## Bava Kamma Daf 99a

###### Bava Kamma 99a:1
[Bava Kamma 99a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:1)

וְהִקְדִּיחוֹ יוֹרָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ – אִין, דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ וְשִׁבְחוֹ – לָא; לָאו שֶׁהִקְדִּיחוֹ לְאַחַר נְפִילָה, דְּאִיכָּא שְׁבָחָא, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and it was burned in the cauldron** in which it was dyed, the dyer **gives** the owner the **value of his wool.** The Gemara infers: The **value of his wool, yes,** the dyer must pay that amount, but the **value of the wool and its enhanced** value, **no,** he need not pay. The Gemara suggests: Is this **not** referring to a case where the wool **was burned after falling** into the cauldron and the dye had taken hold, so **that there is enhanced** value, **and** one can **learn from** the mishna that **a craftsman acquires** ownership rights **through** the **enhancement of the vessel,** and therefore the dyer need not pay the enhanced value?


###### Bava Kamma 99a:2
[Bava Kamma 99a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:2)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּיחוֹ בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה, דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁבָחָא. אֲבָל הִקְדִּיחוֹ לְאַחַר נְפִילָה מַאי? נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ וְשִׁבְחוֹ?! לֵימָא שְׁמוּאֵל לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַב אַסִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said:** This is not a proof. **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the wool **was burned at the moment of falling** into the cauldron, before the dye had taken hold, so **that there is no enhancement.** The Gemara asks: **But** according to this opinion, **what** would the *halakha* be if **it was burned after falling** into the cauldron, when the dye had taken hold? Would the dyer **give** the owner the **value of his wool and its enhancement? Shall we say** that **Shmuel does not accept** the statement **of Rav Asi,** and holds that a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel?


###### Bava Kamma 99a:3
[Bava Kamma 99a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:3)

אָמַר לָךְ שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּצֶמֶר וְסַמָּנִין דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, וְצַבָּע אֲגַר יְדֵיהּ הוּא דְּשָׁקֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this statement. **Shmuel** could have **said to you: With what are we dealing here** in the mishna? We are dealing with a case **where the wool and herbs** used in the dye both **belong to the homeowner, and the dyer is taking** only the **payment of his hand,** i.e., the wages for his labor, and nothing else. In this case, the craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, but in a case where the craftsman provides the materials, he does acquire such rights.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:4
[Bava Kamma 99a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:4)

אִי הָכִי, ״נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ וְסַמָּנִין״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא שְׁמוּאֵל דַּחוֹיֵי קָא מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** i.e., if the homeowner’s herbs were also ruined by the dyer, the mishna **should have** said that the dyer **gives** the owner the **value of his wool and herbs,** not just the value of his wool. **Rather, Shmuel is** merely **dismissing** the Gemara’s proof with regard to the statement of Rav Asi that a craftsman acquires a vessel through its enhancement, by saying that the mishna could be understood otherwise. He does not, however, state his own opinion on this matter.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:5
[Bava Kamma 99a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַנּוֹתֵן טַלִּיתוֹ לְאוּמָּן; גְּמָרוֹ וְהוֹדִיעוֹ – אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תָלִין״. נְתָנָהּ לוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם – כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה עָלָיו הַחַמָּה, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תָּלִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers another suggestion: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: With regard to **one who gave his garment to a craftsman,** and the craftsman **concluded** the work **and notified** the owner that the work was complete, **even** if the owner delays paying the craftsman **from now until ten days** henceforth, **he does not violate, for this** delay, the prohibition **of:** “You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him; the wages of a hired worker **shall not abide with you all night** until the morning” (Leviticus 19:13). If the craftsman **gave** the garment **to him at midday,** then **once the sun has set** and the owner has not paid him, the owner **does violate, for this** delay, the prohibition **against delaying** the payment of wages.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:6
[Bava Kamma 99a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:6)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי, אַמַּאי עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תָּלִין״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And if it enters your mind** to say that **a craftsman acquires** ownership rights **through** the **enhancement of the vessel, why does** the owner **violate** the prohibition **against delaying** the payment of wages? It is as if the craftsman acquired the garment, and the payment is considered to be a purchase of the garment by the owner, rather than a wage.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:7
[Bava Kamma 99a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:7)

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: בְּגִרְדָּא דְסַרְבָּלָא, דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁבָחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:** The *baraita* is stating the *halakha* **with regard to the laundering of a thick garment, where there is no enhancement** of the garment. Therefore, the craftsman does not acquire it.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:8
[Bava Kamma 99a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:8)

סוֹף סוֹף, לְמַאי יַהֲבַהּ נִהֲלֵיהּ – לְרַכּוֹכֵי; כֵּיוָן דְּרַכְּכֵיהּ, הַיְינוּ שְׁבָחָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַגְרֵיהּ לְבִיטְשֵׁי – בִּיטְשָׁא בִּיטְשָׁא בְּמָעֲתָא, דְּהַיְינוּ שְׂכִירוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Ultimately, to what** end **did** the owner of the garment **give it to** the craftsman? He gave it to him in order **to soften** it. **Once he has softened it, that is its enhancement,** and the craftsman has therefore acquired it. The Gemara responds: **No;** it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* in a case **where** the owner **hired** the craftsman **for treading,** i.e., to forcefully tread on the garment in water until it softens, with the owner paying the craftsman **a *ma’a*** coin **for each tread.** The difference is **that this is** considered **hired** labor, where the craftsman is paid based on the amount of times he performed an action, and not contractual labor, where he is paid based on the outcome, in this case, a softened garment.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:9
[Bava Kamma 99a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:9)

וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּלָא אַגְרֵיהּ לְבִיטְשֵׁי, מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת – דִּבְעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: קַבְּלָנוּת, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תָּלִין״, אוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר? וַאֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: עוֹבֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And with regard to what entered our minds initially, that** the owner **did not hire** the worker **for treading** but rather he hired him like a craftsman based on the assumption that the garment would be returned laundered, this **supports** the opinion **of Rav Sheshet. As they asked Rav Sheshet:** If one hires **a contractor,** who is not paid an hourly wage but is paid upon the completion of his task, and the one who hired him does not pay him on the day that he completes the work, does he **violate, for this** delay, the **prohibition against delaying** the payment of wages, **or** does he **not violate** the prohibition? **And Rav Sheshet said to them:** He does **violate** the prohibition.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:10
[Bava Kamma 99a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:10)

לֵימָא דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב אַסִּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַחָא: בִּשְׁלִיחָא דְאִיגַּרְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** based on this statement **that Rav Sheshet disagrees with** the statement **of Rav Asi,** who holds that a craftsman acquires ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, and his payment is not considered to be a wage? **Shmuel bar Aḥa said:** Rav Sheshet is discussing a specific type of contractor, and he stated his ruling **with regard to an agent** tasked with the delivery **of a letter,** in which case, since the contractor’s only task is to deliver the letter, there is no enhancement through which he might acquire ownership rights. Consequently the prohibition against delaying the payment of wages applies.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:11
[Bava Kamma 99a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:11)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי? ״עֲשֵׂה לִי שֵׁירִים, נְזָמִין וְטַבָּעוֹת, וְאֶקַּדֵּשׁ לָךְ״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ מָמוֹן לְיָדָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the statement of Rav Asi, that a craftsman acquires ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, is the **subject of** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** As it is taught in a *baraita*: If a woman gave gold to a goldsmith, instructing him: **Fashion bracelets, earrings, or rings for me, and I will be betrothed to you** as payment for your work, then **once he has fashioned them she is betrothed;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She is not betrothed until money enters her possession.**


###### Bava Kamma 99a:12
[Bava Kamma 99a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:12)

מַאי ״מָמוֹן״? אִילֵּימָא אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן לָא?! אֶלָּא בְּמַאי [כּוּ] מִקַּדְּשָׁא? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא, מַאי ״מָמוֹן״ – מָמוֹן אַחֵר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is this **money** mentioned by the Rabbis? **If we say** it means **that** very **money,** i.e., the rings she ordered, then **by inference Rabbi Meir holds** that even **that** very **money is not** required in order for the betrothal to take effect. **But with what** does **he betroth her?** He has given her nothing but the jewelry. **Rather, it is obvious.** To **what money** are the Rabbis referring? They must be referring to when he betroths her via **other money,** i.e., the payment she owes him for his service. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, in order for the betrothal to take effect he must give her additional money, while according to Rabbi Meir the betrothal takes effect when he gives her the jewelry.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:13
[Bava Kamma 99a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:13)

וְסַבְרוּהָ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף; וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara prefaces its explanation of the connection to the issue at hand by delineating two assumptions: **And** those who say that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis are engaging in a dispute with regard to the issue of a craftsman acquiring ownership rights through the enhancement of a vessel **assumed** that **everyone** agrees that the obligation to pay **a wage** is incurred continuously **from the beginning** of the period he was hired **to** its **end,** i.e., the obligation to pay for a service begins when the hired party commences work, and the sum owed increases as he proceeds. The fact that he is not paid from the time he commences work establishes the wages as a debt. Consequently, the wages now have the status of a loan. **And** they also assumed that **everyone** agrees that with regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with a loan** that **she is not betrothed.** She therefore cannot be betrothed to him by not having to pay the wages for his work.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:14
[Bava Kamma 99a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:14)

מַאי, לָאו בְּאוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on these assumptions, the Gemara asks: **What, is it not that they disagree with regard to** whether **a craftsman acquires** ownership rights **through** the **enhancement of the vessel? As Rabbi Meir holds** that **a craftsman acquires** ownership rights **through** the **enhancement of the vessel,** and since he owns the enhanced value of the vessel, when he gives the jewelry to her he is giving her something valuable of his own, and she is betrothed. **And the Rabbis hold** that **a craftsman does not acquire** ownership rights **through** the **enhancement of the vessel,** and since a craftsman, in this case, the goldsmith, does not own the jewelry, he cannot betroth a woman with it.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:15
[Bava Kamma 99a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:15)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי; אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּיֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף קָא מִיפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation of the dispute: **No,** it is possible that **everyone** agrees that **a craftsman does not acquire** ownership rights **through** the **enhancement of the vessel, but here they disagree with regard to** the issue of whether the obligation to pay **a wage** is incurred continuously **from the beginning** of the period he was hired **to** its **end.**


###### Bava Kamma 99a:16
[Bava Kamma 99a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:16)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: אֵין לִשְׂכִירוּת אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir holds** that the obligation to pay **a wage** is incurred **only at the end** of the period for which he was hired, i.e., the owner is obligated to pay only when the work is complete, and therefore the goldsmith’s wages do not have the status of a loan, but of a sum of money that she becomes obligated to give him at that time. If he gives her the jewelry without asking for that money, it is as though he gave the money from his wages to her, and she may be betrothed with it. **And the Rabbis hold** that the obligation to pay **a wage** is incurred continuously **from the beginning** of the period he was hired **to** its **end,** and therefore his wages have the status of a loan, and she cannot be betrothed with them and must be given additional money.


###### Bava Kamma 99a:17
[Bava Kamma 99a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99a:17)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְהָכָא בִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **everyone** agrees that the obligation to pay **a wage is** incurred continuously **from the beginning** of the period he was hired **to** its **end, and here they disagree with regard to one who betroths** a woman **with a loan. As Rabbi Meir holds** that with regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with a loan, she is betrothed. And the Rabbis hold** that with regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with a loan, she is not betrothed.**