## Bava Kamma Daf 101a

###### Bava Kamma 101a:1
[Bava Kamma 101a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:1)

כַּפְרָא דּוּדֵי.

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:2
[Bava Kamma 101a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:2)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן עֵצִים לֶחָרָשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן כִּסֵּא, וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן סַפְסָל; סַפְסָל, וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן כִּסֵּא – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵצָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַיְּצִיאָה, וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח.

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:3
[Bava Kamma 101a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:3)

וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אִם נָתַן עֵצִים לֶחָרָשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן כִּסֵּא נָאֶה, וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן כִּסֵּא כָּעוּר; סַפְסָל נָאֶה, וְעָשָׂה סַפְסָל כָּעוּר – אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה, נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי הַיְּצִיאָה; וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח, נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי הַשֶּׁבַח.

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:4
[Bava Kamma 101a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:4)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יֵשׁ שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל הַצֶּמֶר, אוֹ אֵין שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל הַצֶּמֶר?

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:5
[Bava Kamma 101a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:5)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּגְזַל סַמָּנִין וְדַקִּינְהוּ וּתְרָנְהוּ וּצְבַע (בָּהֶן) [בְּהוּ], תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דִּקְנָנְהוּ בְּשִׁינּוּי!

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:6
[Bava Kamma 101a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:6)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּגְזַל סַמָּנִין שְׁרוּיִין, וּצְבַע בְּהוּ. מַאי? יֵשׁ שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי צֶמֶר, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי סַמָּנַאי דִּשְׁקַלְתִּינְהוּ״; אוֹ דִלְמָא אֵין שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַצֶּמֶר, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵית לָךָ גַּבַּאי וְלָא מִידֵּי״?

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:7
[Bava Kamma 101a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:7)

אָמְרִי: וְאִי אֵין שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי צֶמֶר, מִי מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵית לָךָ גַּבַּאי וְלָא מִידֵּי״?! נֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי סַמָּנַאי דְּאַפְסֵדְתִּינְהוּ״!

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:8
[Bava Kamma 101a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:8)

אֶלָּא לְהָךְ גִּיסָא: אֵין שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַצֶּמֶר, וּבָעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִּלְמָא יֵשׁ שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי צֶמֶר, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הָא מַנְּחִי קַמָּךְ – שִׁקְלִינְהוּ״? ״שִׁקְלִינְהוּ״?! בְּמַאי (שָׁקְלֵיהּ) [שָׁקֵיל לְהוּ], בְּצָפוֹן? צָפוֹן עַבּוֹרֵי מְיעַבַּר, הֲשָׁבָה לָא עָבֵיד!

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:9
[Bava Kamma 101a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:9)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דִּגְזַל צֶמֶר וְסַמָּנִין דְּחַד, וְצַבְעֵיהּ לְהָהוּא צֶמֶר בְּהָנָךְ סַמָּנִין, וְקָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְצֶמֶר. יֵשׁ שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַצֶּמֶר, וְקָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ סַמָּנִין וְצֶמֶר; אוֹ דִלְמָא אֵין שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי צֶמֶר, וְצֶמֶר מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ, סַמָּנִין לָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ?

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:10
[Bava Kamma 101a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:10)

אָמְרִי: תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּאִיַּיקַּר לֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בִּדְמֵי! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּזַל צִיבְעָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁצָּבַע בְּהוּ קוֹפָא.

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:11
[Bava Kamma 101a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:11)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּצֶמֶר דְּחַד וְסַמָּנִין דְּחַד, וְקָאָתֵי קוֹף וְצַבְעֵיהּ לְהָהוּא צֶמֶר בְּהָנָךְ סַמָּנִין. יֵשׁ שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי צֶמֶר, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סַמָּנַאי דְּגַבָּךְ נִינְהוּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא אֵין שֶׁבַח סַמָּנִין עַל גַּבֵּי צֶמֶר, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית לָךָ גַּבַּאי כְּלוּם?

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:12
[Bava Kamma 101a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בֶּגֶד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עׇרְלָה – יִדָּלֵק. אַלְמָא חֲזוּתָא מִילְּתָא הִיא!

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:13
[Bava Kamma 101a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: הֲנָאָה הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה – דְּתַנְיָא: ״עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה; מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֵהָנֶה מִמֶּנּוּ, וְלֹא יִצְבַּע [בּוֹ], וְלֹא יַדְלִיק בּוֹ אֶת הַנֵּר?

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:14
[Bava Kamma 101a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:14)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ״, ״עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כּוּלָּם.

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


###### Bava Kamma 101a:15
[Bava Kamma 101a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/101a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בֶּגֶד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי שְׁבִיעִית – יִדָּלֵק! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״תִּהְיֶה״ – בַּהֲוָיָתָהּ תְּהֵא.

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