DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 107



דף ק"ז

שמות פרק כב

(ח) עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה עַל כָּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר  שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ

רבי יוחנן understands from the word אבדה that just as a custodian who claims a deposit was stolen when in fact he stole it he pays כפל, the same holds true for one that found a lost article and claimed it was stolen.  The גמרא deduces from this that a custodian should be responsible for a minor's deposit that is no less than a lost article.  Just as one becomes responsible of a lost article the same should be true even for a minor's property that he cannot legally transfer.  The גמרא gives two answers:

1. The case where he is not responsible for a minor's item is where it does not exist when he became an adult so he was unable to make a valid claim against the custodian.

2. The owner does not have to give the item to the custodian to create a responsibility but he must be mentally competent to create a legal custodian.

רבי יוחנן requires a שומר חינם to admit and deny part of the claim to be required to pay כפל
The subject of the verse is an unpaid custodian.  The words כי הוא זה in the verse mean I owe you only this much of your claim.  If he denies it all he is not obligated to swear.

רב חייא בר יוסף disagrees.  He holds the partial admission applies only to loans based upon a concept called עירוב פרשיות the Torah combines the law of a deposit and loan in the same verse.

He holds that loans are special because the lender did him a favor he cannot dismiss.  He cannot deny the whole loan only part.  Since the borrower may own him the full amount he has to swear on the other half.  In the case of a deposit the custodian must swear even if he denies the full amount.

רמי בר חמא is the third opinion.  He agrees with רבי יוחנן but applies it to all custodians

The verse deals specifically with a שומר חינם.  A שומר שכר is learned by a גזירת שוה, the word give is mentioned in both כי יתן איש.  The verse concerning a borrower begins with a ו to indicate its laws are a carryover from the previous. 

רב חייא בר יוסף holds that the custodian does not pay כפל unless he used it before his oath.

שמות פרק כב

וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ... אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ
The verse means he swears that he did not use the deposit but if he is found to be lying that in fact he
 used it he pays כפל.

רבי חייא בר אבא quoted רבי יוחנן as saying the custodian is liable to כפל even if his animal is standing next to its trough meaning not used by the custodian

This has two possible meanings

1. רבי יוחנן holds he is only liable for כפל where he did not use the animal.  As soon as he uses it he is a גזלן and acquires it.  If after, he claims it was stolen he would not be liable to כפל because it is no longer a deposit.  In addition, his oath is immaterial because he has to pay already as a גזלן.  It no longer matters whether it was stolen from him.

2.  He follows the apparent understanding of the verse that if he used it he is liable but includes even the case where he did not use it.

There is another statement of רבי יוחנן that he exempts the custodian from כפל where he first claims the deposit was lost, swore and then claimed it was stolen and swore after which came witnesses that he is the thief he does not pay כפל because by way of his first oath he Is no longer liable to the owner.  His second oath was inconsequential.  We cannot assume necessarily that רבי יוחנן holds he is exempt from paying if he uses the item.

רב ששת holds that the requirement to swear and pay כפל applies only where he did not use the deposit

He infers from the verse the exact opposite of רב חייא בר יוסף

It follows that there are three opinions concerning this law

1. רב חייא בר יוסף holds that he is liable to כפל and for the false oath only where he used the deposit.

2.  רב ששת holds he is liable only if he did not use it prior to his claim and oath.

3. רבי יוחנן's opinion is questionable.  It is not clear if he holds it specifically where he did not use it or even where he did use it.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 106 (Video)

DAF YOMI| Bava Kama 105 (Video)

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 105 (Text)

דף ק"ה

The additional fifth that the Torah imposed is it a חיוב ממון or a מצוה for atonement

The difference is if the victim can sue the thief for the money.  The גמרא brings three proofs that it is a monetary obligation.  The first is our משנה. It says the thief does not have to travel to pay the fifth to the victim but inferred is he owes it to him.  There is a ברייתא that obligates even the son to pay the fifth if his father swore, admitted and died before paying but תורת כהנים exempts the son even if he took an oath!

This is a case where the stolen item no longer exists.  Although the thief if he were alive would have to pay its value, the son is obligated to return only the stolen item.  Therefore the oath does not qualify as denying a monetary obligation.   However the principle he has to pay because his father left him land.  The court's decision requiring the thief to pay is tantamount to a documented loan that creates a lien on the debtor's property.  He is exempt from paying the fifth because his oath only denied the lien.  Since one does not swear regarding claims on land, his oath is legally inconsequential.

רבא answers that the son was unaware of the theft so he swore falsely inadvertently.  The requirement of the fifth is only where one swears falsely intentionally.

The משנה does not require the thief to travel to the victim to return less than a שוה פרוטה
The גמרא's first version states if the stolen item still exists there is a concern the price will rise to a שוה פרוטה which will disqualify his אשם sacrifice retroactively since he must pay before bringing the sacrifice. 
The second version states that even if the price rises it would not disqualify the sacrifice.  He would be required to return the stolen item.

The price of the stolen items decrease below a שוה פרוטה

He stole three lettuces worth three פרוטות.  The price decreased to three for two.  According to רבא he has to return the third even though now it has no significant value.  Actually this law is a previous משנה.  If a robber steals חמץ that becomes אסור בהנאה during פסח and it no longer exists the thief has to pay its value at the time of the theft even though now it is not worth anything.

He stole two lettuces worth a פרוטה and returned one

He is no longer a thief because he possesses less than a פרוטה but he did not fulfill theמצות השבה because he returned nothing.  Similarly, a נזיר who left two hairs, the first fell out and the second one he cut so he has no hair left however by cutting only one of the two he did not fulfill the מצוה because he has to cut a minimum of two.  The גמרא does not resolve the question concerning one who seals part of a hole in a כלי חרס so that liquids cannot enter does it prevent the כלי from becoming טמא or perhaps since there is still an opening it does become טמא.

The thief swore falsely that he did not steal חמץ after it became אסור בהנאה

רבא was uncertain about this case because his oath was not a denial about a monetary obligation since the חמץ has no value after פסח.  On the other hand if stolen from the thief he has to pay its value at the time of the theft.

רבה holds that in a case where the thief when confronted by the victim claims the animal belongs to him and swears he is some kind of שומר even though now he did not deny a monetary obligation only later if something happens to the animal he will be exempt if it happened באונס או מחמת 
מלאכה whereas he would not be exempt as a thief he is liable to pay its value at the time of the theft plus the fifth and a קרבן.

The law for thief who was מודה בעיקר
If he returns the stolen item he is exempt for confessing the basic obligation because he stands to gain nothing from the false oath.  However if he does not return the stolen item he is not exempt since he stands to gain at a later point from the false oath.

One witness that withholds testimony concerning a lost object under a false oath
The law is argued on the basis of כל הגורם לממון כממון דמי

רבי חנינאHe is exempt from a קרבן for a false oath.  He holds that since there is only a possibility that his testimony will benefit the loser because even if he testifies that he is the finder, he can claim something unavoidable happened to it and exempt himself.   It is not the same as an oath preventing a certain benefit.


שמואל – He holds דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי.  He obligates him to bring a sacrifice for the false oath since he could have caused him to retrieve his lost object.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 104 (Video)

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 104 (Text)

דף קד

רבא answers the question from the previous עמוד who authored the משנה

Both רבי עקיבא and רבי טרפון agree in the case of the משנה that if the thief swore falsely he has to return the money directly to the victim wherever he is.  Although the thief knows the identity of the victim and can hold the money for him until he returns, he cannot atone for the false oath by bringing a קרבן until he returns the theft.  Therefore if he did not swear falsely he can hold the money for him until he returns.  This explains according to both opinions the law of the משנה that requires the thief to travel only if he swears falsely.

In the case where the thief does not know the victim they argue

רבי עקיבאThe thief either has to pay or hold the money until he returns.  Since he does not know who the victim is of the five he cannot hold it as a deposit.  He has to pay each questionable victim even if he did not swear falsely.

