Bava Kamma 99a (צט.) — the Talmud in English

and he scorched it in the cauldron

he left the wool in the cauldron too long, until it was burned],

he gives him the value of his wool."

And we infer:

The value of his wool, yes; but not the value of his wool and its enhancement.

Is that so?

Does this not also refer to a case]

where he scorched it after the fall,

that is, after the dye had been absorbed into the wool,

so that there is enhancement, and

nevertheless, he gives him only the value of his wool; apparently,

infer from this that a craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil !

And we reject this:

Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a case in which he scorched it at the time of the fall, for

there is still

no

enhancement

in the wool, and therefore he gives him only the value of his wool.

The Gemara analyzes Shmuel’s statement: It follows from his words that only in a case where there is still no enhancement in the wool does he give him the value of his wool,

but if he scorched it after the fall, what is the law?

It follows that he

gives him the value of his wool and its enhancement.

Shall we say that Shmuel does not accept the view of Rav Asi,

for according to Rav Asi, “a craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil,” and even after the fall he is owed only the value of his wool? And since we hold in monetary matters in accordance with Shmuel, we should not rule in accordance with Rav Asi from this point onward.

And we reject this: In fact, Shmuel agrees with Rav Asi; rather,

Shmuel could have said to you: Here we are dealing with a case in which

the

wool and

the

dyes belong to the owner of the house, and

the

dyer takes only his wage [

he receives only payment for his labor], and in such a case it is inapplicable to say, “a craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil,” since the dyes are what enhance the wool , and the craftsman is merely a hired worker.

And we raise an objection:

If so, he should have said that he gives him the value of his wool and of the dyes!

Since the dyes also belong to the owner of the house?

Rather,

Shmuel’s words should be explained

differently:

In fact, he agrees with Rav Asi; rather,

he merely deflects the argument.

That is, he is saying that there is no proof from the Mishna in support of Rav Asi, but he does not disagree with him.

The Gemara discusses Rav Asi’s statement:

Come and hear,

we learned in a beraita:

“One who gives his cloak to a craftsman

to repair it,

when he has completed it and notified him,

but has not yet returned the cloak to him,

even from then until ten days later, he does not violate the prohibition of ‘You shall not leave it overnight.’

But if he

gave it to him [

that is, the craftsman returned the cloak],

at midday, once the sun had set he violates the prohibition of ‘You shall not leave it overnight.’ "

And if it enters your mind that a craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil, why does he violate the prohibition of “You shall not leave it overnight,”

for it is as though he sold the cloak to the craftsman and then bought it back from him with the added enhancement, and he is not considered his hired worker at all?

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said —

This is referring

to a launderer of garments,

[

a clothes launderer] who produces no enhancement,

and therefore does not acquire ownership of the enhancement of the utensil. He is considered a day laborer, and one violates the prohibition of “You shall not leave it overnight” with regard to him.

And we raise an objection:

Ultimately, for what purpose did he give it to him? To soften it;

and if so,

since softening it is itself the enhancement,

he should acquire ownership of the utensil through this enhancement?

And we answer:

No, it is necessary to establish the case as one in which he hired him for

trampling [

walking on the garment in order to soften it],

and he pays him for each

act of trampling with a coin, which is a wage arrangement.

Therefore, he violates the prohibition of “You shall not leave it overnight.”

And according to the initial assumption, that he did not hire him for trampling,

it supports

the statement

of

Rabbi

Sheshet.

For they asked

him

of Rabbi Sheshet:

One who gives something to a craftsman to work on for him as

a contractor,

does he

violate the prohibition of “You shall not leave it overnight,” or does he not violate it?

And Rav Sheshet said to them: He violates it!

According to the earlier initial assumption, that the beraita is referring to a contractor, this provides support for Rav Sheshet’s statement.

And we deliberate concerning this:

Shall we say that the statement of

Rabbi

Sheshet,

that the prohibition of “You shall not leave it overnight” applies to a contractor,

disagrees with the statement of

Rabbi

Asi above: “A craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil”?

