Bava Kamma 100b — the Talmud in English

He says to him

Fence it.

If it was breached, he says to him: Fence it.

He despaired of it and did not fence it -

this one has sanctified it

it has become forbidden as kilayim

and he is liable for it,”

and there he did not perform an action with his hands; rather, he is liable under the law of dina de-garmi. :

Mishna:

1.

One who gives wool to a “dyer”

who is a craftsman who dyes wool, in order that he dye it for him, and the wool was completely ruined by itself, unintentionally

, and he overheated it

“the cauldron,”

for the dyer boiled the “cauldron” [the utensil in which the wool and dye are placed, over the fire] excessively, without noticing, and the wool was completely burned in the cauldron,

he gives him the value of his wool,

since he damaged his fellow’s property.

2.

One who gives wool to a dyer, and

he dyed it like or

like a skin, that is, the wool was not completely damaged, but was only dyed in an ugly manner, and the dyer intentionally caused the damage by dyeing the wool with the remnants of the dye and not with the dye itself, and therefore the wool became dyed in an ugly manner -

the dyer’s hand is on the lower level, and therefore:

if the improvement

that the dyer effected in the wool through his ugly dyeing is

greater than the expenditure

than the cost of the expenditure that the dyer spent on this dyeing, the owner of the wool does not pay the dyer his full wage [due to him as a dyer], even though through the ugly dyeing he improved the value of the wool. Rather,

he gives him

only

the

value of

the expenditure, and the owner of the wool takes the wool for himself, because the dyer did not acquire the wool for himself through the change that he made in the wool, since he dyed it with the dye that the owner of the wool told him to use, but only dyed it unattractively, with the same type of dye that the owner of the house told him to use, and therefore he does not acquire the wool and the improvement in it.

and the owner of the wool takes the wool for himself. The dyer did not acquire the wool through the change he made to it, because he dyed it with the color specified by the owner of the wool; he merely dyed it unattractively, using the type of dye specified by the owner. Therefore, he does not acquire the wool or the improvement in it.

And

on the other hand,

if the expenditure

is

greater than the improvement,

the owner of the wool does not pay him in his wage even the cost of his expenditures; rather,

he gives him

only

the

value of

the improvement

of the wool, and no more.

3.

One who gives wool to a dyer,

to dye for him

the wool with the dye

red, but he dyed it

with the dye

black.

Or he instructed him to dye it with the dye

black, but he dyed it red.

Rabbi Meir says:

through this the dyer acquired the wool for himself, since he made a change in it against the owner’s wishes. And therefore, the owner does not pay the dyer either his wage or the value of the improvement; rather,

he gives him the value of his wool.

And if the owner of the wool wishes to receive his wool, he must pay the dyer his full wage.

Rabbi Judah says:

The Sages penalized the dyer because he changed from the owner’s instructions, and established that the dyer’s hand should be on the lower level. Therefore, in every case he will not receive his full wage, and he will not even benefit from the improvement. Rather, at most he will receive his expenditures, and it is possible that he will receive even less than that:

If the improvement is greater than the expenditure, he gives him the

expenditure

alone, and not his wage

. And if the expenditure is greater than the improvement,

the dyer does not receive even his expenditures; rather,

the owner of the wool gives him

the owner of the wool

the improvement.

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains the words of the Mishna:

What is “

he dyed it

like or?”

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar bar Hannah: “

“Or” means

“kalbus.”

What is “kalbus”?

Rabbah bar Samuel said: