Today's Daf Yomi
September 8, 2016 | ה׳ באלול תשע״ו
-
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
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. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and distinguishes between one who gets paid and one who does it for free. He 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. 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. Is a professional damaging an item more similar to laws of shomrim because the item was given to him by the owner? 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. Cases relating to a money changer are brought – where one rules on the validity of a coin and causes a loss. 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. A case ensues with Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish and the commentaries differ on whether Rabbi Elazar was an expert or not, thereby affecting the conclusion one can assume from that case. 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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
בית חייהם את הדרך זו גמילות חסדים ילכו זו ביקור חולים בה זו קבורה את המעשה זה הדין אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין
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.
ריש לקיש אחוי ליה דינרא לרבי אלעזר אמר מעליא הוא אמר ליה חזי דעלך קא סמכינא אמר ליה כי סמכת עלי מאי למימרא דאי משתכח בישא בעינא לאיחלופי לך והא את הוא דאמרת רבי מאיר הוא דדאין דינא דגרמי מאי לאו רבי מאיר ולא סבירא לן כוותיה
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?
אמר ליה לא רבי מאיר וסבירא לן כוותיה
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.
הי רבי מאיר אילימא רבי מאיר (ד׳ ל׳ מ׳ פ׳ סימן)
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].
דתנן דן את הדין זיכה את החייב חייב את הזכאי טימא את הטהור טיהר את הטמא מה שעשה עשוי וישלם מביתו
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.
הא איתמר עלה אמר רבי אילעא אמר רב והוא שנטל ונתן ביד
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.
אלא הא רבי מאיר דתנן לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו התם קא עביד בידים
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.
אלא הא רבי מאיר דתנן המסכך גפנו על גבי תבואתו של חבירו הרי זה קידש וחייב התם נמי קא עביד בידים
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.
אלא הא רבי מאיר דתניא מחיצת הכרם שנפרצה
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,
אומר לו גדור נפרצה אומר לו גדור נתייאש ממנה ולא גדרה הרי זה קידש וחייב באחריותו
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.
מתני׳ הנותן צמר לצבע והקדיחו יורה נותן לו דמי צמרו צבעו כאור אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו את היציאה ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח
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.
לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו רבי יהודה אומר אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו את היציאה ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח
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.
גמ׳ מאי כאור אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר בר חנה כלבוס מאי כלבוס אמר רבה בר שמואל
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:
-
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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
בית חייהם את הדרך זו גמילות חסדים ילכו זו ביקור חולים בה זו קבורה את המעשה זה הדין אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין
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.
ריש לקיש אחוי ליה דינרא לרבי אלעזר אמר מעליא הוא אמר ליה חזי דעלך קא סמכינא אמר ליה כי סמכת עלי מאי למימרא דאי משתכח בישא בעינא לאיחלופי לך והא את הוא דאמרת רבי מאיר הוא דדאין דינא דגרמי מאי לאו רבי מאיר ולא סבירא לן כוותיה
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?
אמר ליה לא רבי מאיר וסבירא לן כוותיה
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.
הי רבי מאיר אילימא רבי מאיר (ד׳ ל׳ מ׳ פ׳ סימן)
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].
דתנן דן את הדין זיכה את החייב חייב את הזכאי טימא את הטהור טיהר את הטמא מה שעשה עשוי וישלם מביתו
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.
הא איתמר עלה אמר רבי אילעא אמר רב והוא שנטל ונתן ביד
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.
אלא הא רבי מאיר דתנן לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו התם קא עביד בידים
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.
אלא הא רבי מאיר דתנן המסכך גפנו על גבי תבואתו של חבירו הרי זה קידש וחייב התם נמי קא עביד בידים
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.
אלא הא רבי מאיר דתניא מחיצת הכרם שנפרצה
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,
אומר לו גדור נפרצה אומר לו גדור נתייאש ממנה ולא גדרה הרי זה קידש וחייב באחריותו
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.
מתני׳ הנותן צמר לצבע והקדיחו יורה נותן לו דמי צמרו צבעו כאור אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו את היציאה ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח
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.
לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו רבי יהודה אומר אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו את היציאה ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח
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.
גמ׳ מאי כאור אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר בר חנה כלבוס מאי כלבוס אמר רבה בר שמואל
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:
