Bava Kamma 101b — the Talmud in English

Rava raises a contradiction:

he posed a contradiction between two Mishnayot:

We learned [

there, in tractate Orlah]:

A garment that one dyed with the shells of orlah—let it burn! Apparently, appearance is significant.

And he raises a contradiction

to this from that which we learned [Oholot 3:2]:

a quarter-log of blood

that emerged from a dead person,

that was absorbed into

the ground of the

house—the house is impure,

that is, it renders impure the person and vessels that are found in the house, with the impurity of a “tent of the dead.”

And some say [

and there are those who say],

the house is pure.

And Rava explains the words of this Mishna:

And they do not disagree

the two opinions in this Mishna, for

this

the first opinion, which says that the vessels become impure with the impurity of a tent, speaks

of vessels that were

in the house

from the outset,

before the quarter-log of blood was absorbed into the ground. Whereas

this

the second opinion [“and some say”], which says that the vessels are pure, speaks

of vessels that came,

that were brought into the house,

at the end,

after the quarter-log of blood was absorbed into the ground of the house, and they teach the law that dead blood absorbed into the floor of the house does not render the vessels in the house impure with the impurity of a tent.

And Rava continues to bring the words of the Mishna: If

a quarter-log of blood

from the dead person was absorbed

into a garment,

and they brought the garment into the house, then once the quarter-log of blood was absorbed into the garment, the amount of actual blood decreased, because part of the blood was absorbed into the garment, and only in the appearance of the garment there appears the measure of the color of a quarter-log of blood; therefore

we regard it:

if an amount of blood greater than the measure of a quarter-log was absorbed into the garment, to such an extent that

if the garment is washed, and a quarter-log of blood emerges from it,

then this garment is

impure.

That is, it renders the vessels in the house impure with the impurity of a tent, since there is here an actual measure of a quarter-log of blood.

But if not,

if a measure of a quarter-log of blood does not emerge from the garment through washing, then it is

pure,

for it does not render the vessels in the house impure with the impurity of the tent of the dead, even though in the appearance of the garment a quarter-log of blood is visible.

And it is demonstrated from this Mishna that appearance is not significant. Whereas from the Mishna in Orlah it is demonstrated that appearance is significant!

Rav Kahana said:

There is no contradiction between the Mishnayot, and indeed appearance is significant; but the words of the Mishna in tractate Oholot

were taught among the leniencies of “quarter-logs”

of blood

here.

That is, this Mishna deals with blood whose impurity is “light,”

with “blood of a dying person,”

whose tent-impurity is only

by rabbinic ordinance. [“

Blood of a dying person” is a quarter-log of blood that emerges from a person who was killed, and it is uncertain whether the entire quarter-log of blood emerged from him while he was alive, in which case it does not render impure, or whether it emerged from him after his death, in which case it does render impure; and it is established for us that such blood renders impure not by Torah law but only by rabbinic ordinance.]

Rava raises

a contradiction between a Mishna and a beraita concerning the sanctity of the seventh year in trees:

We learned

in tractate Sheviit [7:1]: Just as the sanctity of the seventh year applies to produce, so too the sanctity of the seventh year applies to plants that are

of the species

of the substances

that dye,

such as

growths of istis [

saffron]

and

growths of

kotsa [

a substance from which dye is produced],

for

they have

themselves the laws of the sanctity of

the seventh year, and

also

for their monetary value

there is the law of the monetary value of

the seventh year. [“

Growths” are called all the plants that grow in a field on their own, and only they are found in the field in the seventh year, since one does not sow in the seventh year. And the meaning of the sanctity that applies to the species that dye is that it is forbidden to trade in their dyeing, but one may burn them under the fire before the time of their removal.]

And likewise

they have

the mitzva of

removal,

for one is obligated to remove them when they are finished from the field,

and

also

for their monetary value

there is the law of

removal.

And these growths of the species that dye are not produce but the tree itself;

apparently, trees

alone

have the sanctity of the seventh year

as does produce.

And he raises a contradiction

to this from the words of the beraita.

For it was taught:

Reed leaves and vine leaves,

which have a use for a person both for eating and for kindling,

that he gathered them

together in a pile

in concealment [

in order to store them in a hiding place for the winter days]

on the surface of the field,

and this was in the year of Shmita, the sanctity of the seventh year of these leaves depends on the intention of the person gathering them:

If he gathered them for eating—

they have the sanctity of the seventh year.

But if he gathered them

for wood,

for kindling,

they do not have the sanctity of the seventh year.

And it is demonstrated from the words of the beraita that trees do not have the sanctity of the seventh year, contrary to the words of the Mishna in tractate Sheviit, which holds that the sanctity of the seventh year applies also to the trees of the species that dye.

And he answers: The verse says

with regard to the sanctity of the seventh year, “And the Sabbath produce of the land shall be yours

for eating.”

The verse teaches that the sanctity of the seventh year applies only to something that is “for eating,” or to something similar to it,

in which its benefit and its removal are simultaneous,

similar to eating, for at the time of eating [the benefit], the fruits being eaten are consumed [removed from the world].

Excluded are trees

that are designated for kindling,

whose benefit,

the person’s benefit from the fire, comes

after their removal.

For the principal manner of benefiting from the heat of the wood is not at the time that the wood itself is burning, but only after the wood has burned and become coals, at which point one places the coals in an oven and benefits from their heat. And then the wood itself no longer exists.

And the Gemara still discusses:

But there are the woods of oil,

woods of oil, designated to illuminate with them while they are burning,

whose benefit and removal are simultaneous,

so why should the sanctity of the seventh year not apply to these woods!?

Rava said: