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

Daf Yomi

February 3, 2024 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื“

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

Bava Kamma 93

Today’s daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of Mark’s mother, Sandy Orenshein, Zlata Rochel bat Dovid v’Malka on her 5th yahrzeit.

Rava and Raba bar Meri derive from the Torah one more expression that people use. Other rabbis derive other similar-type statements from the Torah. Why is there a distinction in the Mishna between a case where one exempts another for inflicting bodily damage to a case where one exempts another for destroying one’s possessions? The Mishna rules that if one asks another to break something of theirs, the one who breaks it is liable to pay for it. This contradicts a braita regarding shomrim which says that if one gives one an item to break, the one who breaks it is not responsible. Two resolutions are suggested. One who is in charge of charity funds is not responsible if something happens to the money. Why? There is, however, an exception to this rule. The ninth chapter begins with a discussion of a thief and the thief’s ultimate ownership over the stolen item if the thief changes the item or it changes on its own. What constitutes such a shinui (change) and what doesn’t? Various mishnayot and braitot are brought which seem to contradict the Mishna and each other and various possibilities are brought to reconcile them.

ื”ื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ืฉืœื— ืžืœืืš ืœืคื ื™ืš ืœืฉืžืจืš ื‘ื“ืจืš


โ€œBehold, I send an angel before you, to keep you by the wayโ€ (Exodus 23:20), indicating that an angel was sent in place of God to guard the Jewish people.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืžืจื™ ืžื ื ื”ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื‘ืชืจ ืžืจื™ ื ื™ื›ืกื™ ืฆื™ื‘ื™ ืžืฉืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื’ื ืœืœื•ื˜ ื”ื”ืœืš ืืช ืื‘ืจื ื”ื™ื” ืฆืืŸ ื•ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืื”ืœื™ื


Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter derived whereby people say: Drag wood after a property owner. In other words, help out a wealthy man even in a small way, as this may lead to your benefiting from him. Rabba bar Mari said to him that the source is as it is written: โ€œAnd Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tentsโ€ (Genesis 13:5).


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ืกืจ ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื•ื ื ืขื ืฉ ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืชืืžืจ ืฉืจื™ ืืœ ืื‘ืจื ื—ืžืกื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืื‘ืจื”ื ืœืกืคื“ ืœืฉืจื” ื•ืœื‘ื›ืชื” ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื™ื ื ื‘ืืจืขื


ยง In connection with the incident of Abraham and Abimelech mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara quotes a related statement. Rabbi แธคanan says: One who passes the judgment of another to Heaven is punished first, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Sarai said to Abram: My wrong be upon you, I gave my handmaid into your bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: The Lord judge between me and youโ€ (Genesis 16:5). Sarai stated that God should judge Abram for his actions. And it is written: โ€œAnd Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for herโ€ (Genesis 23:2), as Sarah died first. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only in a situation where he has someone to do judgment for him on earth and has no need to appeal to the heavenly court.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื•ื™ ืœื• ืœืฆื•ืขืง ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฆืขืง ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื—ื“ ื”ืฆื•ืขืง ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ื ืฆืขืง ื‘ืžืฉืžืข ืืœื ืฉืžืžื”ืจื™ืŸ ืœืฆื•ืขืง ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฆืขืง


Concerning this, Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: Woe to he who cries out to Heaven more than the one about whom he is crying out. The Gemara comments: This concept is also taught in a baraita: Both the one who cries out and the one about whom he is crying out are included in the verse discussing the cries of an orphan who is mistreated: โ€œIf you afflict them, for if they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry. My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the swordโ€ (Exodus 22:22โ€“23). But they are quicker to punish the one who cries out than the one about whom he is crying out, as in the incident with Sarai.


ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืขื•ืœื ืืœ ืชื”ื™ ืงืœืœืช ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืงืœื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ืš ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื‘ื™ืžืœืš ืงืœืœ ืืช ืฉืจื” ื•ื ืชืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื–ืจืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืš ื›ืกื•ืช ืขื™ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืกื™ืช ืžืžื ื™ ื•ืœื ื’ื™ืœื™ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ืื™ืฉืš ื•ื’ืจืžืช ืืœื™ ื”ืฆืขืจ ื”ื–ื” ื™ื”ื™ ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืœืš ื‘ื ื™ ื›ืกื•ื™ื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื ื•ื ืชืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื–ืจืขื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื›ื™ ื–ืงืŸ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ืชื›ื”ื™ืŸ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืžืจืืช


The Gemara provides another lesson from the story of Abraham and Abimelech. And Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: The curse of an ordinary person should never be regarded as light in your eyes, for Abimelech cursed Sarah and it was fulfilled in her descendant. The curse on Sarah is as it is stated: โ€œBehold, it is to you a covering of the eyesโ€ (Genesis 20:16), meaning that he said to her: Since you concealed your status from me and you did not reveal that Abraham is your husband, and you caused me this suffering, may it be Godโ€™s will that you should have children with covered eyes. And this curse was fulfilled in her descendant, as it is written: โ€œAnd it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not seeโ€ (Genesis 27:1).


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืœืขื•ืœื ื™ื”ื ืื“ื ืžืŸ ื”ื ืจื“ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืจื•ื“ืคื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื ืจื“ืฃ ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ื•ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—


Rabbi Abbahu says: A person should always be among those who are pursued and not among the pursuers. One can prove that this is so, as none among birds are pursued more than doves and pigeons, as all predators hunt them, and from all birds the verse deemed them fit to be sacrificed on the altar.


ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืกืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื™ ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืœืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื


ยง The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Blind my eye, or: Cut off my hand, or: Break my leg, and he does so, the latter is liable to pay for the damage, even if the injured party explicitly instructed him to do so on the condition that he will be exempt from payment. But if one instructs another to damage his property on the condition that he will be exempt from payment, he is exempt. Rav Asi bar แธคama said to Rava: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉื ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื•ื—ืœ ืขืœ ืจืืฉื™ ืื‘ืจื™ื


Rava said to him: In the case of the first clause he is liable, despite the fact that he was instructed to carry out the injury on the condition that he would be exempt, because a person does not forgo compensation for damage to his extremities such as his eyes, hands, and feet, mentioned in the mishna (92a). Consequently, when he told the assailant that he would be exempt, the presumption is that he was not sincere.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืื“ื ืžื•ื—ืœ ืขืœ ืฆืขืจื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ื›ื ื™ ืคืฆืขื ื™ ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื™ืฉืชื™ืง


Rav Asi bar แธคama said to him: But does a person forgo compensation for his pain when he doesnโ€™t lose a limb? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who said to another: Strike me, or wound me, on the condition that you will be exempt from payment, he is exempt. According to Ravaโ€™s reasoning, he should be liable in this case as well, as the presumption should be that he was not sincere. Rava was silent, as he did not have a response.


ืืžืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ื‘ื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืคื’ื ืžืฉืคื—ื”


Rava said to him: Have you heard anything with regard to this matter? Rav Asi bar แธคama said to him that this is what Rav Sheshet said: It is because loss of a limb may result in a family flaw, i.e., it may cause harm to the family name. One who loses a limb not only suffers pain; his family suffers as well. He is not in a position to forgive the assailant for the harm caused to his family, but he may forgo compensation for his own pain. Consequently, if he instructed another merely to injure him, without causing loss of limb, on condition that the assailant will be exempt from payment, the assailant will be exempt.


ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื’ื ืžืฉืคื—ื” ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื•ื—ืœ ืขืœ ืจืืฉื™ ืื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืœื•


It was stated that the amoraโ€™im disagreed concerning the explanation for the ruling of the first clause of the mishna. Rabbi Oshaya says: It is because loss of a limb may result in a family flaw. Rava says: It is because a person does not forgo compensation for damage to his extremities.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืœืื• ื•ื™ืฉ ืœืื• ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื”ืŸ


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: There is a yes that, based on other factors, is like a no and is not viewed as giving consent. And conversely, there is a no that, based on other factors, is like a yes, and although one said no it is as though he gave consent. In this case as well, where he said: On condition to be exempt, he was not sincere.


ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื›ื ื™ ืคืฆืขื ื™ ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื™ืฉ ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืœืื• ืงืจืข ืืช ื›ืกื•ืชื™ ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืื• ื”ืจื™ ืœืื• ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื”ืŸ


The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita. With regard to one who said to another: Strike me, or wound me; and the other asks: Is this on the condition that I will be exempt from payment? And the first one said to him, in the tone of a question: Yes, this is an example of the principle: There is a yes that is like a no. It is as if the victim asked: Even if I give you permission to do it, do you think that I would forgo the compensation? By contrast, if one said: Tear my garment, and the other asks: Is this on the condition that I will be exempt from payment? And he said to him, in the tone of a question: No, this is an example of a no that is like a yes, since he meant to say that if he did not want to exempt him from payment he would not ask him to do it.


ืฉื‘ืจ ืืช ื›ื“ื™ ืงืจืข ืืช ื›ืกื•ืชื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืœืื‘ื“ ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืœืงืจื•ืข ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื—ืœืง ืœืขื ื™ื™ื


ยง The mishna teaches that if one instructed another: Break my jug, or: Tear my garment, and the other did so, he is liable to pay for the damage. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: The verses state with regard to bailees: โ€œIf a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguardโ€ (Exodus 22:6), and: โ€œIf a man delivers to his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to safeguardโ€ (Exodus 22:9). The Sages derived from these verses that the bailee is liable if the item was given to him to safeguard, but not where it was given to him to destroy; if it was given to him to safeguard, but not where it was given to him to tear; if it was given to him to safeguard, but not where it was given to him to distribute to the poor. This indicates that a bailee is not liable for damage to an item if he was told to tear it, even if the owner did not state that it is on condition to be exempt.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ื”


Rav Huna said: This is not difficult, as this mishna that obligates him to pay for the damage is dealing with a case where it came into his possession, and he was responsible for it before the owner instructed him to tear it. Therefore, even if he was instructed to tear it, he is liable. And that baraita, which exempts him from paying, is discussing a case where it did not come into his possession, but he simply tore it.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื“ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ืžืฉืžืข


Rabba said to Rav Huna: But the phrase in the verse โ€œto safeguard,โ€ which obligates a bailee, indicates that it came into his possession already, and this is the case of the baraita that rules he is exempt.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื”ื ื•ื”ื ื“ืืชื ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืืชื ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืฉืžื™ืจื” ื”ื ื“ืืชื ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืงืจื™ืขื”


Rather, Rabba said: This and that are discussing a case where it came into his possession, and it is not difficult. This mishna is discussing a case where it came into his possession as an item given for safeguarding, and he is exempt if the owner stated explicitly that this will be the case, and that baraita is discussing a case where it came into his possession as an item given for tearing.


ื”ื”ื•ื ืืจื ืงื ื“ืฆื“ืงื” ื“ืืชื™ ืœืคื•ืžื‘ื“ื™ืชื ืืคืงื“ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืคืฉืข ื‘ื” ืืชื• ื’ื ื‘ื™ ื’ื ื‘ื•ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื—ืœืง ืœืขื ื™ื™ื


The Gemara relates: There was a certain purse full of charity money that came to the city of Pumbedita. Rav Yosef deposited it with a certain man. That man was negligent in safeguarding it and thieves came and stole it. Rav Yosef deemed the bailee liable to pay compensation. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: To safeguard, but not where it was given to him to distribute to the poor? This seems to teach that with regard to money that is distributed to the poor, there is no halakha of safeguarding.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืขื ื™ื™ ื“ืคื•ืžื‘ื“ื™ืชื ืžื™ืงืฅ ืงื™ืฅ ืœื”ื• ื•ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื


Rav Yosef said to him: The poor of Pumbedita have an amount that is set for them to receive. Each poor person already had a specific sum designated for him, and accordingly is in the category of: To safeguard. Therefore, he is liable.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ื—ื•ื‘ืœ


MISHNA: In the case of one who robs another of wood and fashions it into vessels, or one who robs another of wool and fashions it into garments, he pays the robbery victim according to the value of the goods at the time of the robbery, but he need not return the vessels or garments. He has acquired the stolen items because they had undergone a change.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื•ื–ืœ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ืœื™ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


If one robbed another of a pregnant cow and it then gave birth while in his possession, or if one robbed another of a ewe that was laden with wool and the robber then sheared it, the robber pays the value of a cow that is ready to give birth or the value of a ewe that is ready to be shorn. He pays the value of the animal at the time of the robbery, and the calf or the wool remains his.


ื’ื–ืœ ืคืจื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ืจื—ืœ ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ื•ื’ื–ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ื“ืžื™ ืคืจื” ื”ืขื•ืžื“ืช ืœื™ืœื“ ื•ื“ืžื™ ืจื—ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ืช ืœื™ื’ื–ื–


If one robbed another of a cow, and it became pregnant in his possession, and it then gave birth; or if one robbed another of a ewe, and it became laden with wool in his possession, and he then sheared it, then the robber pays according to the value of the animal at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery.


ื’ื–ืœ ืคืจื” ื•ื ืชืขื‘ืจื” ืืฆืœื• ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ืจื—ืœ ื•ื ื˜ืขื ื” ืืฆืœื• ื•ื’ื–ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื” ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื–ืœื ื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


GEMARA: The Sages say: It can be inferred from the mishna that if one robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels, yes, the robber acquires the wood due to the change. If he merely sanded it, no, the robber does not acquire it, as this is not a significant change. Similarly, if one robbed another of wool and fashioned it into garments, yes, he has acquired the wool due to the change. If he merely washed it, no, he has not acquired it.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจื™ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ืœื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืคืŸ ืœื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ื ืŸ ืœื


And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If one robbed another of wood and sanded it, or stones and smoothed them, or wool and washed it, or flax and cleaned it, he pays according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. This baraita teaches that even a change such as sanding wood is regarded as a significant change.


ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืฉื™ืคืŸ ืื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืกื™ืชืชืŸ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืœื™ื‘ื ืŸ ืคืฉืชืŸ ื•ื ืงื”ื• ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


Abaye said: This does not contradict the mishna. The tanna of our mishna teaches the halakha with regard to a change deemed significant by rabbinic law, which is not deemed significant by Torah law, as it is reversible. And all the more so, if the robber effects a change deemed significant by Torah law, i.e., an irreversible change, he acquires the stolen item due to the change.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื”ื“ืจื ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


The Gemara explains: Accordingly, it must be that the case in the mishna, where the change is reversible, where one robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels, is stated with regard to one who robbed another of sanded wood. And what are they? Boards that the robber used to construct a vessel, which is a change in which the item can revert to its original state, as, if the robber desires, he can disassemble them. Similarly, the case of one who robbed another of wool and fashioned it into garments refers to wool that was already spun, as fashioning them into garments is a change in which the item can revert to its original state, as, if the robber desires, he can unravel them. The mishna teaches that the robber acquires the stolen item by making these changes, and all the more so the robber acquires the stolen item through a change deemed significant by Torah law.


ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ืขืฆื™ื ืžืฉื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื ืกืจื™ื ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžืฉืœื™ืฃ ืœื”ื• ืฆืžืจ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื‘ืฆืžืจ ื˜ื•ื•ื™ ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืกืชืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


Abaye continues his explanation: And the tanna of the baraita teaches the halakha with regard to a change deemed significant by Torah law, but he does not teach the halakha with regard to a change deemed significant by rabbinic law. It is possible that he maintains that the robber does not acquire the stolen item due to such a change.


ื•ืชื ื ื‘ืจื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืงืชื ื™


Rav Ashi stated another answer: The tanna of our mishna is also teaching the halakha with regard to a change deemed significant by Torah law. The case in the mishna of one who robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels is referring to one who constructed pestles [bukhanei], which is analogous to the case mentioned in the baraita where one sanded them, since a pestle is formed by trimming the wood in an irreversible manner. Similarly, the case in the mishna of one who robbed another of wool and fashioned it into garments is referring to one who fashioned the wool into pieces of felt [namtei], which is an irreversible change.


ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืงืชื ื™ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ื•ื›ืื ื™ ื“ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉื™ืคืŸ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื ืžื˜ื™ ื“ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืœื ื”ื“ืจ


The Gemara asks a question with regard to the baraita: But does washing effect a significant change, so that one who robs another of wool and washes it acquires the wool and pays its value at the time of robbery? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna that discusses the halakhot of the first of the sheared wool, which one must give to a priest (แธคullin 135a): If the owner of the sheep did not manage to give the sheared wool to the priest before he dyed it, he is exempt from giving it to the priest, as the obligation is in effect only with regard to wool remaining in its original state. By contrast, if he washed it but did not dye it, he is obligated to give it to the priest. This indicates that washing does not effect a significant change.


ื•ืœื™ื‘ื•ืŸ ืžื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœื™ืชื ื• ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืฆื‘ืขื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืœื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ืฆื‘ืขื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘


Abaye said: It is not difficult. This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whereas that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the first of the sheared wool: If one sheared it, spun it, and wove it, the sheared wool does not combine with the wool from other sheep to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest. If one washed it, then Rabbi Shimon says that it does not combine with the wool of other sheep, as washing effects a significant change, and the Rabbis say that it combines with the wool of other sheep, as washing does not effect a significant change. Their opinions correspond to the opinions in the baraita and mishna previously quoted.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื’ื–ื–ื• ื˜ื•ื•ืื• ื•ืืจื’ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ืœื‘ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ


Rava stated another answer: This and that, i.e., both the mishna and the baraita, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a case where one untangled the strands of wool by hand before washing it. In this case, the washing is not fully effective, and does not effect a significant change. That baraita is referring to a case where one combed it before washing it. The washing is more effective and consequently effects a significant change.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ื ืคืฆื™ื” ื ืคื•ืฆื™ ื”ื ื“ืกืจืงื™ื” ืกืจื•ืงื™


Rabbi แธคiyya bar Avin stated another answer: This mishna is referring to a case where one merely whitened it, which is not a significant change. That baraita is referring to a case where one bleached it with sulfur, which is a significant change.


ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ื”ื ื“ื—ื•ื•ืจื™ื” ื—ื•ื•ืจื™ ื”ื ื“ื›ื‘ืจื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจื•ื™ื™


Having demonstrated that, according to Rabbi Shimon, washing effects a significant change, the Gemara asks: Now that it can be said that, according to Rabbi Shimon, dye does not effect a significant change, as the Gemara will prove, can it be said that washing effects a significant change? As it is taught in a baraita: If he sheared sheep one by one and dyed the wool of each sheep before shearing the next sheep, or sheared them one by one and spun the wool, or sheared them one by one and wove the wool, then the wool sheared from the different sheep does not combine to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even if he dyed it, it combines with the other wool. This indicates that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even dyeing the wool is not a significant change, so how could he maintain that washing it is?


ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฆื‘ืข ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืœื™ื‘ื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื’ื–ื– ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืฆื‘ืขื• ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ื•ื•ืื• ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืืจื’ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฆื‘ืขื• ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ


Abaye said: This is not difficult. This statement, that washed wool does not combine with other wool, is the opinion of the Rabbis in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while that statement, that even dyed wool combines with other wool, is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. There is a dispute as to what Rabbi Shimon rules with regard to this issue.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ


Rava said: Actually, the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and they are also of the opinion that Rabbi Shimon holds that washing effects a significant change. And as for the apparent contradiction, dye is different and it does not effect a significant change, since one is able to remove it with soap [tzafon] and return the wool to its previous state. And when it is taught there, in the mishna cited above, that if one did not manage to give the sheared wool to the priest before he dyed it he is exempt, and this ruling was established in accordance with all opinions, it was not stated with regard to ordinary dye but with regard to indigo, which cannot be removed with soap and therefore effects a permanent and therefore significant change.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืฉืื ื™ ืฆื‘ืข ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืชื ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœื™ืชื ื• ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืฆื‘ืขื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื‘ืงืœื ืื™ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ืจ


ยง Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and Rabbi Yishmael all hold that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, i.e., the changed item is still considered to have the status it had before the change. The Gemara proceeds to prove that each of these tannaโ€™im holds this way: The opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is that which we just said. He says that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even if the wool is dyed it still combines with the wool of other animals to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื• ืขื•ืžื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ


What is the source that indicates that Beit Shammai maintain that an item that undergoes a change is considered to have the same status that it had before the change? As it is taught in a baraita: If one gave a prostitute wheat as her payment, and she ground it and converted it into flour; or if he gave her olives, and she squeezed them and converted them into oil; or if he gave her grapes, and she squeezed them and converted them into wine; and if, in any of these cases, she subsequently consecrated the final product, it is taught in one baraita that it is prohibited to sacrifice them upon the altar as a meal-offering or libation, as the Torah states: โ€œYou shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your Godโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:19). And it is taught in another baraita that it is permitted, as the Gemara will explain. And Rav Yosef says: It was taught by Guryon


ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ืชืŸ ืœื” ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืชื ื ื” ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืกื•ืœืช ื–ื™ืชื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืฉืžืŸ ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื™ื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ื™ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ



  • 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: 91-97 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that even if a person pays for embarrassment, God doesnโ€™t forgive the person till they...
on second thought thumbnail

Dignity & Ownership – On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Source Sheet Bava Kamma 93, 94, 95 Listen here:...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 93: Making Something Your Own

If one person invites another to injure himself (or herself), both the physical injury and the damage to a family's...

Bava Kamma 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 93

ื”ื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ืฉืœื— ืžืœืืš ืœืคื ื™ืš ืœืฉืžืจืš ื‘ื“ืจืš


โ€œBehold, I send an angel before you, to keep you by the wayโ€ (Exodus 23:20), indicating that an angel was sent in place of God to guard the Jewish people.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืžืจื™ ืžื ื ื”ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื‘ืชืจ ืžืจื™ ื ื™ื›ืกื™ ืฆื™ื‘ื™ ืžืฉืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื’ื ืœืœื•ื˜ ื”ื”ืœืš ืืช ืื‘ืจื ื”ื™ื” ืฆืืŸ ื•ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืื”ืœื™ื


Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter derived whereby people say: Drag wood after a property owner. In other words, help out a wealthy man even in a small way, as this may lead to your benefiting from him. Rabba bar Mari said to him that the source is as it is written: โ€œAnd Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tentsโ€ (Genesis 13:5).


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ืกืจ ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื•ื ื ืขื ืฉ ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืชืืžืจ ืฉืจื™ ืืœ ืื‘ืจื ื—ืžืกื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืื‘ืจื”ื ืœืกืคื“ ืœืฉืจื” ื•ืœื‘ื›ืชื” ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื™ื ื ื‘ืืจืขื


ยง In connection with the incident of Abraham and Abimelech mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara quotes a related statement. Rabbi แธคanan says: One who passes the judgment of another to Heaven is punished first, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Sarai said to Abram: My wrong be upon you, I gave my handmaid into your bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: The Lord judge between me and youโ€ (Genesis 16:5). Sarai stated that God should judge Abram for his actions. And it is written: โ€œAnd Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for herโ€ (Genesis 23:2), as Sarah died first. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only in a situation where he has someone to do judgment for him on earth and has no need to appeal to the heavenly court.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื•ื™ ืœื• ืœืฆื•ืขืง ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฆืขืง ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื—ื“ ื”ืฆื•ืขืง ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ื ืฆืขืง ื‘ืžืฉืžืข ืืœื ืฉืžืžื”ืจื™ืŸ ืœืฆื•ืขืง ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฆืขืง


Concerning this, Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: Woe to he who cries out to Heaven more than the one about whom he is crying out. The Gemara comments: This concept is also taught in a baraita: Both the one who cries out and the one about whom he is crying out are included in the verse discussing the cries of an orphan who is mistreated: โ€œIf you afflict them, for if they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry. My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the swordโ€ (Exodus 22:22โ€“23). But they are quicker to punish the one who cries out than the one about whom he is crying out, as in the incident with Sarai.


ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืขื•ืœื ืืœ ืชื”ื™ ืงืœืœืช ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืงืœื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ืš ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื‘ื™ืžืœืš ืงืœืœ ืืช ืฉืจื” ื•ื ืชืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื–ืจืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืš ื›ืกื•ืช ืขื™ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืกื™ืช ืžืžื ื™ ื•ืœื ื’ื™ืœื™ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ืื™ืฉืš ื•ื’ืจืžืช ืืœื™ ื”ืฆืขืจ ื”ื–ื” ื™ื”ื™ ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืœืš ื‘ื ื™ ื›ืกื•ื™ื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื ื•ื ืชืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื–ืจืขื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื›ื™ ื–ืงืŸ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ืชื›ื”ื™ืŸ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืžืจืืช


The Gemara provides another lesson from the story of Abraham and Abimelech. And Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: The curse of an ordinary person should never be regarded as light in your eyes, for Abimelech cursed Sarah and it was fulfilled in her descendant. The curse on Sarah is as it is stated: โ€œBehold, it is to you a covering of the eyesโ€ (Genesis 20:16), meaning that he said to her: Since you concealed your status from me and you did not reveal that Abraham is your husband, and you caused me this suffering, may it be Godโ€™s will that you should have children with covered eyes. And this curse was fulfilled in her descendant, as it is written: โ€œAnd it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not seeโ€ (Genesis 27:1).


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืœืขื•ืœื ื™ื”ื ืื“ื ืžืŸ ื”ื ืจื“ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืจื•ื“ืคื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื ืจื“ืฃ ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ื•ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—


Rabbi Abbahu says: A person should always be among those who are pursued and not among the pursuers. One can prove that this is so, as none among birds are pursued more than doves and pigeons, as all predators hunt them, and from all birds the verse deemed them fit to be sacrificed on the altar.


ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืกืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื™ ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืœืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื


ยง The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Blind my eye, or: Cut off my hand, or: Break my leg, and he does so, the latter is liable to pay for the damage, even if the injured party explicitly instructed him to do so on the condition that he will be exempt from payment. But if one instructs another to damage his property on the condition that he will be exempt from payment, he is exempt. Rav Asi bar แธคama said to Rava: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉื ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื•ื—ืœ ืขืœ ืจืืฉื™ ืื‘ืจื™ื


Rava said to him: In the case of the first clause he is liable, despite the fact that he was instructed to carry out the injury on the condition that he would be exempt, because a person does not forgo compensation for damage to his extremities such as his eyes, hands, and feet, mentioned in the mishna (92a). Consequently, when he told the assailant that he would be exempt, the presumption is that he was not sincere.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืื“ื ืžื•ื—ืœ ืขืœ ืฆืขืจื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ื›ื ื™ ืคืฆืขื ื™ ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื™ืฉืชื™ืง


Rav Asi bar แธคama said to him: But does a person forgo compensation for his pain when he doesnโ€™t lose a limb? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who said to another: Strike me, or wound me, on the condition that you will be exempt from payment, he is exempt. According to Ravaโ€™s reasoning, he should be liable in this case as well, as the presumption should be that he was not sincere. Rava was silent, as he did not have a response.


ืืžืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ื‘ื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืคื’ื ืžืฉืคื—ื”


Rava said to him: Have you heard anything with regard to this matter? Rav Asi bar แธคama said to him that this is what Rav Sheshet said: It is because loss of a limb may result in a family flaw, i.e., it may cause harm to the family name. One who loses a limb not only suffers pain; his family suffers as well. He is not in a position to forgive the assailant for the harm caused to his family, but he may forgo compensation for his own pain. Consequently, if he instructed another merely to injure him, without causing loss of limb, on condition that the assailant will be exempt from payment, the assailant will be exempt.


ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื’ื ืžืฉืคื—ื” ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื•ื—ืœ ืขืœ ืจืืฉื™ ืื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืœื•


It was stated that the amoraโ€™im disagreed concerning the explanation for the ruling of the first clause of the mishna. Rabbi Oshaya says: It is because loss of a limb may result in a family flaw. Rava says: It is because a person does not forgo compensation for damage to his extremities.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืœืื• ื•ื™ืฉ ืœืื• ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื”ืŸ


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: There is a yes that, based on other factors, is like a no and is not viewed as giving consent. And conversely, there is a no that, based on other factors, is like a yes, and although one said no it is as though he gave consent. In this case as well, where he said: On condition to be exempt, he was not sincere.


ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื›ื ื™ ืคืฆืขื ื™ ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื™ืฉ ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืœืื• ืงืจืข ืืช ื›ืกื•ืชื™ ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืื• ื”ืจื™ ืœืื• ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื”ืŸ


The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita. With regard to one who said to another: Strike me, or wound me; and the other asks: Is this on the condition that I will be exempt from payment? And the first one said to him, in the tone of a question: Yes, this is an example of the principle: There is a yes that is like a no. It is as if the victim asked: Even if I give you permission to do it, do you think that I would forgo the compensation? By contrast, if one said: Tear my garment, and the other asks: Is this on the condition that I will be exempt from payment? And he said to him, in the tone of a question: No, this is an example of a no that is like a yes, since he meant to say that if he did not want to exempt him from payment he would not ask him to do it.


ืฉื‘ืจ ืืช ื›ื“ื™ ืงืจืข ืืช ื›ืกื•ืชื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืœืื‘ื“ ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืœืงืจื•ืข ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื—ืœืง ืœืขื ื™ื™ื


ยง The mishna teaches that if one instructed another: Break my jug, or: Tear my garment, and the other did so, he is liable to pay for the damage. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: The verses state with regard to bailees: โ€œIf a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguardโ€ (Exodus 22:6), and: โ€œIf a man delivers to his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to safeguardโ€ (Exodus 22:9). The Sages derived from these verses that the bailee is liable if the item was given to him to safeguard, but not where it was given to him to destroy; if it was given to him to safeguard, but not where it was given to him to tear; if it was given to him to safeguard, but not where it was given to him to distribute to the poor. This indicates that a bailee is not liable for damage to an item if he was told to tear it, even if the owner did not state that it is on condition to be exempt.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ื”


Rav Huna said: This is not difficult, as this mishna that obligates him to pay for the damage is dealing with a case where it came into his possession, and he was responsible for it before the owner instructed him to tear it. Therefore, even if he was instructed to tear it, he is liable. And that baraita, which exempts him from paying, is discussing a case where it did not come into his possession, but he simply tore it.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื“ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ืžืฉืžืข


Rabba said to Rav Huna: But the phrase in the verse โ€œto safeguard,โ€ which obligates a bailee, indicates that it came into his possession already, and this is the case of the baraita that rules he is exempt.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื”ื ื•ื”ื ื“ืืชื ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืืชื ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืฉืžื™ืจื” ื”ื ื“ืืชื ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืงืจื™ืขื”


Rather, Rabba said: This and that are discussing a case where it came into his possession, and it is not difficult. This mishna is discussing a case where it came into his possession as an item given for safeguarding, and he is exempt if the owner stated explicitly that this will be the case, and that baraita is discussing a case where it came into his possession as an item given for tearing.


ื”ื”ื•ื ืืจื ืงื ื“ืฆื“ืงื” ื“ืืชื™ ืœืคื•ืžื‘ื“ื™ืชื ืืคืงื“ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืคืฉืข ื‘ื” ืืชื• ื’ื ื‘ื™ ื’ื ื‘ื•ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื—ืœืง ืœืขื ื™ื™ื


The Gemara relates: There was a certain purse full of charity money that came to the city of Pumbedita. Rav Yosef deposited it with a certain man. That man was negligent in safeguarding it and thieves came and stole it. Rav Yosef deemed the bailee liable to pay compensation. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: To safeguard, but not where it was given to him to distribute to the poor? This seems to teach that with regard to money that is distributed to the poor, there is no halakha of safeguarding.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืขื ื™ื™ ื“ืคื•ืžื‘ื“ื™ืชื ืžื™ืงืฅ ืงื™ืฅ ืœื”ื• ื•ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื


Rav Yosef said to him: The poor of Pumbedita have an amount that is set for them to receive. Each poor person already had a specific sum designated for him, and accordingly is in the category of: To safeguard. Therefore, he is liable.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ื—ื•ื‘ืœ


MISHNA: In the case of one who robs another of wood and fashions it into vessels, or one who robs another of wool and fashions it into garments, he pays the robbery victim according to the value of the goods at the time of the robbery, but he need not return the vessels or garments. He has acquired the stolen items because they had undergone a change.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื•ื–ืœ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ืœื™ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


If one robbed another of a pregnant cow and it then gave birth while in his possession, or if one robbed another of a ewe that was laden with wool and the robber then sheared it, the robber pays the value of a cow that is ready to give birth or the value of a ewe that is ready to be shorn. He pays the value of the animal at the time of the robbery, and the calf or the wool remains his.


ื’ื–ืœ ืคืจื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ืจื—ืœ ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ื•ื’ื–ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ื“ืžื™ ืคืจื” ื”ืขื•ืžื“ืช ืœื™ืœื“ ื•ื“ืžื™ ืจื—ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ืช ืœื™ื’ื–ื–


If one robbed another of a cow, and it became pregnant in his possession, and it then gave birth; or if one robbed another of a ewe, and it became laden with wool in his possession, and he then sheared it, then the robber pays according to the value of the animal at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery.


ื’ื–ืœ ืคืจื” ื•ื ืชืขื‘ืจื” ืืฆืœื• ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ืจื—ืœ ื•ื ื˜ืขื ื” ืืฆืœื• ื•ื’ื–ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื” ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื–ืœื ื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


GEMARA: The Sages say: It can be inferred from the mishna that if one robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels, yes, the robber acquires the wood due to the change. If he merely sanded it, no, the robber does not acquire it, as this is not a significant change. Similarly, if one robbed another of wool and fashioned it into garments, yes, he has acquired the wool due to the change. If he merely washed it, no, he has not acquired it.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจื™ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ืœื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืคืŸ ืœื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ื ืŸ ืœื


And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If one robbed another of wood and sanded it, or stones and smoothed them, or wool and washed it, or flax and cleaned it, he pays according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. This baraita teaches that even a change such as sanding wood is regarded as a significant change.


ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื’ื–ืœ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืฉื™ืคืŸ ืื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืกื™ืชืชืŸ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืœื™ื‘ื ืŸ ืคืฉืชืŸ ื•ื ืงื”ื• ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


Abaye said: This does not contradict the mishna. The tanna of our mishna teaches the halakha with regard to a change deemed significant by rabbinic law, which is not deemed significant by Torah law, as it is reversible. And all the more so, if the robber effects a change deemed significant by Torah law, i.e., an irreversible change, he acquires the stolen item due to the change.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื”ื“ืจื ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


The Gemara explains: Accordingly, it must be that the case in the mishna, where the change is reversible, where one robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels, is stated with regard to one who robbed another of sanded wood. And what are they? Boards that the robber used to construct a vessel, which is a change in which the item can revert to its original state, as, if the robber desires, he can disassemble them. Similarly, the case of one who robbed another of wool and fashioned it into garments refers to wool that was already spun, as fashioning them into garments is a change in which the item can revert to its original state, as, if the robber desires, he can unravel them. The mishna teaches that the robber acquires the stolen item by making these changes, and all the more so the robber acquires the stolen item through a change deemed significant by Torah law.


ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ืขืฆื™ื ืžืฉื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื ืกืจื™ื ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžืฉืœื™ืฃ ืœื”ื• ืฆืžืจ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื‘ืฆืžืจ ื˜ื•ื•ื™ ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืกืชืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


Abaye continues his explanation: And the tanna of the baraita teaches the halakha with regard to a change deemed significant by Torah law, but he does not teach the halakha with regard to a change deemed significant by rabbinic law. It is possible that he maintains that the robber does not acquire the stolen item due to such a change.


ื•ืชื ื ื‘ืจื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืงืชื ื™


Rav Ashi stated another answer: The tanna of our mishna is also teaching the halakha with regard to a change deemed significant by Torah law. The case in the mishna of one who robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels is referring to one who constructed pestles [bukhanei], which is analogous to the case mentioned in the baraita where one sanded them, since a pestle is formed by trimming the wood in an irreversible manner. Similarly, the case in the mishna of one who robbed another of wool and fashioned it into garments is referring to one who fashioned the wool into pieces of felt [namtei], which is an irreversible change.


ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืงืชื ื™ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ื•ื›ืื ื™ ื“ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉื™ืคืŸ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื ืžื˜ื™ ื“ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืœื ื”ื“ืจ


The Gemara asks a question with regard to the baraita: But does washing effect a significant change, so that one who robs another of wool and washes it acquires the wool and pays its value at the time of robbery? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna that discusses the halakhot of the first of the sheared wool, which one must give to a priest (แธคullin 135a): If the owner of the sheep did not manage to give the sheared wool to the priest before he dyed it, he is exempt from giving it to the priest, as the obligation is in effect only with regard to wool remaining in its original state. By contrast, if he washed it but did not dye it, he is obligated to give it to the priest. This indicates that washing does not effect a significant change.


ื•ืœื™ื‘ื•ืŸ ืžื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœื™ืชื ื• ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืฆื‘ืขื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืœื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ืฆื‘ืขื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘


Abaye said: It is not difficult. This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whereas that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the first of the sheared wool: If one sheared it, spun it, and wove it, the sheared wool does not combine with the wool from other sheep to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest. If one washed it, then Rabbi Shimon says that it does not combine with the wool of other sheep, as washing effects a significant change, and the Rabbis say that it combines with the wool of other sheep, as washing does not effect a significant change. Their opinions correspond to the opinions in the baraita and mishna previously quoted.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื’ื–ื–ื• ื˜ื•ื•ืื• ื•ืืจื’ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ืœื‘ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ


Rava stated another answer: This and that, i.e., both the mishna and the baraita, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a case where one untangled the strands of wool by hand before washing it. In this case, the washing is not fully effective, and does not effect a significant change. That baraita is referring to a case where one combed it before washing it. The washing is more effective and consequently effects a significant change.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ื ืคืฆื™ื” ื ืคื•ืฆื™ ื”ื ื“ืกืจืงื™ื” ืกืจื•ืงื™


Rabbi แธคiyya bar Avin stated another answer: This mishna is referring to a case where one merely whitened it, which is not a significant change. That baraita is referring to a case where one bleached it with sulfur, which is a significant change.


ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ื”ื ื“ื—ื•ื•ืจื™ื” ื—ื•ื•ืจื™ ื”ื ื“ื›ื‘ืจื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจื•ื™ื™


Having demonstrated that, according to Rabbi Shimon, washing effects a significant change, the Gemara asks: Now that it can be said that, according to Rabbi Shimon, dye does not effect a significant change, as the Gemara will prove, can it be said that washing effects a significant change? As it is taught in a baraita: If he sheared sheep one by one and dyed the wool of each sheep before shearing the next sheep, or sheared them one by one and spun the wool, or sheared them one by one and wove the wool, then the wool sheared from the different sheep does not combine to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even if he dyed it, it combines with the other wool. This indicates that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even dyeing the wool is not a significant change, so how could he maintain that washing it is?


ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฆื‘ืข ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ืœื™ื‘ื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื’ื–ื– ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืฆื‘ืขื• ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ื•ื•ืื• ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืืจื’ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฆื‘ืขื• ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ


Abaye said: This is not difficult. This statement, that washed wool does not combine with other wool, is the opinion of the Rabbis in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while that statement, that even dyed wool combines with other wool, is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. There is a dispute as to what Rabbi Shimon rules with regard to this issue.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ


Rava said: Actually, the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and they are also of the opinion that Rabbi Shimon holds that washing effects a significant change. And as for the apparent contradiction, dye is different and it does not effect a significant change, since one is able to remove it with soap [tzafon] and return the wool to its previous state. And when it is taught there, in the mishna cited above, that if one did not manage to give the sheared wool to the priest before he dyed it he is exempt, and this ruling was established in accordance with all opinions, it was not stated with regard to ordinary dye but with regard to indigo, which cannot be removed with soap and therefore effects a permanent and therefore significant change.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืฉืื ื™ ืฆื‘ืข ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืชื ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœื™ืชื ื• ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืฆื‘ืขื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื‘ืงืœื ืื™ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ืจ


ยง Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and Rabbi Yishmael all hold that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, i.e., the changed item is still considered to have the status it had before the change. The Gemara proceeds to prove that each of these tannaโ€™im holds this way: The opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is that which we just said. He says that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even if the wool is dyed it still combines with the wool of other animals to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื• ืขื•ืžื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ


What is the source that indicates that Beit Shammai maintain that an item that undergoes a change is considered to have the same status that it had before the change? As it is taught in a baraita: If one gave a prostitute wheat as her payment, and she ground it and converted it into flour; or if he gave her olives, and she squeezed them and converted them into oil; or if he gave her grapes, and she squeezed them and converted them into wine; and if, in any of these cases, she subsequently consecrated the final product, it is taught in one baraita that it is prohibited to sacrifice them upon the altar as a meal-offering or libation, as the Torah states: โ€œYou shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your Godโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:19). And it is taught in another baraita that it is permitted, as the Gemara will explain. And Rav Yosef says: It was taught by Guryon


ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ืชืŸ ืœื” ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืชื ื ื” ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืกื•ืœืช ื–ื™ืชื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืฉืžืŸ ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ื™ื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ื™ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ



Scroll To Top