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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 1, 2016 | 讻状讞 讘讗讘 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 93

Rava and Raba bar Meri continue to derive sources from the Torah for various values statements. 聽The gemara then brings two different reasons for the distinction the mishna makes between a case where one exempts amonther for inflicting upon him bodily damage to a case where one exempts another for destroying his possessions. A contradiction between our mishna and a braita relating to laws of shomrim (where one is exempt if someone gave him an item to destroy) and two different answers are given. 聽One who is in charge of charity funds is not responsible if something happens to the money. 聽However an exception to this rule is brought. 聽The ninth chapter begins with a discussion of a thief and his ultimate ownership over the item he stole in the event that the item changes or he changes it. 聽Various mishnayot and braitot are brought which seem to contradict the mishna and each other and various possibilities are brought to reconcile them.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 93


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛谞讛 讗谞讻讬 砖诇讞 诪诇讗讱 诇驻谞讬讱 诇砖诪专讱 讘讚专讱

鈥淏ehold, I send an angel before you, to keep you by the way鈥 (Exodus 23:20), indicating that an angel was sent in place of God to guard the Jewish people.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 诪专讬 诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘转专 诪专讬 谞讬讻住讬 爪讬讘讬 诪砖讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讙诐 诇诇讜讟 讛讛诇讱 讗转 讗讘专诐 讛讬讛 爪讗谉 讜讘拽专 讜讗讛诇讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents鈥 (Genesis 13:5).

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讛诪讜住专 讚讬谉 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 谞注谞砖 转讞讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讗诪专 砖专讬 讗诇 讗讘专诐 讞诪住讬 注诇讬讱 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讘讗 讗讘专讛诐 诇住驻讚 诇砖专讛 讜诇讘讻转讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讘讗专注讗

搂 In connection with the incident of Abraham and Abimelech mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara quotes a related statement. Rabbi 岣nan says: One who passes the judgment of another to Heaven is punished first, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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 you鈥 (Genesis 16:5). Sarai stated that God should judge Abram for his actions. And it is written: 鈥淎nd Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜讬 诇讜 诇爪讜注拽 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛谞爪注拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讞讚 讛爪讜注拽 讜讗讞讚 讛谞爪注拽 讘诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 砖诪诪讛专讬谉 诇爪讜注拽 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛谞爪注拽

Concerning this, Rabbi Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淚f 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 sword鈥 (Exodus 22:22鈥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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 转讛讬 拽诇诇转 讛讚讬讜讟 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讱 砖讛专讬 讗讘讬诪诇讱 拽诇诇 讗转 砖专讛 讜谞转拽讬讬诐 讘讝专注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛谞讛 讛讜讗 诇讱 讻住讜转 注讬谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻住讬转 诪诪谞讬 讜诇讗 讙讬诇讬转 砖讛讜讗 讗讬砖讱 讜讙专诪转 讗诇讬 讛爪注专 讛讝讛 讬讛讬 专爪讜谉 砖讬讛讜 诇讱 讘谞讬 讻住讜讬讬 注讬谞讬诐 讜谞转拽讬讬诐 讘讝专注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讻讬 讝拽谉 讬爪讞拽 讜转讻讛讬谉 注讬谞讬讜 诪专讗转

The Gemara provides another lesson from the story of Abraham and Abimelech. And Rabbi Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淏ehold, it is to you a covering of the eyes鈥 (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 God鈥檚 will that you should have children with covered eyes. And this curse was fulfilled in her descendant, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see鈥 (Genesis 27:1).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 讬讛讗 讗讚诐 诪谉 讛谞专讚驻讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛专讜讚驻讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 谞专讚祝 讘注讜驻讜转 讬讜转专 诪转讜专讬诐 讜讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讛讻砖讬专谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

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.

讛讗讜诪专 住诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

搂 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 岣ma said to Rava: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讞诇 注诇 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 讗讚诐 诪讜讞诇 注诇 爪注专讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻谞讬 驻爪注谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 诇驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rav Asi bar 岣ma said to him: But does a person forgo compensation for his pain when he doesn鈥檛 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 Rava鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诪讬讚讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讘讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛

Rava said to him: Have you heard anything with regard to this matter? Rav Asi bar 岣ma 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.

讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讞诇 注诇 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖诇讜

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讛谉 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讗讜 讜讬砖 诇讗讜 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讻谞讬 驻爪注谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 诇驻讟讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讛专讬 讬砖 讛谉 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讗讜 拽专注 讗转 讻住讜转讬 注诇 诪谞转 诇驻讟讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗讜 讛专讬 诇讗讜 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉

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.

砖讘专 讗转 讻讚讬 拽专注 讗转 讻住讜转讬 讞讬讬讘 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇砖诪讜专 讜诇讗 诇讗讘讚 诇砖诪讜专 讜诇讗 诇拽专讜注 诇砖诪讜专 讜诇讗 诇讞诇拽 诇注谞讬讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard鈥 (Exodus 22:6), and: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to safeguard鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇砖诪讜专 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛 诪砖诪注

Rabba said to Rav Huna: But the phrase in the verse 鈥渢o safeguard,鈥 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讘转讜专转 砖诪讬专讛 讛讗 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讘转讜专转 拽专讬注讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 讗专谞拽讗 讚爪讚拽讛 讚讗转讬 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗驻拽讚讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讙讘讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 驻砖注 讘讛 讗转讜 讙谞讘讬 讙谞讘讜讛 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇砖诪讜专 讜诇讗 诇讞诇拽 诇注谞讬讬诐

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 isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注谞讬讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪讬拽抓 拽讬抓 诇讛讜 讜诇砖诪讜专 讛讜讗

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讞讜讘诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讝诇 注爪讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 爪诪专 讜注砖讗谉 讘讙讚讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛

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.

讙讝诇 驻专讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讬诇讚讛 专讞诇 讟注讜谞讛 讜讙讝讝讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 驻专讛 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讬诇讚 讜讚诪讬 专讞诇 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讬讙讝讝

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.

讙讝诇 驻专讛 讜谞转注讘专讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讬诇讚讛 专讞诇 讜谞讟注谞讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讙讝讝讛 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专讬 注爪讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讬驻谉 诇讗 爪诪专 讜注砖讗谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬讘谞谉 诇讗

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.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 讜砖讬驻谉 讗讘谞讬诐 讜住讬转转谉 爪诪专 讜诇讬讘谞谉 驻砖转谉 讜谞拽讛讜 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽转谞讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 讚讛讚专讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讬谞讜讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

注爪讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讘注爪讬诐 诪砖讜驻讬谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 谞住专讬诐 讚砖讬谞讜讬 讚讛讚专 诇讘专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪砖诇讬祝 诇讛讜 爪诪专 讜注砖讗谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讘爪诪专 讟讜讜讬 讚砖讬谞讜讬 讚讛讚专 诇讘专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 住转专 诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讬谞讜讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讜转谞讗 讘专讗 砖讬谞讜讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 讜砖讬谞讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 注爪讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讘讜讻讗谞讬 讚讛讬讬谞讜 砖讬驻谉 爪诪专 讜注砖讗谉 讘讙讚讬诐 谞诪讟讬 讚讛讬讬谞讜 砖讬谞讜讬 讚诇讗 讛讚专

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.

讜诇讬讘讜谉 诪讬 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 注讚 砖爪讘注讜 驻讟讜专 诇讘谞讜 讜诇讗 爪讘注讜 讞讬讬讘

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 (岣llin 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讙讝讝讜 讟讜讜讗讜 讜讗专讙讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 诇讘谞讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪爪讟专祝

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚谞驻爪讬讛 谞驻讜爪讬 讛讗 讚住专拽讬讛 住专讜拽讬

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.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 讛讗 讚讞讜讜专讬讛 讞讜讜专讬 讛讗 讚讻讘专讬讛 讻讘专讜讬讬

Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 爪讘注 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讬讘讜谉 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 讙讝讝 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜爪讘注讜 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讟讜讜讗讜 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗专讙讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 爪讘注讜 诪爪讟专祝

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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖讗谞讬 爪讘注 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讛注讘讬专讜 注诇 讬讚讬 爪驻讜谉 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 注讚 砖爪讘注讜 驻讟讜专 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讚诇讗 注讘专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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 tanna鈥檌m 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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞转谉 诇讛 讞讟讬谉 讘讗转谞谞讛 讜注砖讗谉 住讜诇转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 砖诪谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讬讬谉 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讗住讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讜转专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬 讙讜专讬讜谉

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: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God鈥 (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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 93

讛谞讛 讗谞讻讬 砖诇讞 诪诇讗讱 诇驻谞讬讱 诇砖诪专讱 讘讚专讱

鈥淏ehold, I send an angel before you, to keep you by the way鈥 (Exodus 23:20), indicating that an angel was sent in place of God to guard the Jewish people.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 诪专讬 诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘转专 诪专讬 谞讬讻住讬 爪讬讘讬 诪砖讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讙诐 诇诇讜讟 讛讛诇讱 讗转 讗讘专诐 讛讬讛 爪讗谉 讜讘拽专 讜讗讛诇讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents鈥 (Genesis 13:5).

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讛诪讜住专 讚讬谉 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 谞注谞砖 转讞讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讗诪专 砖专讬 讗诇 讗讘专诐 讞诪住讬 注诇讬讱 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讘讗 讗讘专讛诐 诇住驻讚 诇砖专讛 讜诇讘讻转讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讘讗专注讗

搂 In connection with the incident of Abraham and Abimelech mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara quotes a related statement. Rabbi 岣nan says: One who passes the judgment of another to Heaven is punished first, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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 you鈥 (Genesis 16:5). Sarai stated that God should judge Abram for his actions. And it is written: 鈥淎nd Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜讬 诇讜 诇爪讜注拽 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛谞爪注拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讞讚 讛爪讜注拽 讜讗讞讚 讛谞爪注拽 讘诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 砖诪诪讛专讬谉 诇爪讜注拽 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛谞爪注拽

Concerning this, Rabbi Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淚f 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 sword鈥 (Exodus 22:22鈥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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 转讛讬 拽诇诇转 讛讚讬讜讟 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讱 砖讛专讬 讗讘讬诪诇讱 拽诇诇 讗转 砖专讛 讜谞转拽讬讬诐 讘讝专注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛谞讛 讛讜讗 诇讱 讻住讜转 注讬谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻住讬转 诪诪谞讬 讜诇讗 讙讬诇讬转 砖讛讜讗 讗讬砖讱 讜讙专诪转 讗诇讬 讛爪注专 讛讝讛 讬讛讬 专爪讜谉 砖讬讛讜 诇讱 讘谞讬 讻住讜讬讬 注讬谞讬诐 讜谞转拽讬讬诐 讘讝专注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讻讬 讝拽谉 讬爪讞拽 讜转讻讛讬谉 注讬谞讬讜 诪专讗转

The Gemara provides another lesson from the story of Abraham and Abimelech. And Rabbi Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淏ehold, it is to you a covering of the eyes鈥 (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 God鈥檚 will that you should have children with covered eyes. And this curse was fulfilled in her descendant, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see鈥 (Genesis 27:1).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 讬讛讗 讗讚诐 诪谉 讛谞专讚驻讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛专讜讚驻讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 谞专讚祝 讘注讜驻讜转 讬讜转专 诪转讜专讬诐 讜讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讛讻砖讬专谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

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.

讛讗讜诪专 住诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

搂 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 岣ma said to Rava: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讞诇 注诇 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 讗讚诐 诪讜讞诇 注诇 爪注专讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻谞讬 驻爪注谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 诇驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rav Asi bar 岣ma said to him: But does a person forgo compensation for his pain when he doesn鈥檛 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 Rava鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诪讬讚讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讘讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛

Rava said to him: Have you heard anything with regard to this matter? Rav Asi bar 岣ma 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.

讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讞诇 注诇 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖诇讜

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讛谉 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讗讜 讜讬砖 诇讗讜 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讻谞讬 驻爪注谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 诇驻讟讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讛专讬 讬砖 讛谉 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讗讜 拽专注 讗转 讻住讜转讬 注诇 诪谞转 诇驻讟讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗讜 讛专讬 诇讗讜 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉

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.

砖讘专 讗转 讻讚讬 拽专注 讗转 讻住讜转讬 讞讬讬讘 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇砖诪讜专 讜诇讗 诇讗讘讚 诇砖诪讜专 讜诇讗 诇拽专讜注 诇砖诪讜专 讜诇讗 诇讞诇拽 诇注谞讬讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard鈥 (Exodus 22:6), and: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to safeguard鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇砖诪讜专 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬讛 诪砖诪注

Rabba said to Rav Huna: But the phrase in the verse 鈥渢o safeguard,鈥 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讘转讜专转 砖诪讬专讛 讛讗 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讘转讜专转 拽专讬注讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 讗专谞拽讗 讚爪讚拽讛 讚讗转讬 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗驻拽讚讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讙讘讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 驻砖注 讘讛 讗转讜 讙谞讘讬 讙谞讘讜讛 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇砖诪讜专 讜诇讗 诇讞诇拽 诇注谞讬讬诐

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 isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注谞讬讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪讬拽抓 拽讬抓 诇讛讜 讜诇砖诪讜专 讛讜讗

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讞讜讘诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讝诇 注爪讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 爪诪专 讜注砖讗谉 讘讙讚讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛

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.

讙讝诇 驻专讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讬诇讚讛 专讞诇 讟注讜谞讛 讜讙讝讝讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 驻专讛 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讬诇讚 讜讚诪讬 专讞诇 讛注讜诪讚转 诇讬讙讝讝

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.

讙讝诇 驻专讛 讜谞转注讘专讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讬诇讚讛 专讞诇 讜谞讟注谞讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讙讝讝讛 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专讬 注爪讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讬驻谉 诇讗 爪诪专 讜注砖讗谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬讘谞谉 诇讗

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.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 讜砖讬驻谉 讗讘谞讬诐 讜住讬转转谉 爪诪专 讜诇讬讘谞谉 驻砖转谉 讜谞拽讛讜 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽转谞讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 讚讛讚专讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讬谞讜讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

注爪讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讘注爪讬诐 诪砖讜驻讬谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 谞住专讬诐 讚砖讬谞讜讬 讚讛讚专 诇讘专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪砖诇讬祝 诇讛讜 爪诪专 讜注砖讗谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讘爪诪专 讟讜讜讬 讚砖讬谞讜讬 讚讛讚专 诇讘专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 住转专 诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讬谞讜讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讜转谞讗 讘专讗 砖讬谞讜讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 讜砖讬谞讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 注爪讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讘讜讻讗谞讬 讚讛讬讬谞讜 砖讬驻谉 爪诪专 讜注砖讗谉 讘讙讚讬诐 谞诪讟讬 讚讛讬讬谞讜 砖讬谞讜讬 讚诇讗 讛讚专

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.

讜诇讬讘讜谉 诪讬 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 注讚 砖爪讘注讜 驻讟讜专 诇讘谞讜 讜诇讗 爪讘注讜 讞讬讬讘

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 (岣llin 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讙讝讝讜 讟讜讜讗讜 讜讗专讙讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 诇讘谞讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪爪讟专祝

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚谞驻爪讬讛 谞驻讜爪讬 讛讗 讚住专拽讬讛 住专讜拽讬

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.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 讛讗 讚讞讜讜专讬讛 讞讜讜专讬 讛讗 讚讻讘专讬讛 讻讘专讜讬讬

Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 爪讘注 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讬讘讜谉 讛讜讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 讙讝讝 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜爪讘注讜 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讟讜讜讗讜 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗专讙讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 爪讘注讜 诪爪讟专祝

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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖讗谞讬 爪讘注 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讛注讘讬专讜 注诇 讬讚讬 爪驻讜谉 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 注讚 砖爪讘注讜 驻讟讜专 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讚诇讗 注讘专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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 tanna鈥檌m 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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞转谉 诇讛 讞讟讬谉 讘讗转谞谞讛 讜注砖讗谉 住讜诇转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 砖诪谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 讬讬谉 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讗住讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讜转专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬 讙讜专讬讜谉

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: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God鈥 (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

Scroll To Top