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

Daf Yomi

February 11, 2024 | 讘壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 101

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Di Kushar in honor of her granddaughter Ayala鈥檚 bat mitzva which took place this Shabbat. 鈥淲e learned together long distance, online, laws of damages and compensation in Parshat Mishpatim which are developed further in the current dapim of Baba Kamma. Now at a family reunion, we will celebrate together. Mazal tov!鈥

A question is asked regarding the dyeing of wool – when the dye is added to the wool, does the dye enhance the wool or not? The Gemara questions the question’s meaning/relevance and brings seven possible explanations – four of which are rejected and three of which are not. They attempt to answer the question by bringing sources relating to dyeing using shmita and orla produce, but these proofs are rejected as the laws are unique to those situations based on the verses in the Torah. Rava then raises a contradiction between the orla case and a case of impurity case, which is resolved. Rava also brings two contradictory sources relating to whether or not kedushat shviit applies to plants/wood from a tree not used for eating. This contradiction is also resolved.

讻驻专讗 讚讜讚讬


The sediments of dye in the cauldrons, that is, the dyer took the dye remaining in the cauldron from previous use, and used that dye for this garment, leading to an inferior result.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 注爪讬诐 诇讞专砖 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讻住讗 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 住驻住诇 住驻住诇 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻住讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 注爪讬讜 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


The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:8): With regard to one who gives wood to a carpenter to fashion a chair from it and he fashioned a bench from it instead, or one who gives him wood to fashion a bench and he fashioned a chair from it instead, Rabbi Meir says: The carpenter gives him the value of his wood and keeps the chair or bench, as he has acquired it due to the change. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not acquire the item. Rather, if the value of the wood鈥檚 enhancement exceeds the carpenter鈥檚 expenses the owner gives the carpenter the expenses, and if the expenses exceed the enhancement of the wood he gives him the value of the enhancement. Since the carpenter deviated from the customer鈥檚 order, he is entitled to either his expenses or the enhancement, the smaller amount of the two.


讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诐 谞转谉 注爪讬诐 诇讞专砖 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讻住讗 谞讗讛 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻住讗 讻注讜专 住驻住诇 谞讗讛 讜注砖讛 住驻住诇 讻注讜专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 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 讚诪讬 讛砖讘讞


The baraita continues: And Rabbi Meir concedes that if he gave wood to a carpenter to fashion a beautiful chair from it and he fashioned an ugly chair from it, or to fashion a beautiful bench from it and he fashioned an ugly bench from it, then if the value of the wood鈥檚 enhancement exceeds the carpenter鈥檚 expenses the owner gives the carpenter the value of the expenses, and if the expenses exceed the enhancement he gives him the value of the enhancement. Since the carpenter did not deviate significantly from the customer鈥檚 instructions, Rabbi Meir concedes that the carpenter does not acquire the item due to the change.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛爪诪专 讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛爪诪专


搂 In connection with the discussion of the halakhic implications of the enhancement of a garment quoted above, the Gemara records that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha? That the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is substantive, i.e., the dye is considered a separate entity from the wool it dyed? Or is the halakha that the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, i.e., the dye does not remain an independent entity, and it is viewed as if there is only colored wool?


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讙讝诇 住诪谞讬谉 讜讚拽讬谞讛讜 讜转专谞讛讜 讜爪讘注 讘讛谉 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽谞讬谞讛讜 讘砖讬谞讜讬


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which this dilemma is relevant? If we say that the dilemma arises where one robbed another of pigments, and ground them up and soaked them in water, converting them into dye, and then dyed wool with them, then the dilemma would be concerning how the robber returns the pigments. In this case, derive the halakha due to the fact that the robber acquired the pigments due to a change of form, which occurred when he ground the pigments, and in any event will be obligated to return the value of the pigments at the time of the robbery.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讙讝诇 住诪谞讬谉 砖专讜讬讬谉 讜爪讘注 讘讛讜 诪讗讬 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 住诪谞讗讬 讚砖拽诇转讬谞讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛爪诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讱 讙讘讗讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to resolve the dilemma in a case where one robbed another of pigments that had already been soaked in water, and then dyed wool with them. What is the halakha here? Is the enhancement which dye provides to the wool substantive, i.e., a separate entity, so that the owner can say to the robber: Give me my dyes that you took? Or perhaps the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, but becomes one with the wool, so that the robber can say to the owner: I have nothing at all of yours, since the dyes are no longer considered extant.


讗诪专讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讱 讙讘讗讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 住诪谞讗讬 讚讗驻住讚转讬谞讛讜


The Gemara rejects this understanding of the application of the dilemma. The Sages say: And even if the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, can the robber really say to him: I have nothing at all of yours? Let the owner say to him: Give me my dyes that you have caused to be lost. Even if the dyes are no longer considered extant, the owner is still entitled to monetary compensation for the robbery.


讗诇讗 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛爪诪专 讜讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讞讬 拽诪讱 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 讘诪讗讬 砖拽诇讬讛 讘爪驻讜谉 爪驻讜谉 注讘讜专讬 诪讬注讘专 讛砖讘讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚


Rather, the dilemma is relevant to that other side of the question: Is the halakha that the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, and therefore the robber needs to pay him? Or perhaps the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is substantive, and the robber can say to him: The dyes absorbed into the wool lie before you; take them. The Gemara rejects this as well: Take them? With what should he take the dyes, with soap? While soap does remove dye from the wool, it does not return the dye to the robbery victim, as the dye cannot be recovered.


讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讙讝诇 爪诪专 讜住诪谞讬谉 讚讞讚 讜爪讘注讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 爪诪专 讘讛谞讱 住诪谞讬谉 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇爪诪专 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛爪诪专 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜爪诪专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讜爪诪专 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 住诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛


The Gemara suggests another scenario: Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he robbed one person of wool and dyes, and dyed that wool with those dyes, and he is returning the dyed wool to him. The dilemma is: Is the halakha that enhancement which dye provides to the wool is substantive, and he is therefore returning both the dye and the wool to him? Or perhaps enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, and it is only the wool that he is returning to him, but he is not returning the dye to him, since it is no longer extant.


讗诪专讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讗讬讬拽专 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讚诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讝诇 爪讬讘注讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖爪讘注 讘讛讜 拽讜驻讗


The Gemara rejects this understanding of the application of the dilemma as well. The Sages say: Derive the halakha in this case based on the fact that he increased the value of the wool for him, as dyed wool is more expensive than undyed wool. Consequently, even if the robber has not returned the dye, he reimburses the owner for it when he returns the appreciated wool. The Gemara suggests: No, it is necessary to resolve the dilemma in a case where the cost of the dye has depreciated. If the dye is viewed as an independent entity the robber is returning both the wool and the dye. If it is not, he must reimburse the robbery victim for the value of the dye at the time of the robbery. And if you wish, say instead: The dilemma is relevant in a case where he robbed another of dye and a basket, and dyed the basket with the dye, in which case the dye does not increase the value of the dyed item.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚爪诪专 讚讞讚 讜住诪谞讬谉 讚讞讚 讜拽讗转讬 拽讜祝 讜爪讘注讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 爪诪专 讘讛谞讱 住诪谞讬谉 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 住诪谞讗讬 讚讙讘讱 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讱 讙讘讗讬 讻诇讜诐


The Gemara presents an alternative understanding of the case where the dilemma applies. Ravina said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there was wool that belonged to one person and dyes that belonged to one other person, and a monkey came and dyed that wool with those dyes. The dilemma is as follows: Is the halakha that enhancement which dye provides to the wool is substantive, so that the owner of the dye can say to the owner of the wool: Give me my dyes that are with you? Or perhaps enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive and the owner of the wool can say to the owner of the dye: There is nothing of yours with me, and he is exempt from liability because the dyes are no longer extant.


