Bava Kamma 197

והקדיחו יורה נותן לו דמי צמרו דמי צמרו אין דמי צמרו ושבחו לא לאו שהקדיחו לאחר נפילה דאיכא שבחא ושמע מינה אומן קונה בשבח כלי

and it was burnt by the dye, he would have to pay the owner the value of his wool.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 100b. ');">¹</span> Now, it is only the value of the wool that he has to pay, but not the combined value of the wool and the increase in price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Caused by the process of dyeing. ');">²</span>

אמר שמואל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהקדיחו בשעת נפילה דליכא שבחא אבל הקדיחו לאחר נפילה מאי נותן לו דמי צמרו ושבחו לימא שמואל לית ליה דרב אסי

Does this not apply even where it was burnt after the dye was put in,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after falling in'. i.e. after the dye had already exercised its effect on the wool which thereby increased in value. ');">³</span> in which case there has already been an increase in value, which would thus show<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he has to pay only for the wool and nor for its increase in value. ');">⁴</span>

אמר לך שמואל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דצמר וסמנין דבעל הבית וצבע אגר ידיה הוא דשקיל

that the craftsman acquires title to the improvement carried out by him on any article? — Said Samuel: We are dealing here with a case where, e.g., it was burnt at the time when the dye was put in,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at the time of falling in', i.e., before the dye has yet exercised any effect on the wool. ');">⁵</span> so that there has not yet been any increase in value. But what would it be if it were burnt after it was put in?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 3. ');">⁶</span>

אי הכי נותן לו דמי צמרו וסמנין מיבעי ליה אלא שמואל דחויי קא מדחי ליה

Would he really have to pay the combined value of the wool and the increase? Must we not therefore say that Samuel did not hold the view of R. Assi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom even then only the original value of the wool would have to be paid for. [Which means that R. Assi's view cannot stand since in civil law we follow the ruling of Samuel?] ');">⁷</span> — Samuel might say to you that we are dealing here with a case where e.g., both the wool and the dye belonged to the owner, so that the dyer had to be paid only for the labour of his hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the craftsman acquires no title to the increase in value, since the dye which imparts to the wool the increased value is not his. ');">⁸</span>

תא שמע הנותן טליתו לאומן גמרו והודיעו אפילו מכאן ועד עשרה ימים אינו עובר עליו משום (ויקרא יט, יג) לא תלין נתנה לו בחצי היום כיון ששקעה עליו החמה עובר עליו משום בל תלין

But if so, should it not have been stated that the dyer would have to pay the owner for the value of both his wool and his dye? — Samuel was only trying to point out that a refutation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the proof advanced in support of R. Assi. ');">⁹</span> would be possible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without, however, intending to oppose R. Assi. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואי ס"ד אומן קונה בשבח כלי אמאי עובר משום בל תלין

Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. 112a. ');">¹¹</span> If he gave his garment to a craftsman and the latter finished it and informed him of the fact, even if from that time ten days elapsed [without his paying him] he would through that not be transgressing the injunction thou shalt not keep all night.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 13. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא בגרדא דסרבלא דליכא שבחא

But if [the craftsman] delivered the garment to him in the middle of the day, as soon as the sun set [without payment having been made] the owner would through that transgress the injunction. Thou shalt not keep all night.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 576, n. 11. ');">¹³</span> Now, if you assume that a craftsman acquires title to the improvement [carried out by him] on any article,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that when he parts with it he effects a sale of the improvement of the article and the stipulated sum paid to him is but the purchase money for the same. ');">¹⁴</span>

סוף סוף למאי יהבה נהליה לרכוכי כיון דרככיה היינו שבחא לא צריכא דאגריה לביטשי ביטשא ביטשא במעתא דהיינו שכירות

why should the owner be transgressing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For surely by not paying purchase money in time a purchaser would not render himself liable to this transgression. ');">¹⁵</span> the injunction. Thou shalt not keep all night? — Said R. Mari the son of R. Kahana: [The work required in this case was] to remove the woolly surface of a thick cloth where there was no accretion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which the worker should acquire title. ');">¹⁶</span>

ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא דלא אגריה לביטשי מסייע ליה לרב ששת דבעו מיניה מרב ששת קבלנות עובר עליו משום בל תלין או אינו עובר ואמר להו רב ששת עובר

But be it as it may, since he gave it to him for the purpose of making it softer, as soon as he made it softer was there not already an improvement? — No; the ruling is necessary [for meeting the case] where he hired him to stamp upon it [and undertook to pay him] for every act of stamping one <i>ma'ah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. ');">¹⁷</span> which is but the hire [for labour].

לימא דרב ששת פליגא אדרב אסי אמר שמואל בר אחא בשליחא דאיגרתא

But according to what we assumed previously that he was not hired for stamping,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But for the completion of a certain undertaking, [in which case he would be a contractor and in a sense a vendor and yet the injunction of not delaying the payment of the hire applies.] ');">¹⁸</span> [this ruling] would have been a support to [the view of] R. Shesheth, for when it was asked of R. Shesheth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 112a. ');">¹⁹</span>

לימא כתנאי עשה לי שירים נזמין וטבעות ואקדש לך כיון שעשאן מקודשת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אינה מקודשת עד שיגיע ממון לידה

whether in a case of contracting the owner would transgress<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By not paying the stipulated sum in time. ');">²⁰</span> the injunction, Thou shalt not keep all night, or would not transgress, he answered that he would transgress! But are we [at the same time] to say that R. Shesheth differed from R. Assi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintained that a craftsman (i.e., a contractor) becomes the owner of the improvement carried out by him upon the article and when parting with it is but a vendor to whom purchase money has to be paid, and to whom the injunction does not apply. ');">²¹</span>

מאי ממון אילימא אותו ממון מכלל דר"מ סבר אותו ממון לא אלא במאי מקדשא אלא פשיטא מאי ממון ממון אחר

— Samuel b. Aha said: [R. Shesheth was speaking] of a messenger sent to deliver a letter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is no tangible accretion to which a title of ownership could be acquired, and to which consequently there applies the injunction. ');">²²</span> Shall we say [that the same difference is found between] the following Tannaim? [For it was taught: If a woman says,] 'Make for me bracelets, earrings and rings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman giving the man the material. ');">²³</span>

וסברוה דכולי עלמא ישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף ודכולי עלמא המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת

and I will become betrothed unto thee,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was spoken by an unmarried woman to her prospective husband. ');">²⁴</span> as soon as he makes them she becomes betrothed [unto him];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Kid. I, 1. ');">²⁵</span>

מאי לאו באומן קונה בשבח כלי קמיפלגי דר"מ סבר אומן קונה בשבח כלי ורבנן סברי אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי

this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages say that she would not become betrothed until something of actual value has come into her possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 48a. ');">²⁶</span> Now, what is meant by actual value? We can hardly say that it refers to this particular value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the bracelets. ');">²⁷</span>

לא דכולי עלמא אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי אלא הכא בישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף קא מיפלגי

for this would imply that according to R. Meir [it was] not [necessary for her to come into possession] even of that value. If so, what would be the instrument to effect the betrothal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Kid. I, 1. ');">²⁵</span> It therefore appears evident that what was meant by 'actual value' was some other value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., irrespective of the bracelets, earrings and rings made by him. Whereas according to R. Meir these alone suffice. ');">²⁸</span>

רבי מאיר סבר אין לשכירות אלא לבסוף ורבנן סברי יש לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף

Now again, it was presumed [by the students] that according to all authorities there is continuous [growth of liability for] hire from the very commencement of the work until the end of it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that strictly speaking each perutah of the hire becomes due as soon as work for a perutah is completed; a perutah is the minimum value of liability; v. Glos. ');">²⁹</span> and also that according to all authorities if one betroths [a woman] through [foregoing] a debt [owing to him from her], she would not be betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this is not reckoned in law sufficient consideration; cf. Kid. 6b and 47a. ');">³⁰</span>

ואי בעית אימא דכולי עלמא ישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף והכא במקדש במלוה קמיפלגי דרבי מאיר סבר המקדש במלוה מקודשת ורבנן סברי המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת

Would it therefore not appear that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Meir and the Rabbis. ');">³¹</span> differed on the question whether a craftsman acquires title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article, R. Meir maintaining that a craftsman acquires title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that when he makes her bracelets, earrings and rings out of her material, the improvement becomes his and could therefore constitute a valid consideration. ');">³²</span> while the Rabbis maintained that the craftsman does not acquire title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But since the improvement was never his he only had an outstanding debt for the hire upon the other party who was in this case his prospective wife, and as the forfeiture of a debt is not sufficient consideration some 'actual value' must be added to make the consideration valid. ');">³³</span> — No; all may agree that the craftsman does not acquire title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article, and here they differ as to whether there is progressive [liability for] hire from the very commencement of the work until the very end, R. Meir maintaining that there is no liability for hire except at the very end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when he restores her the manufactured bracelets etc., in which case the hire had previously never become a debt. ');">³⁴</span> whereas the Rabbis maintained that there is progressive [liability for] hire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which thus becomes a debt rising from perutah to perutah (and as such could not constitute valid consideration). ');">³⁵</span> from the commencement until the very end.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 578, n. 7. ');">³⁶</span> Or if you wish I may say that in the opinion of all there is progressive [liability for] hire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which thus becomes a debt rising from perutah to perutah (and as such could not constitute valid consideration). ');">³⁵</span> from the very commencement to the end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 578, n. 7. ');">³⁶</span> but here they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and the Rabbis. ');">³⁷</span> differ [in regard to the law] regarding one who betroths [a woman] by [forgoing] a debt [due from her], R. Meir maintaining that one who betroths [a woman] by [forgoing] a debt [due from her] would thereby effect a legal betrothal, whereas the [other] Rabbis maintained that he who betroths [a woman] by [forgoing] a debt [due from her] would thereby not effect a valid betrothal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 578, n. 8. ');">³⁸</span>