Bava Kamma 100a (ק.) — the Talmud in English

This

is their livelihood.

That is, Torah study.

“The way”—

this is acts of kindness

“They shall walk”—

this is visiting the sick. “In it”—

this is burial. “The deed”—

this is judgment. “That they shall perform”—

this is acting beyond the letter of the law.

The Gemara brings another case concerning a money changer:

Rish Lakish showed a dinar to Rabbi Elazar,

in order to have him examine it.

He said—

“It is good.”

Rish Lakish said to him:

Rish Lakish:

“See that I am relying upon you”

[Give your attention to examining it carefully, since I am relying on your statement]!

Rabbi Elazar said to him—

Rabbi Elazar:

“What difference does it make that you relied upon me

[What difference does it make that you relied upon me]

? For if it is found to be bad, will I need to replace it for you

[and if the dinar is found to be bad, will you be able to sue me]?!

But you are the one who said—

“It is Rabbi Meir who rules that one is liable for dina de-garme”; does that not mean

[did you not intend to say] that only

Rabbi Meir

holds this way,

but we do not agree with him?!

Rish Lakish said to him:

Rish Lakish:

“No! It is Rabbi Meir, and we agree with him.”

The Gemara discusses:

“Which Rabbi Meir”

[Where do we find that Rabbi Meir rules in accordance with dina de-garme] ?

If you say it is Rabbi Meir

(Dalet-Lamed-Mem-Peh, a mnemonic

) as it is taught

in tractate Sanhedrin (6a)—

“If he adjudicated a case, declared the liable party exempt, declared the exempt party liable, declared the pure impure,

declared the impure pure,

what he did is done, and he must pay from his own funds.”

This indicates that he is liable by virtue of dina de-garme,

There is no proof from there, for

it was stated concerning it: Rabbi Ila’a said that Rav said—

“And this is when he took it and placed it with his own hands.”

Then it is not an indirect causation, but rather one who causes damage directly with his hands.

Rather, it is this Rabbi Meir, as it is taught (

below, 100b): “

the one who gives 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—

he gives

him the value of his wool.”

This indicates that the ruling is based on dina de-garme.

There is no proof from there either, for

there he performs

an act

directly with his hands,

and this is not an instance of indirect causation.

Rather, it is this Rabbi Meir, as it is taught

in tractate Kilayim, chapter 7, Mishna 4—

“One who spreads his vine over the produce of another, this renders it consecrated

[that is, he forbids the produce under the laws of kilayim]

and he is liable,”

which indicates that the ruling is based on dina de-garme.

There is no proof from there either, for

there too he performs

an act

directly with his hands.

Rather, it is this Rabbi Meir, as it is taught

in a baraita of the laws of kilayim —

“A vineyard partition that was breached,