转讗 砖诪注 讘讙讚 砖爪讘注讜 讘拽诇讬驻讬 注专诇讛 讬讚诇拽 讗诇诪讗 讞讝讜转讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗


Having determined the scenario in which the dilemma is relevant, the Gemara proceeds to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear a solution from a mishna (Orla 3:1): A garment that one dyed with dye extracted from peels of orla, i.e., fruit that grows on a tree during its first three years, must be burned, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from orla. Apparently, the enhancement of an item鈥檚 appearance is considered a significant matter, and the dye therefore remains an independent substance even after having been absorbed by the wool.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讗讛 讛谞专讗讛 诇注讬谞讬诐 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 注专诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛谞讛 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 讬爪讘注 [讘讜] 讜诇讗 讬讚诇讬拽 讘讜 讗转 讛谞专


The Gemara rejects this resolution. Rava said: The reason the garment must be burned is not because the dye remains an independent substance. Rather, it is because the Torah prohibited benefit that is visible to the eye, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden; three years shall it be as forbidden [areilim] to you; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 19:23). From this verse I have derived only a prohibition against eating it; from where is it derived that one may not even derive benefit from it, and that one may not dye with dyes extracted from the fruit, and that one may not light a lamp with oil extracted from the fruit?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注专诇转诐 注专诇转讜 讗转 驻专讬讜 注专诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讻讜诇诐


The baraita answers: The verse states: 鈥淭hen you shall count the fruit thereof [orlato] as forbidden [araltem]. Three years shall it be as forbidden [areilim] to you; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 19:23), to include all these types of benefit in the prohibition. Consequently, there is an explicit derivation that an item dyed with orla dye is forbidden.


转讗 砖诪注 讘讙讚 砖爪讘注讜 讘拽诇讬驻讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讬讚诇拽 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 转讛讬讛 讘讛讜讬转讛 转讛讗


The Gemara attempts another resolution of the dilemma. Come and hear a resolution from that which was taught in a baraita: A garment that one dyed with dye extracted from the peels of produce from the Sabbatical Year must be burned when the time for the elimination of Sabbatical Year produce arrives. This indicates that the dye evidently remains an independent substance. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淪hall all the increase thereof be鈥 (Leviticus 25:7), and the phrase: 鈥淪hall be,鈥 teaches that it will always remain as it is, i.e., it retains its status as Sabbatical Year produce despite any change to its form.


专讘讗 专诪讬 转谞谉 讘讙讚 砖爪讘注讜 讘拽诇讬驻讬 注专诇讛 讬讚诇拽 讗诇诪讗 讞讝讜转讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖谞讘诇注讛 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讚讛讜讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讚讗转讜 诇讘住讜祝


The Gemara states that Rava raises a contradiction: We learned in a mishna (Orla 3:1): A garment that one dyed with dye extracted from peels of orla must be burned. Apparently, the change in appearance precipitated by the orla peels is considered a significant matter, and the dye retains its status as orla. And raise a contradiction from another mishna (Oholot 3:2): With regard to a quarterlog of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. And some say that any vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood was absorbed; and this second statement was in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.


谞讘诇注讛 讘讻住讜转 专讜讗讬谉 讗诐 诪转讻讘住转 讛讻住讜转 讜讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专讛


The mishna continues: If the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined, and if the garment is washed and a quarterlog of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure, and the garment imparts ritual impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, i.e., if less than a quarter-log of blood emerges, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only the blood that can be removed from the garment is considered blood, while the blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. If this is the case, the change in appearance precipitated by the blood is not considered a significant matter, and the blood absorbed in the garment does not remain an independent substance.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪拽讜诇讬 专讘讬注讬讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讘讚诐 转讘讜住讛 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara presents an answer. Rav Kahana said: A halakha from among the leniencies applied to the measurements of a quarterlog was taught here, as the mishna is written in reference to the blood of submission that is discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure by rabbinic law, but in general, a change in appearance precipitated by blood is significant.


