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 sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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 sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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.
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Los Angeles, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
New York, United States
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
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
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
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
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
New York, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
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
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 was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
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:
