns to the matter at hand. As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 28b): If a judge issued a judgment and erred, and he acquitted one who was in fact liable, or deemed liable one who should have in fact been acquitted, or if he ruled that a pure item is impure, or ruled that an impure item is pure, and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands, and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds. He is therefore liable to pay the damages even though he caused the loss indirectly.
הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁנָּטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד!
The Gemara explains why this cannot be the statement of Rabbi Meir that Shmuel was referring to: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Ile’a says that Rav says: And this mishna is discussing a case where the judge not only issued a ruling, but actively took the money from the one whom he found liable, and gave it to the other party by his own hand. This is not a case of causation but of direct action.
אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דִּתְנַן: לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. הָתָם קָא עָבֵיד בְּיָדַיִם!
Rather, Rabbi Elazar must be referring to this statement of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him, and he dyed it black, or to dye it black, and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner the value of his wool. The Gemara responds: This too does not prove that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir one is liable even if the loss was brought about by causation, since there he does cause damage through direct action.
אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דִּתְנַן: הַמְסַכֵּךְ גַּפְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תְּבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה קִידֵּשׁ, וְחַיָּיב. הָתָם נָמֵי קָא עָבֵיד בְּיָדַיִם!
Rather, Rabbi Elazar must be referring to this statement of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 7:4): One who drapes his grapevine atop another’s grain has rendered them forbidden due to the prohibition against growing diverse kinds in a vineyard, and he is liable to pay the owner of the grain for the damage. The Gemara responds: This too does not prove that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir one is liable even if the loss was brought about by causation, since there too he does cause damage by direct action.
אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דְּתַנְיָא: מְחִיצַת הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה –
Rather, it must be referring to this statement of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Kilayim 3:4): If there was a partition of a vineyard that is adjacent to a wheat field, and that partition broke open,
אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״גְּדוֹר״. נִפְרְצָה – אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״גְּדוֹר״, נִתְיָיאֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה וְלֹא גְּדָרָהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה קִידֵּשׁ, וְחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.
the owner of the wheat field may tell the owner of the vineyard to repair the breach before the vines intermingle with the grain and cause it to become forbidden. If the partition broke open again, he may again tell him to repair it. If the owner of the vineyard abandoned the partition and did not repair it, he has rendered the grain forbidden, and is obligated to pay restitution for it. This demonstrates that one is liable to pay damages even if he did not perform any action at all, and consequently proves that Rabbi Meir rules there is liability for damage caused by indirect action.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹתֵן צֶמֶר לַצַבָּע, וְהִקְדִּיחוֹ יוֹרָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. צְבָעוֹ כָּאוּר – אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה, נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַיְּצִיאָה; וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח, נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח.
MISHNA: In the case of one who gives wool to a dyer and it was burned in the cauldron during the dyeing process, thereby completely ruining the wool so that there is no enhancement, only loss, the dyer gives the owner the value of his wool. If he dyed it unattractively [ka’ur] so that the dye is not absorbed well by the wool, if the enhancement, i.e., the amount that the value of the wool has increased by being dyed, exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.
לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַיְּצִיאָה, וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח.
If the owner gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and instead he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Rabbi Yehuda says: Here too, if the value of the enhancement exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״כָּאוּר״? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: כַּלְבּוֹס. מַאי כַּלְבּוֹס? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל:
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: What does the mishna mean by unattractively? Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Kelabus. The Gemara asks: What does kelabus mean? Rabba bar Shmuel said:
