Bava Kamma 119b (קיט:) — the Talmud in English

And he may not insert more than three loops

(loops), as it is customary for those who comb cloth to insert loops into the upper part of the garment in order to hang it, while stretching it during the combing and beating it with rods. Because of the stretching, the edge of the garment is pulled outward at the places where he inserted the loops, and it is customary for him to take those protruding edges for himself. Therefore, they said that he may not insert more than three loops.

And he may not comb the garment along its warp

along its length [as the warp threads run along the length of the garment]

but

he should comb the garment

along its weft

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

And he may level it

and cut off the stretched edges of the garment

along its length

which is its narrower side,

but he may not

level by cutting off the protruding edges of the garment

across its width.

And if he came to level it

and cut pieces 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 an objection:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna that he takes

three!

And we answer:

It is not difficult: This

the beraita, which states that he takes only two threads, is referring

to thick ones,

thick threads,

whereas this

the Mishna, which states that he may take even three threads, is referring

to thin ones,

thin threads.

We learned in a beraita:

And he may not comb the garment along its warp, but along its weft.

And we raise an objection:

But wasn’t it taught to the contrary!

And we answer:

It is not difficult: This

our beraita is referring

to a cloak,

a garment worn every day, which is liable to tear quickly when he combs it along its warp.

Whereas this

the beraita that states the opposite is referring

to a sarbela,

a garment made for honor and adornment, which looks more attractive when he combs it along its warp.

We learned in a beraita:

And he may not insert more than three loops

(loops).

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

How are those three loops to be counted? It is customary for a skilled tailor to pass the needle back and forth through the garment before pulling all the thread tight, and Rabbi Yirmeya was uncertain whether

the passing and returning

the repeated sewing in the same place for reinforcement is considered

one,

in which case three passes and three returns are counted as three loops,

or perhaps the passing and returning

the repeated sewing is considered

two

sewings.

The matter remains unresolved;

let this question stand in its place until Elijah the Tishbite comes and resolves it.

We learned in a beraita:

And he may level it

by cutting off the stretched edges of the garment

along its length, but he may not

cut them

across its width.

And we raise an objection:

But wasn’t it taught to the contrary!

It is not difficult: This

our beraita is speaking

of a cloak,

which he levels along its length so that it will last longer;

that

the second beraita is speaking

of a hemioni,

which, when worn, reveals 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 fluff from the cloth-comber, because it does not belong to him,

as the cloth-comber is forbidden to take the fluff that emerges from the combing, since a significant quantity comes out and the employer is particular about it.

But in a place where it is customary for it to be

the fluff

his

the cloth-comber’s,

one may purchase it

from him.

And everywhere,

even in a place where it is not customary for the fluff that emerges from the combing to belong to the cloth-comber, nevertheless

one may purchase from them a mattressful of fluff and a cushionful of fluff.

What is the reason?

Because even if the fluff was stolen,

he acquired it

the cloth-comber

through a change in its form.

The Sages taught: One may not purchase from a weaver

—from a me’areg—

not irain

—wool placed in the weft shuttle. It is customary for the weaver to place wool in the weft shuttle so that the weft thread will not emerge from the shuttle to the sides, and it belongs to the employer.

Nor

may one purchase from the weaver

nirin

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

nor punkelin

—warp threads used for sheets woven in a vertical position, for which no beam is made as with the weavers’ looms—

nor remnants of skeins

of thread, since they belong to the employer.

But one may purchase from them

from the weavers

a garment,

even

a multicolored one,

with many colors. Although there is reason to suspect that he stole the wool from the garments he wove, one may purchase it from him, since the weaver has already acquired it through a change by sewing it into a garment.

And likewise one may purchase from them

woven and warp threads, spun,

wool placed in the weft shuttle,

and woven fabric,

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

They said:

There is a question to be asked:

Now, spun

wool—which is the “irain” mentioned above, which one may not purchase from the weaver—and nevertheless, if the weaver stitched it together,

take it

—one may purchase it from him, since the weaver acquired it through a change—if so,

is woven fabric a matter requiring mention

[does the beraita need to state that it is permitted to purchase it from him]? Weaving follows spinning, and if it is permitted to purchase it from him after the spinning, it is certainly permitted to purchase it after the 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

tikhei,

something resembling chains, which had not previously been spun.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

One may not purchase from a dyer

who is engaged in dyeing fabrics

not otot,

because when a garment is brought to him for dyeing, he cuts a small piece from it in the presence of the owners to determine whether the garment will absorb the dye, and sometimes he keeps it and the owners forget about it.

Nor

may one purchase from them

samples

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

nor

may one purchase from them

tufts of wool

that they pulled little by little from the fleece, since there is concern that they stole them from wool given to them for dyeing.

But one may purchase from them a dyed garment,

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

And those samples that we said above may not be purchased from them—if they were

spun

—if he spun them or made them into

garments,

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

And we raise an objection:

Now, spun material may be purchased

since it is considered a change; if so,

is it necessary to state that garments

may be purchased from them? There can be no garments unless he first spun the wool, and he certainly acquired it and it is permitted to purchase it from him?

And we answer:

What

is the meaning of

“garments”?

It means

namti -

felt garments, which are not spun.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

One who gives hides to a tanner

—one who processes hides—

the trimmings

—the scraps of hide that he trims from around the hide—

and the tufts

—wool pulled from the hide—

belong to the employer, and

wool

that rises and floats in the water

belongs to him,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

If there was

a thread at the edge of the garment, colored

black

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

Rav Yehuda said: The launderer is called katzera

he is

called

that in Aramaic,

and a katzera takes it

—he takes for himself the trimmings that he cuts from the garment. This is an instance of a wordplay based on similar expressions.

Rav Yehuda said: All of them count toward the number of sky-blue threads

—those three threads, if the launderer did not trim them, are considered part of it with regard to the requirement that the hole of the tzitzit be set back from the edge of the garment by the distance of a thumb-knot, [as explained in tractate Menaḥot 42a]. But

my son, Yitzḥak,

my son,

is particular about them

and takes them.

We learned in the Mishna:

A tailor who left over

at the completion of his work

the thread

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

And we inquire about this:

And how much

is the measure that is sufficient

to sew with?

Rav Asi said:

A thread whose length is

the full

length of

a needle, beyond the needle,

because so long as the thread is only exactly the length of the needle, he cannot insert it into the garment.

They raised a dilemma before them

concerning Rav Asi’s statement: Did Rav Asi mean that one needs a thread whose length is

the full length of a needle, and beyond the needle

by a measure

the length of a needle,

that is, a thread twice the length of the needle, so that it contains the measure necessary for sewing?

Or perhaps,

it is sufficient for the thread to have the measure of

the full length of a needle, and beyond the needle something?

The Gemara attempts to resolve the matter from a beraita:

Come and hear, as it was taught

in a beraita:

A tailor who left over thread less than the amount needed to sew with, and

likewise if he left over

a patch that was less than three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths.

The ruling is:

When the employer is particular about them

they belong to the employer,

but if

the employer is not particular about them

they belong to him.

Granted, if you say

that the measure of thread fit for sewing is

the length of a needle, and beyond the needle the length of another needle,

it is possible to understand that less than this measure is subject to discussion 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 employer or to the tailor.

But if you say

that the measure of thread fit for sewing is

the length of a needle, and beyond the needle something,

it is difficult: If the thread is

less than this

measure,

what is it fit for? -

What use is there for this thread, about which the beraita discusses to whom it belongs?

Rather, conclude from this

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

the length of a needle, and beyond

the needle the length of another needle.

And the Gemara concludes:

Conclude from this,

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 Mishna from the beraita that we learned:

What the carpenter removes with a ma’atzad, and

likewise wood

cut off

[cut]

with a saw

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

belongs to the employer.

But what emerges from beneath a drill

—which is wood as fine as powder—

and

what emerges

from beneath a plane

[a plane],

and what is dragged out by a saw

at the place of the cut, where fine sawdust like earth emerges—

belongs to him!

If so, there is a contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita: The Mishna indicates that what the carpenter removes with a ma’atzad belongs to him, whereas the beraita indicates that it belongs to the employer.

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 is called

the large one is called

“kashil,” and the smaller one is called

the small one is called

“ma’atzad,”

and therefore the remnants of the wood cut with the ma’atzad belong to the carpenter, since they are small scraps.

By contrast,

in the place of the tanna of the other beraita,

in the place of the tanna of the beraita, there is only

one

[there is only one],

and they call it “ma’atzad,”

and since their tool was not particularly small, and the wood scraps were larger, the scraps belong to the employer.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if

the carpenter

was working

—was employed

by

the employer, all the sawdust belongs to the employer.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

Stonecutters

who square the stones and smooth them

are not subject to the prohibition of theft

if the employer takes the refuse for themselves.

Those who prune trees

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

those who prune vines, and those who cut thorns

—those who cut thorns—

those who weed seeds

—who remove the vegetables growing among the seedlings—

and those who thin vegetables

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

The ruling is:

When the employer 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 employer is not particular about them

they belong to him.

Rav Yehuda said: Hops and young grain

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

are not subject to the prohibition of theft

because the employer is not particular about them. But

in a place where they are particular

in a place where people are particular about them—

there is a prohibition of theft with regard to them.

Ravina said: And Mata Meḥasya

which is a place where animals are kept and good pasture is needed -

is a place where they are particular

a place where people are particular

it is,

and therefore one must take care there not to take the fodder.

We shall return to you, the chapter “The Final Robber,” and the tractate Bava Kamma is complete.