专讘讗 专诪讬 转谞谉 诪诪讬谉 讛爪讜讘注讬谉 住驻讬讞讬 住讟讬诐 讜拽讜爪讛 讬砖 诇讛谉 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讚诪讬讛谉 砖讘讬注讬转 讬砖 诇讛谉 讘讬注讜专 讜诇讚诪讬讛谉 讘讬注讜专 讗诇诪讗 注爪讬诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转


搂 Having cited a contradiction raised by Rava, the Gemara proceeds to cite another. Rava raises another contradiction. We learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 7:1): Concerning plants from among the species that are used as dyes, for example the sefi岣n, i.e., produce that grew without being intentionally planted, of woad and safflower; they have sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and money exchanged for them has sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Additionally, they are subject to the halakha of eradication, and money exchanged for them is subject to the halakha of eradication. Apparently, wood, a type of inedible growth, is subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year despite the fact that it is not edible.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 讜注诇讬 讙驻谞讬诐 砖讙讬讘讘谉 讘讞讘讗 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 诇拽讟谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇注爪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转


And raise a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to reed leaves and vine leaves that one piled for storage upon the field, if he gathered them for eating, they are subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year; if he gathered them for use as wood, e.g., for kindling a fire, they are not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Apparently, wood or any other non-food product is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.


讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗讻诇讛 讘诪讬 砖讛谞讗转讜 讜讘讬注讜专讜 砖讜讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注爪讬诐 砖讛谞讗转谉 讗讞专 讘讬注讜专谉


And Rava answers the contradiction, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Sabbath produce of the land shall be for food for you鈥 (Leviticus 25:6), indicating that the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect only with regard to those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide, as is the case with regard to food. Wood is excluded, as its benefit follows its consumption. The primary purpose of kindling wood is not accomplished with the burning of the wood; rather, it is with the charcoal that heats the oven. Therefore, wood is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 注爪讬诐 讚诪砖讞谉 讚讛谞讗转谉 讜讘讬注讜专谉 砖讜讬谉


The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there wood that is used to provide heat, whose benefit coincides with its consumption, as one enjoys the warmth provided by the fire while the wood is burned?


讗诪专 专讘讗


Rava said:


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma: 98-104 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if someone gave wool to a dyer, and it was dyed the wrong color...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kama 101: Defining the Art of a Craft

Moving on from dying wool to carpentry: a chair vs. a bench. Also, what is the status of dye once...

Bava Kamma 101

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 101

讻驻专讗 讚讜讚讬


The sediments of dye in the cauldrons, that is, the dyer took the dye remaining in the cauldron from previous use, and used that dye for this garment, leading to an inferior result.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 注爪讬诐 诇讞专砖 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讻住讗 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 住驻住诇 住驻住诇 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻住讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 注爪讬讜 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


The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:8): With regard to one who gives wood to a carpenter to fashion a chair from it and he fashioned a bench from it instead, or one who gives him wood to fashion a bench and he fashioned a chair from it instead, Rabbi Meir says: The carpenter gives him the value of his wood and keeps the chair or bench, as he has acquired it due to the change. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not acquire the item. Rather, if the value of the wood鈥檚 enhancement exceeds the carpenter鈥檚 expenses the owner gives the carpenter the expenses, and if the expenses exceed the enhancement of the wood he gives him the value of the enhancement. Since the carpenter deviated from the customer鈥檚 order, he is entitled to either his expenses or the enhancement, the smaller amount of the two.


讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诐 谞转谉 注爪讬诐 诇讞专砖 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讻住讗 谞讗讛 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻住讗 讻注讜专 住驻住诇 谞讗讛 讜注砖讛 住驻住诇 讻注讜专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 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 讚诪讬 讛砖讘讞


The baraita continues: And Rabbi Meir concedes that if he gave wood to a carpenter to fashion a beautiful chair from it and he fashioned an ugly chair from it, or to fashion a beautiful bench from it and he fashioned an ugly bench from it, then if the value of the wood鈥檚 enhancement exceeds the carpenter鈥檚 expenses the owner gives the carpenter the value of the expenses, and if the expenses exceed the enhancement he gives him the value of the enhancement. Since the carpenter did not deviate significantly from the customer鈥檚 instructions, Rabbi Meir concedes that the carpenter does not acquire the item due to the change.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛爪诪专 讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛爪诪专


搂 In connection with the discussion of the halakhic implications of the enhancement of a garment quoted above, the Gemara records that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha? That the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is substantive, i.e., the dye is considered a separate entity from the wool it dyed? Or is the halakha that the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, i.e., the dye does not remain an independent entity, and it is viewed as if there is only colored wool?


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讙讝诇 住诪谞讬谉 讜讚拽讬谞讛讜 讜转专谞讛讜 讜爪讘注 讘讛谉 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽谞讬谞讛讜 讘砖讬谞讜讬


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which this dilemma is relevant? If we say that the dilemma arises where one robbed another of pigments, and ground them up and soaked them in water, converting them into dye, and then dyed wool with them, then the dilemma would be concerning how the robber returns the pigments. In this case, derive the halakha due to the fact that the robber acquired the pigments due to a change of form, which occurred when he ground the pigments, and in any event will be obligated to return the value of the pigments at the time of the robbery.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讙讝诇 住诪谞讬谉 砖专讜讬讬谉 讜爪讘注 讘讛讜 诪讗讬 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 住诪谞讗讬 讚砖拽诇转讬谞讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛爪诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讱 讙讘讗讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to resolve the dilemma in a case where one robbed another of pigments that had already been soaked in water, and then dyed wool with them. What is the halakha here? Is the enhancement which dye provides to the wool substantive, i.e., a separate entity, so that the owner can say to the robber: Give me my dyes that you took? Or perhaps the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, but becomes one with the wool, so that the robber can say to the owner: I have nothing at all of yours, since the dyes are no longer considered extant.


讗诪专讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讱 讙讘讗讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 住诪谞讗讬 讚讗驻住讚转讬谞讛讜


The Gemara rejects this understanding of the application of the dilemma. The Sages say: And even if the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, can the robber really say to him: I have nothing at all of yours? Let the owner say to him: Give me my dyes that you have caused to be lost. Even if the dyes are no longer considered extant, the owner is still entitled to monetary compensation for the robbery.


讗诇讗 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛爪诪专 讜讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讞讬 拽诪讱 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 讘诪讗讬 砖拽诇讬讛 讘爪驻讜谉 爪驻讜谉 注讘讜专讬 诪讬注讘专 讛砖讘讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚


Rather, the dilemma is relevant to that other side of the question: Is the halakha that the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, and therefore the robber needs to pay him? Or perhaps the enhancement which dye provides to the wool is substantive, and the robber can say to him: The dyes absorbed into the wool lie before you; take them. The Gemara rejects this as well: Take them? With what should he take the dyes, with soap? While soap does remove dye from the wool, it does not return the dye to the robbery victim, as the dye cannot be recovered.


讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讙讝诇 爪诪专 讜住诪谞讬谉 讚讞讚 讜爪讘注讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 爪诪专 讘讛谞讱 住诪谞讬谉 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇爪诪专 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛爪诪专 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜爪诪专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讜爪诪专 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 住诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛


The Gemara suggests another scenario: Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he robbed one person of wool and dyes, and dyed that wool with those dyes, and he is returning the dyed wool to him. The dilemma is: Is the halakha that enhancement which dye provides to the wool is substantive, and he is therefore returning both the dye and the wool to him? Or perhaps enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive, and it is only the wool that he is returning to him, but he is not returning the dye to him, since it is no longer extant.


