## Bava Kamma Daf 102a

###### Bava Kamma 102a:1
[Bava Kamma 102a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:1)

סְתָם עֵצִים – לְהַסָּקָה הֵן עוֹמְדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Unspecified wood exists for fuel,** i.e., charcoal, so its benefit follows its consumption.


###### Bava Kamma 102a:2
[Bava Kamma 102a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:2)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: וְעֵצִים לְהַסָּקָה – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מוֹסְרִין פֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית לֹא לְמִשְׁרָה וְלֹא לִכְבוּסָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נוֹתְנִין פֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית לְתוֹךְ הַמִּשְׁרָה וּלְתוֹךְ הַכְּבוּסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana says: And** the matter of whether **kindling wood,** whose benefit follows its consumption, is subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year **is** a dispute among the ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Shevi’it* 6:25): **One may not transfer Sabbatical** Year **produce,** e.g., wine, to another person; **neither for soaking** flax to prepare it for spinning, as the benefit derived from the flax follows its soaking, when the soaked and spun thread is woven into a garment; **nor for laundering** with it, as the benefit derived follows the laundering when one wears the clean clothes. Soaking the flax or laundering the garment in wine is considered the consumption of the wine, as it is no longer potable. **And Rabbi Yosei says: One may transfer** to another **Sabbatical** Year **produce for soaking and for laundering.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:3
[Bava Kamma 102a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְאׇכְלָה״ – וְלֹא לְמִשְׁרָה, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ – וְלֹא לִכְבוּסָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לָכֶם״ – לְכׇל צׇרְכֵיכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning** for the statement **of the Rabbis? The verse states** with regard to Sabbatical Year produce: **“For food”** (Leviticus 25:6), from which it is inferred: **But not for soaking; “for food,” but not for laundering. And Rabbi Yosei says** that it is permitted, as **the verse** also **states: “For you,”** from which it is inferred: For you, **for all your needs,** even for soaking and for laundering.


###### Bava Kamma 102a:4
[Bava Kamma 102a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:4)

וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״לָכֶם״! ״לָכֶם״ דֻּומְיָא דִּ״לְאָכְלָה״ – בְּמִי שֶׁהֲנָאָתוֹ וּבִיעוּרוֹ שָׁוִין, יָצְאוּ מִשְׁרָה וּכְבוּסָה שֶׁהֲנָאָתָן אַחַר בִּיעוּרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the Rabbis as well, isn’t it written: “For you”?** How do they explain that term? The Gemara answers: From that term “for you” it is derived: **“For you,” similar to “for food,”** i.e., the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect **with regard to those** items **whose benefit and whose consumption coincide,** which **excludes soaking and laundering, where** the items’ **benefit follows their consumption.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:5
[Bava Kamma 102a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:5)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״לְאׇכְלָה״! אָמַר לָךְ: הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״לְאׇכְלָה״ – וְלֹא לִמְלוּגְמָא. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״לְאׇכְלָה״ וְלֹא לִמְלוּגְמָא; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא ״לְאׇכְלָה״ וְלֹא לִכְבוּסָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״לָכֶם״ – הֲרֵי כְּבוּסָה אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״לְאׇכְלָה״? ״לְאׇכְלָה״ – וְלֹא לִמְלוּגְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Yosei as well, isn’t it written: “For food”?** Rabbi Yosei could have **said to you: That** term **is necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*, **as it is taught:** The verse states: **“For food,” but not for a poultice [*melogema*].** The *baraita* continues: Do **you say “for food” but not for a poultice, or** perhaps **it is only “for food” but not for laundering? When** the verse **says: “For you,” laundering is** already **stated** as permitted since it includes all of one’s bodily needs. **How do I realize** the meaning of that which the verse states: **“For food”?** It is **“for food” but not for a poultice.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:6
[Bava Kamma 102a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:6)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת הַכְּבוּסָה וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְּלוּגְמָא? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הַכְּבוּסָה – שֶׁשָּׁוָה בְּכׇל אָדָם, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַמְּלוּגְמָא – שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּכׇל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues. Should one ask: **And what did you see** that led you **to include the** use of Sabbatical Year produce for **laundering and to exclude the** use of Sabbatical Year produce as **a poultice?** Perhaps the opposite should be said. The *baraita* answers: **I include the** use for **laundering, which** applies **equally to every person,** as everyone needs clean clothes, **and I exclude the** use as **a poultice, which** does **not** apply **equally to every person;** it is only for the ill or wounded.


###### Bava Kamma 102a:7
[Bava Kamma 102a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:7)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״לְאׇכְלָה״ – וְלֹא לִמְלוּגְמָא, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ – וְלֹא לְזִילּוּף, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ – וְלֹא לַעֲשׂוֹת מִמֶּנָּה אַפִּיקְטְוִיזִין? כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי; דְּאִי כְּרַבָּנַן, אִיכָּא נָמֵי מִשְׁרָה וּכְבוּסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In accordance with whose** opinion is **that which is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to Sabbatical Year produce: **“For food,” but not for a poultice; “for food,” but not for sprinkling** wine in one’s house to provide a pleasant fragrance; **“for food,” but not to make an emetic [*apiktevizin*] from it** to induce vomiting? **In accordance with whose** opinion is this *baraita*? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, as, if** it were **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, is there** not **also soaking and laundering** that should have been excluded from the *baraita*, as in the Rabbis’ opinion the use of Sabbatical Year produce for those purposes is forbidden?


###### Bava Kamma 102a:8
[Bava Kamma 102a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:8)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הַשֶּׁבַח כּוּ׳. (סִימָן סב״ן)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna (100b) teaches that if the owner gave wool to a dyer to dye it red and instead he dyed it black, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. **Rabbi Yehuda says: If** the value of **the enhancement** exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. If the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement. The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** device, the acrostic ***saban*,** for the names of the Sages involved in the following incident; each letter in the acrostic represents the middle letter of one of the names: *Samekh*, Rav Yosef; *beit*, Rabbi Abba; *nun*, Rav Huna.


###### Bava Kamma 102a:9
[Bava Kamma 102a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:9)

יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף אֲחוֹרֵי דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא – קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וְיָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא וְקָאָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Yosef was sitting behind Rabbi Abba,** and they were both sitting **before Rav Huna. And Rav Huna was sitting and saying:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa and** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:10
[Bava Kamma 102a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:10)

אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְאַפֵּיהּ, אָמַר: בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה – אִצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: יָחִיד וְרַבִּים – הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה כְּיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef turned his face** in disdain of Rav Huna’s statement. **He said: Granted,** stating that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa is necessary,** as it would **enter your mind to say** that there is a principle that when there is a dispute between **an individual and** the **many,** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the many.** Rav Huna therefore **teaches us** that in this case the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, despite the fact that he is **an individual.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:11
[Bava Kamma 102a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:11)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: מִלְוָה בִּשְׁטָר – אֵין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן. מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה – נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמַצִּיל מִיָּדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interrupts Rav Yosef’s remark and asks: **What is** the ruling of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa** to which Rav Huna is referring? It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says** that with regard to **a loan with** a promissory **note, one may not collect** the loan **from** gentiles near the time of their holidays, but with regard to **a loan by oral** agreement, **one may collect from** gentiles even near the time of their holidays, **because** the creditor is considered **as one who salvages** money **from their possession.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:12
[Bava Kamma 102a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:12)

אֶלָּא ״הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה״ לְמָה לִי? מַחְלוֹקֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ סְתָם הִיא, וּמַחְלוֹקֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ סְתָם – הֲלָכָה כִּסְתָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to the statement that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, why do I** need it? This **is** an example of the Mishna recording **a dispute, and afterward** recording only one side of that dispute as **an unattributed opinion. And** the principle is that when the Mishna records **a dispute, and afterward** records only one side of that dispute as **an unattributed opinion,** then the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with the unattributed opinion.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:13
[Bava Kamma 102a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:13)

מַחֲלוֹקֶת – בְּבָבָא קַמָּא, לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַיְּצִיאָה, וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח. וּסְתָם – בְּבָבָא מְצִיעָא, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה – יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, וְכׇל הַחוֹזֵר בּוֹ – יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara identifies the dispute and the unattributed mishna. The **dispute** is found **in** tractate ***Bava Kamma*:** If one gave wool to a dyer **to dye** it **red for him and** instead **he dyed it black,** or to dye it **black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says:** The dyer **gives** the owner of the wool **the value of his wool. Rabbi Yehuda says: If** the value of **the enhancement exceeds the expenses,** the owner of the wool **gives the expenses to** the dyer. **And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him** the value of **the enhancement. And the unattributed** mishna appears **in** tractate ***Bava Metzia*, as we learned** in a mishna there (76a): **Whoever changes** from the terms of an agreement **is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges from** an agreement **is at a disadvantage.** This unattributed mishna accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a craftsman who deviates from his assignment receives either the expenses or the enhancement, whichever is of lesser value.


###### Bava Kamma 102a:14
[Bava Kamma 102a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:14)

וְרַב הוּנָא – אִצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אֵין סֵדֶר לַמִּשְׁנָה, וּסְתָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת הִיא. וְרַב יוֹסֵף – אִי הָכִי, כׇּל מַחְלוֹקֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ סְתָמָא – נֵימָא: אֵין סֵדֶר לַמִּשְׁנָה, וּסְתָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** being that this is a dispute and afterward an unattributed opinion, why did **Rav Huna** find it necessary to state that the *halakha* follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? **It is necessary,** as it would **enter your mind to say** that **the Mishna is not sequential and,** in fact, this **is** a case of **an unattributed** ruling **followed by a dispute. And** why does **Rav Yosef** disagree? He disagrees because **if that is so,** then with regard to **every** case where **a dispute** is recorded **and afterward an unattributed** opinion is recorded, **let us say: The Mishna is not sequential, and** this **is** a case of **an unattributed** ruling **followed by a dispute.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:15
[Bava Kamma 102a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:15)

וְרַב הוּנָא – כִּי לָא אָמְרִינַן אֵין סֵדֶר לַמִּשְׁנָה, בַּחֲדָא מַסֶּכְתָּא; אֲבָל בִּתְרֵי מַסֶּכְתּוֹת אָמְרִינַן. וְרַב יוֹסֵף – כּוּלַּהּ נְזִיקִין חֲדָא מַסֶּכְתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Huna** would respond: The situation **where we do not say** that **the Mishna is not sequential,** i.e., where we say that the Mishna is sequential, is only when both *mishnayot* appear **in one tractate, but** when they appear **in two** different **tractates we say** that the Mishna is not sequential. Since these *mishnayot* are found in two different tractates, *Bava Kamma* and *Bava Metzia*, the assumption is that the Mishna is not sequential. **And Rav Yosef** would respond: **All of *Nezikin*,** i.e., *Bava Kamma*, *Bava Metzia*, and *Bava Batra*, **is one tractate.**


###### Bava Kamma 102a:16
[Bava Kamma 102a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:16)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי הִלְכָתָא פְּסִיקָתָא – כׇּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה, יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה; וְכׇל הַחוֹזֵר בּוֹ, יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that even if *Bava Kamma* and *Bava Metzia* are to be considered two separate tractates, Rav Yosef would still hold that Rav Huna’s statement was unnecessary **because** it **is taught** as one of a pair **of established *halakhot*: Whoever changes** from the terms of an agreement **is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges** on an agreement **is at a disadvantage.** Since this ruling was taught with another, established *halakha*, it is apparent that this is also an established *halakha*.


###### Bava Kamma 102a:17
[Bava Kamma 102a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/102a:17)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לִשְׁלוּחוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara notes another dispute concerning one who deviates from the terms of an agreement. **The Sages taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Bava Metzia* 4:20): **One who gives money to his agent**