Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 8, 2016 | 讛壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 100

Shmuel teaches that if a slaughterer messes up and treifs up the animal, he is responsible whether or not he did it for free or for pay. 聽Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and distinguishes between one who gets paid and one who does it for free. 聽He聽compares it to laws of shomrim and just as one who gets paid to watch an item assumes more responsibility in the event of theft or loss, likewise by the slaughterer or any professional. 聽However if they are not getting paid, they are like a shomer who watches the item for free who is not obligated in a case of theft or loss. 聽Is a professional damaging an item more similar to laws of shomrim because the item was given to him by the owner? 聽Or is it more like adam hamazik – a person who damages another’s item, in which case he is obligated even for unintentional damage ones. 聽Cases relating to a money changer are brought – where one rules on the validity of a coin and causes a loss. 聽If he is a real professional, then he is not responsible if he gave the advice for free, however Rabbi Chiya ruled for himself beyonf the letter of the law and reimbursed a woman for her loss based on his ruling. 聽A case ensues with Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish and the commentaries differ聽on whether Rabbi Elazar was an expert or not, thereby affecting the conclusion one can assume from that case. 聽The mishna discusses more cases where the dyer did something different from what he was meant to do and there are 2 different cases and different opinions about what the halacha is in one of them.

讘讬转 讞讬讬讛诐 讗转 讛讚专讱 讝讜 讙诪讬诇讜转 讞住讚讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讝讜 讘讬拽讜专 讞讜诇讬诐 讘讛 讝讜 拽讘讜专讛 讗转 讛诪注砖讛 讝讛 讛讚讬谉 讗砖专 讬注砖讜谉 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉

the core of their existence, i.e., Torah study, which is the source of life. 鈥淭he way鈥; this is referring to acts of kindness. 鈥淭hey must walk鈥; this is referring to visiting the sick. 鈥淲herein鈥; this is referring to the burial of the dead. 鈥淭he work鈥; this is referring to conducting oneself in accordance with the law. 鈥淭hat they must do鈥; 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.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 讚注诇讱 拽讗 住诪讻讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 住诪讻转 注诇讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讬 诪砖转讻讞 讘讬砖讗 讘注讬谞讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 诇讱 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗 讚讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

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.

讛讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 (讚壮 诇壮 诪壮 驻壮 住讬诪谉)

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].

讚转谞谉 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讝讬讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讬讘 讞讬讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬 讟讬诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讟讬讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜

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.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讟诇 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚

The Gemara explains why this cannot be the statement of Rabbi Meir that Shmuel was referring to: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞谉 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讛转诐 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讬讚讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞谉 讛诪住讻讱 讙驻谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 转讘讜讗转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讬讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讛转诐 谞诪讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讬讚讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 诪讞讬爪转 讛讻专诐 砖谞驻专爪讛

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,

讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 谞转讬讬讗砖 诪诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讙讚专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讬讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜转谉 爪诪专 诇爪讘注 讜讛拽讚讬讞讜 讬讜专讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 爪讘注讜 讻讗讜专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞

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鈥檜r] 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鈥檚 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.

诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讻讗讜专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻诇讘讜住 诪讗讬 讻诇讘讜住 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: What does the mishna mean by unattractively? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar bar 岣na said: Kelabus. The Gemara asks: What does kelabus mean? Rabba bar Shmuel said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 100

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 100

讘讬转 讞讬讬讛诐 讗转 讛讚专讱 讝讜 讙诪讬诇讜转 讞住讚讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讝讜 讘讬拽讜专 讞讜诇讬诐 讘讛 讝讜 拽讘讜专讛 讗转 讛诪注砖讛 讝讛 讛讚讬谉 讗砖专 讬注砖讜谉 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉

the core of their existence, i.e., Torah study, which is the source of life. 鈥淭he way鈥; this is referring to acts of kindness. 鈥淭hey must walk鈥; this is referring to visiting the sick. 鈥淲herein鈥; this is referring to the burial of the dead. 鈥淭he work鈥; this is referring to conducting oneself in accordance with the law. 鈥淭hat they must do鈥; 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.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 讚注诇讱 拽讗 住诪讻讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 住诪讻转 注诇讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讬 诪砖转讻讞 讘讬砖讗 讘注讬谞讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 诇讱 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗 讚讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

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.

讛讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 (讚壮 诇壮 诪壮 驻壮 住讬诪谉)

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].

讚转谞谉 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讝讬讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讬讘 讞讬讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬 讟讬诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讟讬讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜

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.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讟诇 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚

The Gemara explains why this cannot be the statement of Rabbi Meir that Shmuel was referring to: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞谉 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讛转诐 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讬讚讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞谉 讛诪住讻讱 讙驻谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 转讘讜讗转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讬讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讛转诐 谞诪讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讬讚讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 诪讞讬爪转 讛讻专诐 砖谞驻专爪讛

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,

讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 谞转讬讬讗砖 诪诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讙讚专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讬讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜转谉 爪诪专 诇爪讘注 讜讛拽讚讬讞讜 讬讜专讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 爪讘注讜 讻讗讜专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞

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鈥檜r] 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鈥檚 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.

诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讻讗讜专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻诇讘讜住 诪讗讬 讻诇讘讜住 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: What does the mishna mean by unattractively? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar bar 岣na said: Kelabus. The Gemara asks: What does kelabus mean? Rabba bar Shmuel said:

Scroll To Top