Bava Kamma 119b — the Talmud in English

And he shall not insert more than three stitches

[loops], for it is the way of the carders to insert loops into the upper part of the garment in order to hang it, and he stretches it at the time of carding and beats it with sticks. Because of the stretching, the edge of the garment is pulled outward in those places where he inserted the loops. And the practice is that he takes those protruding edges for himself; therefore they said that he should not insert more than three loops.

And he shall not card the garment along its warp

lengthwise [for the threads of the warp run along the length of the garment]

but

he shall card the garment

along its weft

across its width, in the direction of the threads of the weft.

And he shall level it

and cut the edges of the garment that were stretched

along its length

which is the narrower side,

but he shall not

level by cutting the protruding edges of the garment

along its width.

And if he came to level it

and to cut from it even broad strips

up to a handbreadth, he is permitted.

The Master said

: We learned in a beraita: The launderer takes

two threads

from the upper part of the garment, and they are his.

And we raise a difficulty:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna that he takes

three!

And we answer:

It is not difficult: this

statement in the beraita, which says that he takes only two threads, is referring

to thick ones,

thick threads,

whereas this

statement in the Mishna, which says that he may take even three threads, is referring

to thin ones,

thin threads.

We learned in a beraita:

And he shall not card the garment along its warp, but along its weft.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught oppositely!

And we answer:

It is not difficult: this

beraita is referring

to a cloak,

a daily garment, which, when he cards it along its warp, is liable to tear quickly. Whereas

this

beraita, which states the opposite, is referring

to a sarbela,

which is made for honor and adornment, and when he cards it along its warp, it is more attractive.

We learned in a beraita:

And he shall not insert more than three stitches

[loops].

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question

: How are those three loops counted? It is the practice of a skilled tailor to move the needle back and forth through the garment before pulling all the thread, and Rabbi Yirmeya is uncertain whether

the going and coming

—that which he sews back and sews again in the same place for reinforcement—is considered one stitch,

one,

and then three goings and three comings are considered three stitches,

or perhaps the going and coming

—that which he sews back and sews again—is considered

two

stitches?

It shall stand,

this question shall remain in its place until Elijah the Tishbite comes and resolves it.

We learned in a beraita:

And he shall level it

by cutting the edges of the garment that were stretched

along its length, but he shall not

cut

along its width.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught oppositely!

It is not difficult: this

beraita speaks

of a cloak,

which he levels along its length, so that it will endure for a longer time;

this

second beraita speaks

of a hemioni,

which, when worn, displays only the sides of the garment across its width, hanging downward; therefore he levels it along its width.

The Sages taught: One may not purchase from a carder wool fluff, because it is not his,

for it is forbidden for the carder to take the fluff that comes out through the carding, since a significant quantity comes out and the householder objects to it.

And in a place where it is customary that they be

the fluff

his,

belonging to the carder—

they may purchase

from him.

And everywhere,

even in a place where it is not customary that the fluff emerging from the carding belongs to the carder, nevertheless

they may purchase from them a pillow full of fluff and a cushion full of fluff.

What is the reason?

Because even if the fluff was stolen,

he acquired it

the carder

through a change.

The Sages taught: One may not purchase from a weaver

—from a fabric weaver—

the loosed threads

—wool placed in the weft shuttle. The weaver customarily places wool in the shuttle of the weft so that the thread of the weft will not emerge from the shuttle to the sides, and it belongs to the householder.

And not

may one purchase from the weaver

the warp ends

—the ends of the threads tied to the warp beam—

and not the ponkelin

—warp threads used for sheets woven in a vertical position, for which they do not make a beam as do the weavers—

and not the remnants of skeins

of threads, since they belong to the householder.

But they may purchase from them

from the weavers

a garment,

even

multicolored,

with many colors. Although there is circumstantial evidence that he stole the wool from the garments that he wove, they may purchase from him, since the weaver has already acquired them through a change, by sewing a garment from them.

And likewise they may purchase from them

weft and warp, spun,

wool placed in the weft shuttle,

and woven fabric,

since a change was made in all of these, and the weaver acquired them through that.

They said:

There is a question:

Now, spun

—which is the “loosed threads” mentioned above, which one may not purchase from the weaver—and nevertheless, if the weaver patched them together,

take

—they may purchase from him, since the weaver acquired them through a change—if so,

woven fabric, is it necessary

[for] the beraita to write that it is permitted to purchase it from him? Spinning precedes weaving, and if after spinning it is permitted to purchase it from him, certainly it is permitted to purchase it after an additional change of weaving.

And we answer:

What

is the meaning of

“woven fabric”

in the beraita? It does not mean actual woven fabric; rather, it means

tikhai,

something resembling chains that had not previously been spun.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

One may not purchase from a dyer

who engages in dyeing fabrics

samples,

for when they bring him a garment to dye, he cuts a small piece from it before the owners, in order to know whether the garment will absorb the dye, and sometimes he keeps it by him and the owners forget it.

And not

may they purchase from him

patterns

—small pieces of fabric by which colors are displayed, since the owners customarily bring with them a little dyed wool to show him the color they want—

and not

may they purchase from him

tufts of wool

that he plucked little by little from the fleece, since there is concern that he stole them from the wool he received for dyeing.

But they may purchase from him a dyed garment,

since there is no concern that he stole an entire garment, and if he stole it, he acquired it through a change.

And those patterns that we said above may not be purchased from him—if they were

spun,

if he spun them or made from them

garments,

they may purchase them from him, since a change was made in them; and even if he stole them, he acquired them through a change.

And we raise a difficulty:

Now, spun, he may take,

since it is considered a change; if so,

garments, is it necessary

to say that he may purchase them from him? For there are no garments unless he first spun them, and certainly he acquired them and it is permitted to purchase them from him?