讗诪专讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讗讬讬拽专 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讚诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讝诇 爪讬讘注讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖爪讘注 讘讛讜 拽讜驻讗


The Gemara rejects this understanding of the application of the dilemma as well. The Sages say: Derive the halakha in this case based on the fact that he increased the value of the wool for him, as dyed wool is more expensive than undyed wool. Consequently, even if the robber has not returned the dye, he reimburses the owner for it when he returns the appreciated wool. The Gemara suggests: No, it is necessary to resolve the dilemma in a case where the cost of the dye has depreciated. If the dye is viewed as an independent entity the robber is returning both the wool and the dye. If it is not, he must reimburse the robbery victim for the value of the dye at the time of the robbery. And if you wish, say instead: The dilemma is relevant in a case where he robbed another of dye and a basket, and dyed the basket with the dye, in which case the dye does not increase the value of the dyed item.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚爪诪专 讚讞讚 讜住诪谞讬谉 讚讞讚 讜拽讗转讬 拽讜祝 讜爪讘注讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 爪诪专 讘讛谞讱 住诪谞讬谉 讬砖 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 住诪谞讗讬 讚讙讘讱 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讞 住诪谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 爪诪专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讱 讙讘讗讬 讻诇讜诐


The Gemara presents an alternative understanding of the case where the dilemma applies. Ravina said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there was wool that belonged to one person and dyes that belonged to one other person, and a monkey came and dyed that wool with those dyes. The dilemma is as follows: Is the halakha that enhancement which dye provides to the wool is substantive, so that the owner of the dye can say to the owner of the wool: Give me my dyes that are with you? Or perhaps enhancement which dye provides to the wool is not substantive and the owner of the wool can say to the owner of the dye: There is nothing of yours with me, and he is exempt from liability because the dyes are no longer extant.


转讗 砖诪注 讘讙讚 砖爪讘注讜 讘拽诇讬驻讬 注专诇讛 讬讚诇拽 讗诇诪讗 讞讝讜转讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗


Having determined the scenario in which the dilemma is relevant, the Gemara proceeds to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear a solution from a mishna (Orla 3:1): A garment that one dyed with dye extracted from peels of orla, i.e., fruit that grows on a tree during its first three years, must be burned, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from orla. Apparently, the enhancement of an item鈥檚 appearance is considered a significant matter, and the dye therefore remains an independent substance even after having been absorbed by the wool.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讗讛 讛谞专讗讛 诇注讬谞讬诐 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 注专诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛谞讛 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 讬爪讘注 [讘讜] 讜诇讗 讬讚诇讬拽 讘讜 讗转 讛谞专


The Gemara rejects this resolution. Rava said: The reason the garment must be burned is not because the dye remains an independent substance. Rather, it is because the Torah prohibited benefit that is visible to the eye, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden; three years shall it be as forbidden [areilim] to you; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 19:23). From this verse I have derived only a prohibition against eating it; from where is it derived that one may not even derive benefit from it, and that one may not dye with dyes extracted from the fruit, and that one may not light a lamp with oil extracted from the fruit?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注专诇转诐 注专诇转讜 讗转 驻专讬讜 注专诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讻讜诇诐


The baraita answers: The verse states: 鈥淭hen you shall count the fruit thereof [orlato] as forbidden [araltem]. Three years shall it be as forbidden [areilim] to you; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 19:23), to include all these types of benefit in the prohibition. Consequently, there is an explicit derivation that an item dyed with orla dye is forbidden.


转讗 砖诪注 讘讙讚 砖爪讘注讜 讘拽诇讬驻讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讬讚诇拽 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 转讛讬讛 讘讛讜讬转讛 转讛讗


The Gemara attempts another resolution of the dilemma. Come and hear a resolution from that which was taught in a baraita: A garment that one dyed with dye extracted from the peels of produce from the Sabbatical Year must be burned when the time for the elimination of Sabbatical Year produce arrives. This indicates that the dye evidently remains an independent substance. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淪hall all the increase thereof be鈥 (Leviticus 25:7), and the phrase: 鈥淪hall be,鈥 teaches that it will always remain as it is, i.e., it retains its status as Sabbatical Year produce despite any change to its form.


