## Bava Kamma Daf 99b

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

רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** another interpretation: **Everyone** agrees that the obligation to pay **a wage** is incurred continuously **from the beginning** of the period a craftsman is hired **to** its **end; and everyone** agrees that with regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with a loan, she is not betrothed; and everyone** agrees that **a craftsman does not acquire** ownership rights **through** the **enhancement of the vessel.**


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

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹסִיף לָהּ נוֹפֶךְ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתַּהּ אַפְּרוּטָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתַּהּ אַמִּלְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where he added a jewel [*nofekh*] of his own for her. Rabbi Meir holds** that if a man betroths a woman with **a loan and one *peruta*, her mind is** focused **on the *peruta*.** Therefore, in this case the jewel serves as the betrothal money. **And the Rabbis hold** that if a man betroths a woman with **a loan and one *peruta* her mind is** focused **on the loan,** so the loan serves as the betrothal money, and if one betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed.


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

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי עִמָּךְ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. ״בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁאֶעֱשֶׂה עִמָּךְ״ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁאֶעֱשֶׂה עִמָּךְ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן ״בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי עִמָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree **in the dispute** between **these *tanna’im*. As it is taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Kiddushin* 3:4): If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me **with the payment for which I have worked for you, she is not betrothed,** as the payment is a loan, since she already owes him this money. But if he says: Be betrothed to me **with the payment for which I will work for you, she is betrothed,** as from the moment he is entitled to the money, he gives it to her for her betrothal. **Rabbi Natan says:** If he says: Be betrothed to me **with the payment for which I will work for you, she is not betrothed,** as Rabbi Natan holds that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end, which means that upon the completion of the labor it is a loan, **and all the more so** if he says: Be betrothed to me **with the payment for which I have worked for you.**


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

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אוֹמֵר, בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: בֵּין ״בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי עִמָּךְ״, וּבֵין ״בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁאֶעֱשֶׂה עִמָּךְ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְאִם הוֹסִיף לָהּ נוֹפֶךְ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* cites a third opinion: **And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Actually they said** that the *halakha* is that regardless of **whether** he said: **With the payment for which I have worked for you, or whether** he said: **With the payment for which I will work for you, she is not betrothed. But if he added a jewel of his own for her, she is betrothed.**


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

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְרַבִּי נָתָן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שְׂכִירוּת. בֵּין רַבִּי נָתָן לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the dispute: **What** difference **is there between the first *tanna* and Rabbi Natan?** The difference **between them** is with regard to **a wage:** Is the obligation incurred continuously or only upon the completion of the work? The difference **between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi** is the issue of **a loan and one *peruta*.** Rabbi Natan holds that if a man betroths a woman with a loan and one *peruta* her mind is focused on the loan, and in this case his jewel is disregarded; and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that her mind is focused on the *peruta*, in this case the jewel, and she is betrothed with the jewel.


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

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: טַבָּח אוּמָּן שֶׁקִּלְקֵל – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם. מַזִּיק הוּא, פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא, נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״שְׁחוֹט לִי מִכָּאן״, וְשָׁחַט לוֹ מִכָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara now returns to the topic of a craftsman who damages the item with which he is working. **Shmuel says: An expert butcher who damaged** an animal by slaughtering it incorrectly, thereby rendering it non-kosher, is **liable to pay** the owner of the animal for the damage. Why? **He is one who causes damage; he is negligent; he is like one who is told** by the animal’s owner to **slaughter it from here,** i.e., the area of the throat where ritual slaughter is performed, **and he slaughtered it from there,** i.e., a different area of the throat, in violation of the owner’s wishes.


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

לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״מַזִּיק הוּא, פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא״? אִי אָמַר ״מַזִּיק הוּא״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא עָבֵיד בְּשָׂכָר, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא עָבֵיד בְּחִנָּם – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why must he say** both that the butcher **is one who causes damage** and that **he is negligent?** The Gemara explains: **If** Shmuel had **said** only that **he is one who causes damage, I would say** that **this statement** applies only in a case where the butcher slaughtered the animal **for pay,** in which case, due to the extra responsibility that he bears, he is considered to be one who caused damage and is liable to pay even in a case where the damage was unintentional; **but** in a case **where he does** the work **for free,** I would say **no,** he is exempt from liability in a case where the damage was unintentional. Shmuel therefore **teaches us** that the butcher **is negligent,** and one who works without pay is analogous to an unpaid bailee, who is liable to pay for damage caused by negligence.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל: הַנּוֹתֵן בְּהֵמָה לַטַּבָּח וְנִיבְּלָהּ, אוּמָּן – פָּטוּר, הֶדְיוֹט – חַיָּיב. וְאִם נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר, בֵּין הֶדְיוֹט בֵּין אוּמָּן – חַיָּיב! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִעֲכַר מוֹחָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥama bar Gurya raised an objection to Shmuel** from the *Tosefta* (10:10): With regard to **one who gives an animal to a butcher, and** the butcher killed it in a way that **rendered it an animal carcass,** if the butcher is **an expert,** then he is **exempt** from liability; if he is **an ordinary** person, without particular expertise in the act of ritual slaughter, he is **liable. And if** the owner of the animal **paid** the butcher, then regardless of **whether** he is **an ordinary** person or **whether** he is **an expert,** the butcher is **liable** to pay for the damage. This indicates that an expert butcher who slaughtered the animal improperly is exempt if he slaughtered it without pay. Shmuel **said to him: May your mind be muddled** for raising a ridiculous objection.


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

אֲתָא הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קָא מוֹתֵיב לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא שָׁקְלַתְּ מַאי דִּשְׁקַל חַבְרָךְ! קָאָמֵינָא לְכוּ אֲנָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְקָאָמְרִיתוּ לִי רַבָּנַן?! אַמַּאי לָא דָּיְיקַתְּ מִילֵּי – שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: מַזִּיק הוּא, פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא, נַעֲשֶׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ ״שְׁחוֹט לִי מִכָּאן״ – וְשָׁחַט לוֹ מִכָּאן; מַאן אִית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא – רַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִירְמֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One of the Sages came and raised** the same **objection to** Shmuel. Shmuel **said to him: Now you shall receive what your friend received** from me, since **I say to you** my statement in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and you say to me,** i.e., you raise an objection, based upon the opinion of **the Rabbis. Why were you not precise** in your consideration of **my** choice of **words? As I say: He is one who causes damage; he is negligent; he is like one who is told** by the animal’s owner to **slaughter it from here, and he slaughtered it from there. Who accepts this reasoning?** It is **Rabbi Meir, who says: He should have taken upon himself** the responsibility to perform his task properly, and if he did not, he is liable to pay for the damage that he caused. The other *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who exempt him from liability.


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

הֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר? אִילֵּימָא [הָא] רַבִּי מֵאִיר (קל״ן סִימָן) –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Which** statement of **Rabbi Meir** is Shmuel referring to? **If we say** it is **this** statement of **Rabbi Meir,** that is difficult. Parenthetically, the Gemara states that the letters ***kuf*, *lamed*, *nun*** serve as **a mnemonic** device for the three statements of Rabbi Meir that will be cited. It stands for: He tied it [*kesharo*], to dye [*litzboa*], and broke [*nishbera*].


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

דִּתְנַן: קְשָׁרוֹ בְּעָלָיו בְּמוֹסֵירָה וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו כָּרָאוּי, וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק, בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד – חַיָּיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the matter at hand: **As we learned** in a mishna (45b): If **the** ox’s **owner tied it with reins** to a fence **or locked** the gate **before it in an appropriate manner, but** nevertheless the ox **emerged and caused damage, whether** the ox is **innocuous or forewarned** the owner is **liable,** since this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** As the Gemara explains on 45b, Rabbi Meir holds that a forewarned ox requires a heightened level of safeguarding, and since the owner did not safeguard it, he is liable. The same would apply here, that one who agrees to perform a task must exercise care in executing it. Otherwise, he will be held liable to pay for damage.


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

הָתָם בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why this cannot be the statement of Rabbi Meir that Shmuel was referring to: **There,** in that mishna, the Sages **disagree with regard to** the interpretation of biblical **verses,** not logical reasoning, as the Gemara explains there, and conclusions cannot be drawn from that *halakha* to this one.


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

אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דִּתְנַן: לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. הָתָם בְּיָדַיִם קְלָאו מִינֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **this** statement of **Rabbi Meir** that Shmuel is referring to, **as we learned** in a mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer **to dye** it **red for him, and he dyed it black,** or to dye it **black, and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says:** The dyer **gives** the owner **the value of his wool,** indicating that he is liable to pay for the damage. The Gemara rejects this opinion: This statement also does not prove that according to Rabbi Meir a worker is liable to pay for a job performed improperly, since **there,** the dyer **burned** the wool, thereby removing it **from** the owner **by** direct **action.**


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

אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דִּתְנַן: נִשְׁבְּרָה כַּדּוֹ וְלֹא סִילְּקָהּ, נָפְלָה גְּמַלּוֹ וְלֹא הֶעֱמִידָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקָן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם. וְקַיְימָא לַן דִּבְנִתְקַל פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **this** statement of **Rabbi Meir** that Shmuel is referring to, **as we learned** in a *baraita*: If one’s **jug broke** on the road **and he did not remove it,** or if **his camel fell** on the road **and he did not stand it up, Rabbi Meir says: He is liable for the damage** that they cause, **and the Rabbis say: He is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.** The Gemara notes: **And we maintain** that they **disagree with regard to** the question of whether **one who stumbles is** considered **negligent.** According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, one who stumbles is considered negligent, since he should have paid attention while walking. He is therefore liable for whatever damage he causes. In the case of an expert butcher as well, Rabbi Meir holds that he is considered negligent when damaging the animal he slaughtered, and the Rabbis hold that he is not negligent and therefore exempt from liability.


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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: טַבָּח אוּמָּן שֶׁקִּלְקֵל – חַיָּיב, וַאֲפִילּוּ הוּא אוּמָּן כְּטַבָּחֵי צִיפּוֹרִי. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּכְנִישְׁתָּא דְמָעוֹן, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה דְּמַמְחֵית לְתַרְנְגוֹלִים, וְאֶפְטְרָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion concerning the case of an expert butcher. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: An expert butcher who damaged** an animal by slaughtering it incorrectly, thereby rendering it non-kosher, is **liable** to pay the owner of the animal, **and even if he is as expert as the butchers of Tzippori,** it is not considered an accident, and he is considered to be at fault. The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say** that **there was an incident** in which a butcher who damaged an animal was brought to court **before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the synagogue of** the town **Maon, and** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** the butcher: **Go bring proof that you are an expert at** slaughtering **chickens, and I will exempt you** from payment.


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

לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּחִנָּם, כָּאן בְּשָׂכָר. כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתְחַיֵּיב לוֹ טַבָּח – יַקְדִּים לוֹ דִּינָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This is **not difficult. Here,** in the aforementioned incident, the butcher slaughtered the animal **for free,** and he is therefore exempt, while **there,** in Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s previous statement, he slaughtered the animal **for pay,** and is therefore liable to pay for the damage. This is **in accordance with that which Rabbi Zeira says: One who wants a butcher to be liable to** pay **him** in the event that he damages the animal during slaughter should **advance him a dinar,** so that he is paid for his services, and he is consequently liable to pay damages.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּים לַטָּחוֹן – וְלֹא לְתָתָן, וַעֲשָׂאָן סוּבִּין אוֹ מוּרְסָן; קֶמַח לַנַּחְתּוֹם – וַעֲשָׂאוֹ פַּת נִיפּוּלִין; בְּהֵמָה לַטַּבָּח – וְנִיבְּלָהּ; חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר! אֵימָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from the *Tosefta* (10:9): **One who brought wheat** to another **to grind** for him, and the miller **did not wet** the grains sufficiently for the grinding to be performed effectively, **and** as a result **he converted** the grain **into bran or coarse bran;** or if one gave **flour to the baker and he made bread** that is **underbaked** and tends to crumble; or if one gave **an animal to a butcher and** the butcher killed it in a way that **rendered it** an unslaughtered **animal carcass,** the worker is **liable, because he is like a paid bailee.** This indicates that even if the work was done for free, the worker has the legal status of one who is paid, and he is liable to pay for the damage. The Gemara answers by emending the *baraita*: **Say** instead: **Because he is a paid bailee** and actually receives payment.


###### Bava Kamma 99b:18
[Bava Kamma 99b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99b:18)

הָהוּא מַגְרוּמְתָּא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, טַרְפֵהּ, וּפַטְרֵיהּ לְטַבָּח מִלְּשַׁלּוֹמֵי דְּמֵי. פְּגַעוּ בֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי בְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: עֲבֵיד בָּךְ רַב תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** animal that was **slaughtered** with an incision **not in the neck that was brought before Rav.** He **declared it non-kosher, and exempted the butcher from paying its value. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi encountered that man,** i.e., the owner of the animal, and **they said to him: Rav did two for you.**


###### Bava Kamma 99b:19
[Bava Kamma 99b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99b:19)

מַאי תַּרְתֵּי? אִילֵימָא תַּרְתֵּי לִגְרִיעוּתָא – דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְטַרְפַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן; וְאִי נָמֵי כְּרַבָּנַן – דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ חִיּוּבָא לְטַבָּחָא; וּמִי שְׁרֵי לְמֵימַר כִּי הַאי גַּוְנָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** are the **two? If we say** there were **two unfavorable** rulings, what are they? One is that **he should have declared** the animal **kosher, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** who says that an animal that has been slaughtered in this manner is kosher, **and** instead he **declared it non-kosher, in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that it is not kosher. **And** the second is that **even** if he holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, he should have** ruled that **the butcher** is **liable** to pay for the damage. The Gemara challenges this explanation: **But** if these are the two that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi are referring to, **is it permitted** for them **to say this type** of statement to the owner of the animal?


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: לִכְשֶׁיֵּצֵא, לֹא יֹאמַר: ״אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וַחֲבֵירַי מְחַיְּיבִין, אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁחֲבֵירַי רַבּוּ עָלַי״, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה סּוֹד״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **when** a judge **leaves** the courthouse, **he should not say** to the litigant: **I found you innocent and my colleagues found you liable, but what can I do, since my colleagues outnumber me? And** it is **concerning** a circumstance such as **this** that it **is stated: “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets;** but he that is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13).


###### Bava Kamma 99b:21
[Bava Kamma 99b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99b:21)

אֶלָּא תַּרְתֵּי לִמְעַלְּיוּתָא – דְּלָא אוֹכְלָךְ סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא, וּמַנְעָךְ מִסְּפֵק גְּזֵילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the intention is that they told him that there were **two favorable** rulings: First, **that** by declaring the animal to be non-kosher, **he did not allow you to eat** an item about which there is **uncertainty** as to whether it is **forbidden, and** second, by exempting the butcher from paying you, **he prevented you** from being in a situation where there is **uncertainty** as to whether receiving payment from the butcher constitutes **robbery,** since you would have been given the butcher’s money when he may be exempt, as the animal may in fact be kosher.


###### Bava Kamma 99b:22
[Bava Kamma 99b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99b:22)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּרְאֶה דִּינָר לַשּׁוּלְחָנִי וְנִמְצָא רַע, תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אוּמָּן – פָּטוּר, הֶדְיוֹט – חַיָּיב; וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בֵּין אוּמָּן בֵּין הֶדְיוֹט – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of an expert who erred, thereby causing a loss. It **was stated:** With regard to **one who presents a dinar to a money changer** to assess its value or authenticity and the money changer declares it valid, **and it is found** to be **bad,** i.e., invalid, causing its owner a monetary loss, it **is taught** in **one** *baraita* that if the money changer is **an expert,** he is **exempt,** while if he is **an ordinary** person he is **liable. And it is taught** in **another** *baraita* that irrespective of **whether** he is **an expert** or **whether** he is **an ordinary** person, he is **liable** to pay for the owner’s loss.


###### Bava Kamma 99b:23
[Bava Kamma 99b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99b:23)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּי תַּנְיָא אוּמָּן פָּטוּר – כְּגוֹן דַּנְכּוּ וְאִיסּוּר, דְּלָא צְרִיכִי לְמִיגְמַר כְּלָל. אֶלָּא בְּמַאי טְעוֹ? טְעוֹ בְּסִיכְּתָא חַדְתָּא, דְּהָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא דִּנְפַק מִתּוּתֵי סִיכְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To reconcile the *baraitot*, **Rav Pappa said: When** the *baraita* **teaches** that **an expert is exempt** from liability, it is referring to renowned experts **such as** the money changers **Dankhu and Issur,** whose expertise is so great **that they do not need to learn** about assessing currency **at all.** The Gemara asks: **But** if they are so proficient, **in what did they err?** The Gemara answers: **They erred with regard to** a coin from **a new press, which at that time was leaving the press,** and they did not know its value.


###### Bava Kamma 99b:24
[Bava Kamma 99b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99b:24)

הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּאַחְזְיָא דִּינָרָא לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אֲמַר לַהּ: מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. לְמָחָר אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ, וַאֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אַחֲזִיתֵיהּ, וַאֲמַרוּ לִי בִּישָׁא הוּא, וְלָא קָא נָפֵיק לִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב: זִיל חַלְּפֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ, וּכְתוֹב אַפִּנְקָסִי: ״דֵּין עֵסֶק בִּישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain woman who presented a dinar to Rabbi Ḥiyya** to assess its authenticity. **He said to her: It is a proper** coin. **The next day she came before him and said to him: I presented it** to others, **and they told me** that **it is a bad** dinar, **and I am not** able to **spend it.** Rabbi Ḥiyya **said to Rav: Go exchange it for her, and write on my tablet [*apinkasi*]: This** was a **bad transaction,** as I should not have assessed the coin.


###### Bava Kamma 99b:25
[Bava Kamma 99b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/99b:25)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא דַּנְכּוּ וְאִיסּוּר דִּפְטִירִי – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא צְרִיכִי לְמִיגְמַר? רַבִּי חִיָּיא נָמֵי לָאו לְמִיגְמַר קָא בָּעֵי! רַבִּי חִיָּיא, לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין הוּא דַּעֲבַד. כִּדְתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם״ – זֶה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But what is different** about **Dankhu and Issur, who are exempt due to** the fact **that they do not need to learn** about assessing currency? **Rabbi Ḥiyya too did not need to learn,** as he was also an expert. The Gemara responds: **Rabbi Ḥiyya** was not actually required to return a dinar to this woman, but when he did so **he acted beyond the letter of the law.** This is **as that** which **Rav Yosef taught** concerning the verse: “And you shall show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do” (Exodus 18:20): **“And you shall show them”; this** is referring to