רבי טרפוןHe holds the thief can hold the money even if he swore falsely until the actual victim establishes his claim.  If he wants to לצאת ידי שמים fulfill his requirement even according to the standard of heaven he must pay each claim.

One who appoints an agent to collect a debt in front of witnesses without instructing the debtor to pay him

רב חסדאHe is the creditor's legal agent.  If anything happens to the money in his possession the debtor is not responsible since he appointed him in front of witnesses.  He is different than a worker or friend that works with the creditor.  Even though he may generally act as his agent, since he did not appoint him in front of witnesses, the creditor needs to notify the debtor to send the money with him. 

רבהHe is not the legal agent.  He appointed him in front of witnesses to indicate his credibility.

A thief returns the theft to a court appointed agent
Our משנה holds an agent appointed by witnesses suffices to be his legal representative.  The משנה mentions only an agent of the court because even the robber is permitted to request him to return the stolen item.  However an agent appointed by the thief in front of witnesses cannot represent the victim only one appointed by the victim.  רבי שמעון בן אלעזר holds even an agent of the court must be appointed by the victim to represent him.  רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר explain the disqualified agent in our משנה even appointed by witnesses is disqualified because the victim simply made him available to be the robbers agent not his.

The creditor did not appoint the agent in the presence of witnesses but sent him with a letter containing his signature or seal signed by witnesses
שמואלThe agent is the legal agent of the creditor.  He would subscribe to a קנין אגב as the way for the agent to collect on behalf of the creditor.  The creditor transfers the money to him wherever it is by way of a small portion of land.  A קנין חליפין, an exchange of a kerchief for the movable item does not work for money. 


 – He holds the signature of witnesses on the letter with his signature or seal suffices to make him his legal representative.  רבי יוחנן

DAF Yomi | Bava Kama 103 (Video)

DAF Yomi | Bava Kama 103 (Text)

דף ק"ג

Buying property under a fictitious name

The ברייתא says we do not force him to sell unless the buyer stipulates on the condition that he will sell

רב ששת – He explains that the fictitious buyer in the גמרא the ריש גלותא does not have to write a document to the true owner.  The ריש גלותא has the right to protect his reputation as one who does not sell land.

אביי – He understands that the buyer cannot force him to provide an additional deed indicating him as the true owner unless he stipulated this at the time of the purchase.  The seller has the right to protect his financial stability.  His property will devalue if he sells too much.  However if the buyer said to the witnesses in the presence of the seller I need another document the seller cannot say I thought he meant from the ריש גלותא.

Advancing money to a middleman to provide merchandise over a period of time for a fixed price

רב כהנא advanced money to a middleman to purchase flax for a fixed price to be delivered at a later point in time so the money is like a loan because he has the use of the money until he makes the purchase.  The middleman purchased it at a lower price and sold it for more.  רב held that רב כהנא could receive the merchandise but not the proceeds of the sale unless the buyer knew that the profit would be to רב כהנא.  He then transfers the money directly to him resembling a sale and not a loan.  If he did not know he transfers the money to the middleman who then would repay the loan with the proceeds. 

משנה
ויקרא פרק ה 

(כא) נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּיקֹוָק וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן אוֹ בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד אוֹ בְגָזֵל אוֹ עָשַׁק אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ:

(כג) וְהָיָה כִּי יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל אוֹ אֶת  הָעֹשֶׁק אֲשֶׁר עָשָׁק אוֹ אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֲשֶׁר הָפְקַד אִתּוֹ אוֹ אֶת  הָאֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר מָצָא:

(כד) אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ:

(כה) וְאֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ יָבִיא לַיקֹוָק אַיִל תָּמִים מִן הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן

Returning a stolen object to its owner

The Mishnah states that he has to return it to the victim wherever he is as verse כ"ד says.  However he may return it to his agent or an agent of the court to hold for him until he returns.  This was a תקנת חכמים to encourage the thief to return the stolen item.  If he would have to invest a large amount of money to travel to the victim it would discourage him.

הגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו 

From the משנה it appears the obligation to return it to the victim is only where he took a false oath.

1.  The גמרא explains the משנה according to רבי עקיבא who holds if one stole and he does know who he stole from amongst five people he has to return it to all five if he swore falsely based on the verse ביום אשמתו.  Although רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק instituted a תקנה where the expenses of the thief are more than the principle amount of the theft he can return it to the court רבי עקיבא held the תקנה is only where he knows who the thief is but he is in a distant land. 

רבי טרפון holds that even where he swore falsely he can in the case where he does not know who he stole from he can place the stolen item in front of them to determine the victim.

There is a ברייתא that states they do not argue in a case of a purchase.  Even רבי עקיבא holds he places the item in front of them to determine the victim.  If he swore falsely what is the difference!  The verse includes תשומת יד.

2.  The משנה is רבי טרפון.  He agrees where the thief swore falsely.  רבי עקיבא holds the רבנן fined him even where he did not swear falsely. 

_______________________________________

LINKS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED:
Facts that you may want to check out about Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva:

Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +40 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 102 (Video)



LINKS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED:
Facts that may interest you about Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva:


Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +35 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.






DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 102 (Text)

דף ק"ב

Does wood have קדושת שביעית

The last issue of the previous דף was a contradiction brought by רבא concerning wood.  One ברייתא says that woody substances that grow wild, are used as dyes that grow during שמיטה  have קדושת שביעית whereas another ברייתא says that leaves used as animal food have קדושה but used for fuel do not.

רבא answered קדושה applies to growths that are הנאתן וביעורן שוה, their benefit is simultaneous with their consumption as in the case of dyes absorbed in cooked water.  Wood where the benefit comes only after it becomes charcoal does not have קדושה.

The גמרא explains this as a מחלוקת תנאים

Introduction:

The verse defines what growths have קדושת שביעית: והיתה שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה.  It uses the term לכם which is more inclusive than לאכלה including needs other than eating.  The word לאכלה limits it.  The argument is based on how to balance these two terms.
רבנן – One cannot use שמיטה wine for laundering and retting.  Since it says לכם לאכלה the word לאכלה limits other benefits that are not similar to eating.  Therefore only a benefit that is הנאתן וביעורן שוה is permitted.  The consumption of wine and its benefit when laundering and retting are not simultaneous.  The wine is unusable as soon as the clothing or flax stems are placed in it.  

However the benefit in both cases is only after it soaks for a period of time.
רבי יוסי – He holds the factor is שוה לכל אדם.  If the use is common to all then it is like eating.  He therefore includes laundering and excludes using it for medicinal purposes that only sick people need.  He would exclude also זילוף sprinkling aromatic wine or as using wine to regurgitate after eating too much.

רב הונא said הלכה כרבי יהודה in the Mishnah that the customer pays whatever is less the improvement or investment 

רב יוסף saw no need to state the הלכה is like רבי יהודה.  It can be derived from the structure of the משניות based on a principle that מחלוקת ואח"כ סתם the הלכה follows the סתםרב יוסף held this rule applied even from בבא קמא to בבא מציעא because all the בבות were one tractate.  In בבא מציעא it says: כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה without mentioning רבי מאיררב הונא held the rule does not apply to two tractates.

If an agent deviates from client's investment instructions

One ברייתא says the agent keeps all the profits; the other says he shares the profits with the client
רבי אלעזר – He explains that both ברייתות follow the opinion of רבי מאיר.  A deviation for personal use such as where he built a bench instead of a chair and the customer needs a chair רבי מאיר holds he is similar to a thief because the client was particular about the deviation.  However in the case of an investment, the client's main objective is to make money.  If the agent invests in something else profitable he is not particular.

רבי יוחנן – The ברייתא that says the agent acquires all is רבי מאיר who holds since he deviated from the clients instructions he is similar to a thief.  The ברייתא that says they share the profit is רבי יהודה who holds a deviation is not an act of theft.

However, both theבני   מערבא and רבי אבהו hold that even according to רבי יהודה he can share the profits only if he did not deviate from the clients instructions because if he misrepresents the client he is not his agent even where the investment is the clients and only the agent will acquire from the seller.  רבי יוחנן holds since the agent is using the client's money, the seller transfers to the client as well.

In a case where a man made a vow to the Temple, the treasurer cannot take collateral from clothing he made for his wife or children because he paid with his money.  Although he legally represents them, the seller's intent is to transfer the clothing to him.  Still the treasurer cannot take them because as soon as he acquired them he fully intended to transfer ownership to them.  

_______________________________________

IMPORTANT LINKS:
Facts that you may want to check out about Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva:

Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +35 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.

DAF YOMI \ Bava Kama 101 (Text)

דף ק"א

A craftsman who deviated from the customer's request

According to רבי מאיר if the customer gave him wood for a chair and he built a bench he pays the customer the value of the wood.  He is similar to a thief that acquires the chair through its transformation.  According to רבי יהודה he is entitled only to whichever payment is less, the improvement or the expenses.  רבי מאיר agrees where he did a poor job building a chair the law is like רבי יהודה because he did not acquire the chair through a שינוי but ruined it on some level.

Dye absorbed in wools tangible or not intangible

If a thief used stolen dye to dyed wool is he liable to return it to the owner.  If he stole the raw material then the thief transformed it into dye so the most would be his obligation to pay its value.  If he stole the liquid that the wool absorbed even if the dye is intangible since it can only be seen, here also he has to pay for the dye that he used.  On the other hand even if we say the dye in the wool is extant how can he return it by washing it out!

If he stole both the dye and the wool from the same person, each ones claim would cancel the other.  The victim must pay him for the improvement (amount depends on owners intentions) and the robber for the dye.  However, even if the absorbed dye is intangible, it is deemed a return stolen object because the wool and dye combine to the value of the theft, unless the price of dyed wool is cheaper than the items separated.

Another solution is that he stole the dye and used it to dye the victim's monkey.  In this case there was no improvement.  If the dye is intangible, the thief will have to return some other dye.
The last solution is a monkey dyed the wool of one with dye of another.  The owner of the dye claims his dye in court.  If the absorbed dye is intangible then he has no claim against the owner of the wool.

Appearance as something tangible in relation to ערלה שביעית דם

The גמרא explains that even if color is intangible the verse concerning ערלה mentions three times the word ערלה one to prohibit even visual benefit.  Similarly in regard to שמיטה the verse says יובל היא קדש תהיה לכם the word תהיה means it remains as is even after it is absorbed it is still prohibited for use.


Although there is a משנה that says a רביעית of human blood absorbed in a garment is מטמא only after washing it out and there still remains a רביעית are the vessels in the house טמא that is no proof that something absorbed is not tangible.  In the case of דם תבוסה, blood that it is uncertain if it emerged before the person died or after, although the רבנן are מחמיר and it is מטמא, it is only if by washing it there remained a רביעית.

VIDEO TO FOLLOW:

IMPORTANT LINKS:
FACTS YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT ABOUT YESHIVAS RABBI AKIVA:

Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +40 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 100 (Video)



IMPORTANT LINKS:
FACTS YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT ABOUT YESHIVAS RABBI AKIVA:

Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +40 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 100 (Text)

דף ק

An expert not liable for negligence in his field

The גמרא states, for example, concerning recognizing counterfeit money one is an expert if he completed his education in his field like דנכו ואיסור.  However one considered professional but did not finish his education is liable for mistakes.  Experts can make mistakes by examining newly minted coins that they do not recognize sufficiently to determine their real or counterfeit status.  רב חייא based on a verse in the Torah requiring one to act לפנים משורת הדין payed for such a mistake.
However,   ריש לקיש held like רבי מאיר who says דאין דינא דגרמי.  He holds one liable even for causative damage.  Therefore a mistaken money changer would have to pay מעיקר הדין.  The גמרא proves that רבי מאיר is מחייב for גרמא.