Since, if we say that the prohibition of “You shall not leave it overnight” applies to a craftsman, then certainly he does not acquire ownership of the enhancement of the utensil.

For if he acquired it, he would not be considered the owner’s hired worker; rather, there would be a new sale at the conclusion of his work.

Shmuel bar Aḥa said:

In fact, Rav Sheshet agrees that “a craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil.” Indeed, when one gives his utensil to a craftsman, he does not violate the prohibition of “You shall not leave it overnight,” since the craftsman acquired ownership of the utensil through the enhancement that he produced, and there is subsequently a new sale.

Rather, there is a contractor who does not enhance the utensil, such as

one hired to deliver a letter,

who hired a person on a contract basis to deliver a particular letter for him. In such a case, Rav Sheshet innovated that the law of “You shall not leave it overnight” applies to a contractor.

The scholars of the academy discussed Rav Asi’s statement:

Shall we say that Rav Asi’s statement, that a craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil,

is subject to a dispute between

the tannaim?

That is, it depends on a dispute between the tannaim:

For we learned in tractate Kiddushin (48a): “A woman who said to a man:

‘Make me

bracelets [

armlets],

earrings and rings, and

for your labor

sanctify

yourself to me,’”

once he made them, she is betrothed. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: She is not betrothed until money reaches her hand.”

And we deliberate concerning this:

What money

is meant?

That is, what money must reach her hand?

If we say it is that same money,

that is, the bracelets that she gave him,

by inference, Rabbi Meir holds that

even

that same money need not

reach her hand. If so, according to Rabbi Meir,

with what is she betrothed ?

Rather, it is obvious: What does “money”

mean? Other money.

And they assumed, [

the scholars of the academy who were discussing Rav Asi’s statement assumed],

everyone

— both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis — held that

a wage obligation accrues from beginning to end.

That is, for every peruta for which he works, she becomes obligated to him for a corresponding peruta as a loan. We do not say that “the wage obligation exists only at the end,” meaning that the wage debt takes effect only when he completes the work.

And

they likewise assumed that

everyone

held that

one who betroths a woman with a loan does not betroth her,

and if so, this is difficult: Why, according to Rabbi Meir, does the betrothal take effect, given that the wages for his work with her became a debt, as stated above, and one cannot betroth a woman with a loan ?

Therefore, the scholars of the academy concluded:

Is it not that the dispute concerns whether

the law of

a craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil?

Rabbi Meir holds that

a craftsman acquires ownership of the enhancement of the utensil.

And when he returns the bracelets to her, he has given her money, and she becomes betrothed through it.

And the Rabbis hold that

a craftsman does not acquire ownership of the enhancement of the utensil,

and there is only a loan here, for payment of his labor; and one who betroths a woman with a loan does not betroth her.

And we reject this:

No.

For

it may be said that

everyone agrees that a craftsman does not acquire ownership of the enhancement of the utensil.

Rather,

with regard to what did they disagree?

Here, they disagree concerning the law of

“

a wage obligation accrues from beginning to end.”

Rabbi Meir holds that

the wage obligation exists only at the end.

That is, the owner of the house does not become obligated to pay for the labor until the craftsman completes his work. Therefore, there is no loan here, and she can become betrothed through payment for his labor when he gives her the bracelets.

And the Rabbis hold that

the wage obligation accrues from beginning to end,

as stated above, and it is a loan; and one who betroths a woman with a loan does not betroth her.

And if you wish, say instead [

if you wish, you can establish their dispute] in another manner:

everyone

holds that

a wage obligation accrues from beginning to end.

And here, they disagree concerning the law of

one who

betroths a woman with a loan.

Rabbi Meir holds that

one who betroths a woman with a loan betroths her. And the Rabbis hold that

one who betroths a woman with a loan does not betroth her.