专讘讗 专诪讬 转谞谉 讘讙讚 砖爪讘注讜 讘拽诇讬驻讬 注专诇讛 讬讚诇拽 讗诇诪讗 讞讝讜转讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖谞讘诇注讛 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讚讛讜讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讚讗转讜 诇讘住讜祝


The Gemara states that Rava raises a contradiction: We learned in a mishna (Orla 3:1): A garment that one dyed with dye extracted from peels of orla must be burned. Apparently, the change in appearance precipitated by the orla peels is considered a significant matter, and the dye retains its status as orla. And raise a contradiction from another mishna (Oholot 3:2): With regard to a quarterlog of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. And some say that any vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood was absorbed; and this second statement was in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.


谞讘诇注讛 讘讻住讜转 专讜讗讬谉 讗诐 诪转讻讘住转 讛讻住讜转 讜讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专讛


The mishna continues: If the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined, and if the garment is washed and a quarterlog of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure, and the garment imparts ritual impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, i.e., if less than a quarter-log of blood emerges, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only the blood that can be removed from the garment is considered blood, while the blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. If this is the case, the change in appearance precipitated by the blood is not considered a significant matter, and the blood absorbed in the garment does not remain an independent substance.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪拽讜诇讬 专讘讬注讬讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讘讚诐 转讘讜住讛 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara presents an answer. Rav Kahana said: A halakha from among the leniencies applied to the measurements of a quarterlog was taught here, as the mishna is written in reference to the blood of submission that is discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure by rabbinic law, but in general, a change in appearance precipitated by blood is significant.


专讘讗 专诪讬 转谞谉 诪诪讬谉 讛爪讜讘注讬谉 住驻讬讞讬 住讟讬诐 讜拽讜爪讛 讬砖 诇讛谉 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讚诪讬讛谉 砖讘讬注讬转 讬砖 诇讛谉 讘讬注讜专 讜诇讚诪讬讛谉 讘讬注讜专 讗诇诪讗 注爪讬诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转


搂 Having cited a contradiction raised by Rava, the Gemara proceeds to cite another. Rava raises another contradiction. We learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 7:1): Concerning plants from among the species that are used as dyes, for example the sefi岣n, i.e., produce that grew without being intentionally planted, of woad and safflower; they have sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and money exchanged for them has sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Additionally, they are subject to the halakha of eradication, and money exchanged for them is subject to the halakha of eradication. Apparently, wood, a type of inedible growth, is subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year despite the fact that it is not edible.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 讜注诇讬 讙驻谞讬诐 砖讙讬讘讘谉 讘讞讘讗 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 诇拽讟谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇注爪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转


And raise a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to reed leaves and vine leaves that one piled for storage upon the field, if he gathered them for eating, they are subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year; if he gathered them for use as wood, e.g., for kindling a fire, they are not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Apparently, wood or any other non-food product is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.


讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗讻诇讛 讘诪讬 砖讛谞讗转讜 讜讘讬注讜专讜 砖讜讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注爪讬诐 砖讛谞讗转谉 讗讞专 讘讬注讜专谉


And Rava answers the contradiction, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Sabbath produce of the land shall be for food for you鈥 (Leviticus 25:6), indicating that the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect only with regard to those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide, as is the case with regard to food. Wood is excluded, as its benefit follows its consumption. The primary purpose of kindling wood is not accomplished with the burning of the wood; rather, it is with the charcoal that heats the oven. Therefore, wood is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 注爪讬诐 讚诪砖讞谉 讚讛谞讗转谉 讜讘讬注讜专谉 砖讜讬谉


The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there wood that is used to provide heat, whose benefit coincides with its consumption, as one enjoys the warmth provided by the fire while the wood is burned?


讗诪专 专讘讗


Rava said:


Scroll To Top