And we answer:

What

is the meaning of

“garments”?

It refers to

namti —

felt garments, which are not spun.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

One who gives hides to a tanner

—a person who tans hides—

the shavings

—the remnants of leather that he trims around the hide—

and the plucked fibers

—wool plucked from the hide—

these belong to the householder, and

wool

that rises and floats in the water

these belong to him,

since it is a small amount and the householder renounces ownership of it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If there was

a thread at the edge of the garment, colored

black

on white, it is permitted for the launderer to take it, even if there are more than three threads.

Rav Yehuda said: The launderer is called

he is

katzara

in Aramaic,

and the katzara takes it

—and he takes for himself the trimmings that he trims from the garment. This is a play on words.

Rav Yehuda said: Everything is included in the count of the tekhelet

—those three threads, if the launderer did not trim them, are considered part of it with regard to distancing the opening of the tzitzit from the edge of the garment by the measure of a thumb-joint, [as explained in Tractate Menahot 42a]. But

Yitzhak, my son,

my son,

is particular about them

and takes them.

We learned in the Mishna:

The tailor who left over

at the end of his work

the thread

from what the householder brought him, and it was long enough to sew with, must return it to the householder.

And we inquire about it:

And how much

is this measure, such that it is enough

to sew with?

Rav Asi said:

A thread whose length is

the full

length

of a needle beyond the needle,

for as long as the thread is no more than exactly the length of the needle, he cannot insert it into the garment.

They raised a question

concerning the words of Rav Asi: Did Rav Asi intend that one needs a thread of the length of

a full needle, and beyond the needle

by the measure of

a full needle,

meaning, one needs a thread twice as long as the needle in order that it have the measure with which to sew?

Or perhaps,

it is sufficient if the thread has the measure of

a full needle, and something beyond the needle?

The Gemara attempts to resolve this from a beraita:

Come and hear, for it was taught

in a beraita:

The tailor who left over the thread less than the amount with which one can sew, and

likewise if he left over

a cloth that is less than three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths.

The law is:

When the householder is particular about them

these belong to the householder,

but if

the householder is not particular about them

these belong to him.

If you say that it is reasonable

that the measure of a thread fit for sewing is

a full needle and beyond the needle a full needle,

it is possible to understand that concerning less than this measure there is a dispute as to whom it belongs, because

less than this is fit for a loop

—and it is understandable that the beraita discusses whether it belongs to the householder or to the tailor.

But if you say

that the measure of a needle for sewing with it is

a full needle and something beyond the needle,

it is difficult: if the thread is

less than this

—than this measure—

what is it fit for —

what is this thread, concerning which the beraita discusses to whom it belongs, fit for?

Rather, infer from it

from the beraita, which discusses a thread less than the measure needed for sewing, that the measure of a thread needed for sewing is

a full needle and beyond

the needle a full needle.

And the Gemara concludes:

Infer from it,

and the uncertainty is resolved.

We learned in the Mishna:

What the carpenter

removes with a ma'atzad [a cutting tool]—the small wood chips that the carpenter removes while smoothing boards with a ma'atzad—belongs to the carpenter.

And we juxtapose

a contradiction to the words of the Mishna from a beraita that we learned:

What the carpenter removes with a ma'atzad, and

likewise the wood

cut

[sawn]

with a saw

[with a saw], meaning, remnants of wood that he cut with a saw from the long piece of wood—

these belong to the householder.

And what emerges from beneath a drill

—which is thin wood like powder—

and

likewise what emerges

from beneath a plane

[a plane],

and what is dragged by the saw

at the place of cutting, from which fine sawdust like earth emerges—

these belong to him!

If so, there is a contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita: in the Mishna it is explained that what the carpenter removes with a ma'atzad belongs to him, whereas in the beraita it is explained that it belongs to the householder.

Rava said:

This is not a contradiction:

in the place of the tanna of our Mishna,

in the place of our tanna,

there are two

chisels,

there are two types of chisels.

The larger one he calls

the large one he calls

“kashil,” and the smaller one he calls

the small one he calls

“ma'atzad,”

and therefore the remnants from the wood that he cuts with the ma'atzad belong to the carpenter, since they are small remnants.

In contrast,

in the place of the tanna of the other

beraita, in the place of the tanna of the beraita, there is only one type of tool:

there is only one

[there is one],

and they call it “ma'atzad,”

and since their tool was not so small, and the remnants of the wood were larger, the remnants belong to the householder.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if he was

the carpenter

working

—working

for

the householder, all the sawdust belongs to the householder.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

Stonecutters

who square the stones and smooth them—

there is no prohibition of theft with regard to them

if they take the waste for themselves.

Those who prune trees

—those who thin the branches of trees when there are too many—and likewise

those who prune vines, those who cut thorns,

those who cut thorns,

those who weed seeds

—those who remove the vegetables growing among the seeds—

and those who hoe vegetables

—those who thin them and uproot some of them when they grow too densely and have no room to expand and spread.

The law is:

When the householder is particular about them

there is a prohibition of theft with regard to them

if they take for themselves what they uprooted. But if

the householder is not particular about them

these belong to him.

Rav Yehuda said: Hops and young grain

[ears of grain while they are still very young and fit only for fodder]—

there is no prohibition of theft with regard to them

because the householder is not particular about them. But

in a place where they are particular

in a place where they are particular about them—

there is a prohibition of theft with regard to them.

Ravina said: And Mata Meḥasya

which is a place where they keep animals and require good pasture —

is a place where they are particular,

a place where they are particular

it is,

and therefore one must be careful there not to take the fodder.

We shall return to you, chapter “The Last Robber,” and Tractate Bava Kamma is concluded