Introduction:

If two field owners next to each other, one planting grape vines and the other grain, the rule regarding כלאים is the grapevines must be distanced four אמות from the other field.  The one planting grain can plant up to the border of the other field.  However if there is a wall between them no separation is necessary.

Proof:

In our case there was a wall with a hole in it.  If the owner of the vineyard neglects to fix it and the grain grew an additional 200th of its size before the breach, the owner of the vineyard pays damages even though he did no direct damage to the grain

Mishnah

The Mishnah discusses two cases:

A dyer ruined wool by (either by placing it in the dyeing utensil that was too hot or leaving it in the utensil for too long) he pays the owner the value of the wool as a שומר שכר.
The dyer did a poor job by using leftover dye so there was minimal improvement.  Since he did this intentionally he is at a disadvantage.  He is entitled to whatever is less either his expenses or the improvement but not his labor costs and the customer receives the wool.
דף ק"א
A craftsman who deviated from the customer's request
According to רבי מאיר if the customer gave him wood for a chair and he built a bench he pays the customer the value of the wood.  He is similar to a thief that acquires the chair through its transformation.  According to רבי יהודה he is entitled only to whichever payment is less, the improvement or the expenses.  רבי מאיר agrees where he did a poor job building a chair the law is like רבי יהודה because he did not acquire the chair through a שינוי but ruined it on some level.

Dye absorbed in wools tangible or not intangible

If a thief used stolen dye to dyed wool is he liable to return it to the owner.  If he stole the raw material then the thief transformed it into dye so the most would be his obligation to pay its value.  If he stole the liquid that the wool absorbed even if the dye is intangible since it can only be seen, here also he has to pay for the dye that he used.  On the other hand even if we say the dye in the wool is extant how can he return it by washing it out!

If he stole both the dye and the wool from the same person, each ones claim would cancel the other.  The victim must pay him for the improvement (amount depends on owners intentions) and the robber for the dye.  However, even if the absorbed dye is intangible, it is deemed a return stolen object because the wool and dye combine to the value of the theft, unless the price of dyed wool is cheaper than the items separated.

Another solution is that he stole the dye and used it to dye the victim's monkey.  In this case there was no improvement.  If the dye is intangible, the thief will have to return some other dye.
The last solution is a monkey dyed the wool of one with dye of another.  The owner of the dye claims his dye in court.  If the absorbed dye is intangible then he has no claim against the owner of the wool.

Appearance as something tangible in relation to ערלה שביעית דם

The גמרא explains that even if color is intangible the verse concerning ערלה mentions three times the word ערלה one to prohibit even visual benefit.  Similarly in regard to שמיטה the verse says יובל היא קדש תהיה לכם the word תהיה means it remains as is even after it is absorbed it is still prohibited for use.


Although there is a משנה that says a רביעית of human blood absorbed in a garment is מטמא only after washing it out and there still remains a רביעית are the vessels in the house טמא that is no proof that something absorbed is not tangible.  In the case of דם תבוסה, blood that it is uncertain if it emerged before the person died or after, although the רבנן are מחמיר and it is מטמא, it is only if by washing it there remained a רביעית.

VIDEO TO FOLLOW:


IMPORTANT LINKS:
FACTS YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT ABOUT YESHIVAS RABBI AKIVA:

Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +40 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.

DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 99 (Video)



IMPORTANT LINKS:
FACTS YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT ABOUT YESHIVAS RABBI AKIVA:

Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +40 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.

DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 99 (Text)

דף צ"ט

A craftsman broke something given to him to repair

According to רב אסי the Mishnah discusses only the case where a carpenter was given a finished product to repair such as adding nails or screws to a closet.  However if he was given wood to build the closet and it broke after he finished building it he does not pay for damaging the closet only for the wood he received from the customer

Reason:

אומן קונה בשבח כלי meaning the carpenter acquires the improvements which he sells to his customer.  He sells that to the customer minus the value of the raw material.  He is part owner even though none of the materials are his.  We do not view him simply as a wage earner.  However where it is common practice for the customer to supply all the materials such as wool and dye to a wool dyer even if the wool absorbed the dye before burning he does not acquire the improvement.  He must pay for the ruining the dyed wool.

One who delays payment of a laborer generally for more than twelve hours after the labor is completed violates the לאו דלא תלין

According to רב אסי that the craftsman acquires the improvement this prohibition applies only where the worker is payed for his work regardless if he improves the product like paying a fuller for every step a certain fee. 

A delayed contractor's fee

A mailman is contracted to deliver a letter.  He is paid a set fee for the delivery not an hourly wage.  There are no improvements involved.  According to רב ששת if the hirer delays his fee he violates לא תלין.

The גמרא suggests רב אסי's principle is an argument between רבי מאיר וחכמים.  However the גמרא suggests three alternative explanations

The case concerns a woman who gives gold to a jeweler to make her jewelry.  She offers herself in marriage in place of his fee.  רבי מאיר holds she is married to him when he gives her the jewelry.  The חכמים disagree.

1. Both agree ישנה שכירות מתחילה ועד סוף.  His fee accumulates from the time he begins his work.   Both agree one cannot marry a woman by forgoing a loan.  רבי מאיר must hold that the jeweler acquires the improvements and is giving her his share whereas the חכמים hold he does not acquire the jewelry minus the gold.

2.  Both agree the craftsman does not acquire the improvements but they argue when the customer is required to pay a workers fee.  רבי מאיר holds one is required only when the worker finishes the work.  Therefore he can marry her when he gives her the jewelry by forgoing his fee.  The חכמים hold the payment is incremental.

3. Both agree that the obligation to pay is incremental.  They argue whether one can marry a woman by forgoing a loan.
4. The jeweler added an ornamental stone.  According to רבי מאיר when he gives her the jewelry her consent to marriage is based on the tangible stone he is giving her as the כסף קידושין rather than his forgoing the intangible loan.  The חכמים hold her mind is on his forgoing the loan which is a more significant benefit.  Both hold one cannot marry by forgoing a loan.

The גמרא brings an argument between שמואל ורבי יוחנן concerning one who is qualified who makes a mistake is it considered negligence

שמואל holds a professional who fails to perform his work properly constitutes negligence whether paid for his services or not because he is expected to take the proper precautions when performing the work and not just rely on his expertise.  An example would be a שוחט that performs an invalid slaughter.  He is liable even if he slaughtered for free.
He holds like רבי מאיר who holds one liable who trips while carrying a pitcher and injures another from the broken shards, he is liable.  His tripping is considered negligence. 

רבי יוחנן holds that an expert is liable only if he collects a fee for his services.  His status is one of a שומר שכר that pays for אונס as a damager.  If he performs his service for free he is similar to a שומר חינם who pays only for negligence.  Here he is exempt.

CHECK OUT THE VIDEO 

________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT LINKS:

RECEIVE EMAIL ALERTS AS DAF IS POSTED:

LIKE OUR FIVE MINUTE DAF YOMI FACEBOOK PAGE:

MEET THE RABBIS OF YESHIVAS RABBIS AKIVA:

JOIN JEWS ACROSS THE GLOBE: 

LISTEN TO THE SHOFAR AT THE WESTERN WALL:

SEE WHY THIS NEW DAF YOMI INITIATIVE IS A GAME CHANGER:

ASK RABBI WEISS A QUESTION:

FACTS YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT ABOUT YESHIVAS RABBI AKIVA:

Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +40 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.

DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 99

דף צ"ט

A craftsman broke something given to him to repair

According to רב אסי the Mishnah discusses only the case where a carpenter was given a finished product to repair such as adding nails or screws to a closet.  However if he was given wood to build the closet and it broke after he finished building it he does not pay for damaging the closet only for the wood he received from the customer

Reason:

אומן קונה בשבח כלי meaning the carpenter acquires the improvements which he sells to his customer.  He sells that to the customer minus the value of the raw material.  He is part owner even though none of the materials are his.  We do not view him simply as a wage earner.  However where it is common practice for the customer to supply all the materials such as wool and dye to a wool dyer even if the wool absorbed the dye before burning he does not acquire the improvement.  He must pay for the ruining the dyed wool.

One who delays payment of a laborer generally for more than twelve hours after the labor is completed violates the לאו דלא תלין

According to רב אסי that the craftsman acquires the improvement this prohibition applies only where the worker is payed for his work regardless if he improves the product like paying a fuller for every step a certain fee. 

A delayed contractor's fee

A mailman is contracted to deliver a letter.  He is paid a set fee for the delivery not an hourly wage.  There are no improvements involved.  According to רב ששת if the hirer delays his fee he violates לא תלין.

The גמרא suggests רב אסי's principle is an argument between רבי מאיר וחכמים.  However the גמרא suggests three alternative explanations

The case concerns a woman who gives gold to a jeweler to make her jewelry.  She offers herself in marriage in place of his fee.  רבי מאיר holds she is married to him when he gives her the jewelry.  The חכמים disagree.

1. Both agree ישנה שכירות מתחילה ועד סוף.  His fee accumulates from the time he begins his work.   Both agree one cannot marry a woman by forgoing a loan.  רבי מאיר must hold that the jeweler acquires the improvements and is giving her his share whereas the חכמים hold he does not acquire the jewelry minus the gold.

2.  Both agree the craftsman does not acquire the improvements but they argue when the customer is required to pay a workers fee.  רבי מאיר holds one is required only when the worker finishes the work.  Therefore he can marry her when he gives her the jewelry by forgoing his fee.  The חכמים hold the payment is incremental.

3. Both agree that the obligation to pay is incremental.  They argue whether one can marry a woman by forgoing a loan.
4. The jeweler added an ornamental stone.  According to רבי מאיר when he gives her the jewelry her consent to marriage is based on the tangible stone he is giving her as the כסף קידושין rather than his forgoing the intangible loan.  The חכמים hold her mind is on his forgoing the loan which is a more significant benefit.  Both hold one cannot marry by forgoing a loan.

The גמרא brings an argument between שמואל ורבי יוחנן concerning one who is qualified who makes a mistake is it considered negligence

שמואל holds a professional who fails to perform his work properly constitutes negligence whether paid for his services or not because he is expected to take the proper precautions when performing the work and not just rely on his expertise.  An example would be a שוחט that performs an invalid slaughter.  He is liable even if he slaughtered for free.
He holds like רבי מאיר who holds one liable who trips while carrying a pitcher and injures another from the broken shards, he is liable.  His tripping is considered negligence. 

רבי יוחנן holds that an expert is liable only if he collects a fee for his services.  His status is one of a שומר שכר that pays for אונס as a damager.  If he performs his service for free he is similar to a שומר חינם who pays only for negligence.  Here he is exempt.

VIDEO TO FOLLOW

IMPORTANT LINKS:

RECEIVE EMAIL ALERTS AS DAF IS POSTED:

LIKE OUR FIVE MINUTE DAF YOMI FACEBOOK PAGE:

MEET THE RABBIS OF YESHIVAS RABBIS AKIVA:

JOIN JEWS ACROSS THE GLOBE: 

LISTEN TO THE SHOFAR AT THE WESTERN WALL:

SEE WHY THIS NEW DAF YOMI INITIATIVE IS A GAME CHANGER:

ASK RABBI WEISS A QUESTION:

FACTS YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT ABOUT YESHIVAS RABBI AKIVA:

Yeshivas Rabbi Akiva is a warm and vibrant place of learning for +40 adult men. It's location in the Old City makes it a compelling learning center for those interested in growing spiritually. It accommodates Jewish students from all backgrounds, both experienced and beginners.