Source: http://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_99.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:56:46+00:00

Document:
and it was burnt by the dye, he would have to pay the owner the value of his wool.1 Now, it is only the value of the wool that he has to pay, but not the combined value of the wool and the increase in price.2 Does this not apply even where it was burnt after the dye was put in,3 in which case there has already been an increase in value, which would thus show4 that the craftsman acquires title to the improvement carried out by him on any article? — Said Samuel: We are dealing here with a case where, e.g., it was burnt at the time when the dye was put in,5 so that there has not yet been any increase in value. But what would it be if it were burnt after it was put in?6 Would he really have to pay the combined value of the wool and the increase? Must we not therefore say that Samuel did not hold the view of R. Assi?7 — Samuel might say to you that we are dealing here with a case where e.g., both the wool and the dye belonged to the owner, so that the dyer had to be paid only for the labour of his hands.8 But if so, should it not have been stated that the dyer would have to pay the owner for the value of both his wool and his dye? — Samuel was only trying to point out that a refutation9 would be possible.10 Come and hear:11 If he gave his garment to a craftsman and the latter finished it and informed him of the fact, even if from that time ten days elapsed [without his paying him] he would through that not be transgressing the injunction thou shalt not keep all night.12 But if [the craftsman] delivered the garment to him in the middle of the day, as soon as the sun set [without payment having been made] the owner would through that transgress the injunction. Thou shalt not keep all night.13 Now, if you assume that a craftsman acquires title to the improvement [carried out by him] on any article,14 why should the owner be transgressing15 the injunction. Thou shalt not keep all night? — Said R. Mari the son of R. Kahana: [The work required in this case was] to remove the woolly surface of a thick cloth where there was no accretion.16 But be it as it may, since he gave it to him for the purpose of making it softer, as soon as he made it softer was there not already an improvement? — No; the ruling is necessary [for meeting the case] where he hired him to stamp upon it [and undertook to pay him] for every act of stamping one ma'ah,17 which is but the hire [for labour].
Caused by the process of dyeing.
Lit., 'after falling in'. i.e. after the dye had already exercised its effect on the wool which thereby increased in value.
Since he has to pay only for the wool and nor for its increase in value.
Lit., 'at the time of falling in', i.e., before the dye has yet exercised any effect on the wool.
In which case the craftsman acquires no title to the increase in value, since the dye which imparts to the wool the increased value is not his.
Of the proof advanced in support of R. Assi.
Without, however, intending to oppose R. Assi.
V. p. 576, n. 11.
So that when he parts with it he effects a sale of the improvement of the article and the stipulated sum paid to him is but the purchase money for the same.
For surely by not paying purchase money in time a purchaser would not render himself liable to this transgression.
To which the worker should acquire title.
By not paying the stipulated sum in time.
Who maintained that a craftsman (i.e., a contractor) becomes the owner of the improvement carried out by him upon the article and when parting with it is but a vendor to whom purchase money has to be paid, and to whom the injunction does not apply.
Where there is no tangible accretion to which a title of ownership could be acquired, and to which consequently there applies the injunction.
The woman giving the man the material.
This was spoken by an unmarried woman to her prospective husband.
In accordance with Kid. I, 1.
I.e., irrespective of the bracelets, earrings and rings made by him. Whereas according to R. Meir these alone suffice.
I.e., that strictly speaking each perutah of the hire becomes due as soon as work for a perutah is completed; a perutah is the minimum value of liability; v. Glos.
As this is not reckoned in law sufficient consideration; cf. Kid. 6b and 47a.
I.e., R. Meir and the Rabbis.
So that when he makes her bracelets, earrings and rings out of her material, the improvement becomes his and could therefore constitute a valid consideration.
But since the improvement was never his he only had an outstanding debt for the hire upon the other party who was in this case his prospective wife, and as the forfeiture of a debt is not sufficient consideration some 'actual value' must be added to make the consideration valid.
I.e., when he restores her the manufactured bracelets etc., in which case the hire had previously never become a debt.
Which thus becomes a debt rising from perutah to perutah (and as such could not constitute valid consideration).
V. p. 578, n. 7.
R. Meir and the Rabbis.
V. p. 578, n. 8.
Raba, however, said that all might have been agreed that there is progressive [liability for] hire from the very commencement until the end, and also that one who betroths [a woman] by [forgoing] a debt [due from her] would not thereby effect a valid betrothal, and it was again unanimously held that a craftsman does not acquire title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article,1 and here we are dealing with a case where, e.g., he added a particle out of his own [funds2 to the raw material supplied by her], R. Meir holding that where the [instrument of betrothal] is both [the foregoing of] a debt and [the giving of] a perutah,3 the woman thinks more4 of the perutah,2 whereas the Rabbis held that where the [instrument of betrothal] is both [the foregoing of] a debt and [the giving of] a perutah, she thinks more of the debt [which she is excused].
Samuel said: An expert slaughterer who did not carry out the slaughter properly12 would be liable to pay, as he was a damage-doer, [and] he was careless, and this would be considered as if the owner asked him to slaughter for him from one side13 and he slaughtered for him from the other. But why was it necessary for him to say both 'he was a damage-doer [and] he was careless'? — If he had said only he was a damage-doer, I might have said that this ruling should apply only where he was working for a hire,14 whereas where he was working gratuitously this would not be so; we are therefore told, [that there is no distinction as] he was careless. R. Hama b. Guria raised an objection to this view of Samuel [from the following]: If an animal was given to a slaughterer and he caused it to become nebelah,15 if he was an expert he would be exempt, but if an amateur16 he would be liable. If, however, he was engaged for hire, whether he was an amateur or expert he would be liable. [Is this not in contradiction to the view of Samuel?] — He replied:17 Is your brain disordered? Then another one of our Rabbis came along and raised the same objection to his view. He said to him:18 'You surely deserve to be given the same as your fellow.19 I was stating to you the view of R. Meir and you tell me the view of the Rabbis! Why did you not examine my words carefully wherein I said: "For he was a damage-doer [and] he was careless, and this should be considered as if the owner asked him to slaughter for him from one side20 and he slaughtered for him from the other." For surely who reasons in this way if not R. Meir, who said that a human being has to take greater heed to himself?' But what [statement of] R. Meir [is referred to]? We can hardly say the one of R. Meir which we learned: (Mnemonic: KLN)21 'If the owner fastened his ox [to the wall inside the stable] with a cord or shut the door in front of it properly but the ox [nevertheless] got out and did damage, whether it had been Tam or already Mu'ad he would be liable; this is the opinion of R. Meir,'22 for surely, in that case, there they differed as to the interpretation of Scriptural Verses!23 — It therefore seems to be the one of R. Meir which we learned: [If wool was handed over to a dyer] to dye it red but he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, R. Meir says that he would have to pay [the owner] for the value of the wool.24 But did he not there spoil it25 with his own hands?26 — The reference therefore must be to the one of R. Meir which was taught: 'If a pitcher is broken and [the potsherds] are not removed, or a camel falls down and is not raised, R. Meir orders payment for any damage resulting therefrom, whereas the [other] Sages say that no action can be instituted in civil courts though there is liability according to divine justice,'27 and we came to the conclusion28 that they differed as to whether or not stumbling implies negligence.
A case of magrumeta35 was brought before Rab, who declared it trefa and nevertheless released the slaughterer from any payment. When R. Kahana and R. Assi met that man36 they said to him: 'Rab did two things with you.' What was meant by these two things? If you say it meant two things to his36 disadvantage, one that Rab should have declared it kasher in accordance with R. Jose b. Judah,37 whereas he declared it trefa in accordance with the Rabbis,37 and again that since he acted in accordance with the Rabbis,37 he should at any rate have declared the slaughterer liable, is it permitted to say a thing like that? Was it not taught:38 When [a judge] leaves [the court] he should not say, 'I wanted to declare you innocent, but as my colleagues insisted on declaring you liable I was unable to do anything since my colleagues formed a majority against me,' for to such behaviour is applied the verse, A tale-bearer revealeth secrets?39 — It must therefore be said that the two things were to his36 advantage, first that he did not let you eat a thing which was possibly forbidden, secondly that he restrained you from receiving payment which might possibly have been a misappropriation.
It was stated: If a denar was shown to a money changer [and he recommended it as good] but it was subsequently found to be bad, in one Baraitha it was taught that if he was an expert he would be exempt but if an amateur he would be liable, whereas in another Baraitha it was taught that whether he was an expert or an amateur he would be liable. R. Papa stated: The ruling that in the case of an expert he would be exempt refers to such, e.g., as Dankcho and Issur40 who needed no [further] instruction whatever, but who made41 a mistake regarding a new stamp at the time when the coin had just [for the first time] come from the mint.
V. p. 578, n. 11.
Which could constitute valid consideration.
I.e., a coin which constitutes the minimum of value in legal matters.
The article having been already returned to her.
This was spoken to a prospective wife.
V. p. 578. n. 8.
V. p. 579, n. 7.
As required by the ritual, and has thus rendered the animal unfit for consumption according to the dietary laws.
Where he could be made liable even in the absence of carelessness.
I.e., unfit for consumption through a flaw in the slaughter; v. Glos.
As he had no right to slaughter.
I.e., Samuel to R. Hama.
I.e., Samuel to the other Rabbi.
V. p. 580, n. 9.
Keyword consisting of the Hebrew initial words of the three teachings that follow.
Since he intended to dye it in that colour in which he actually dyed it, whereas in the case of the slaughterer, the damage looks more like an accident.
V. p. 580, n. 8.
V. p. 580, n. 10.
Were the slaughter not carried out effectively.
V. p. 581, n. 1.
Tosef. B.K. X, 4 and B.B. 93b.
I.e., where the slaughter was started in the appropriate part of the throat but was finished higher up, in which matter there is a difference of opinion between R. Jose b. Judah and the Rabbis in Hul. 1, 3.
I.e., the owner of the animal.
Two renowned money changers in those days.
Lit., 'But where was their mistake; they made, etc.
V. p. 583. n. 8.
Ex. XVIII, 20; the verse continues, the way wherein they must walk and the work.

References: V. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V.