Bava Kamma 99a — the Talmud in English

and he scorched the cauldron [he left the wool in the cauldron for too long, until it was burned],

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; the value of his wool and its enhancement, no.

Is it not so [does this not also refer to a case]

Does this not also refer to a case]

in which he scorched it after the fall,

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

where there is enhancement, and

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

derive from this that an artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel !

And we reject this:

Shmuel said: With what are we dealing here? With a case in which he scorched it at the time of the fall, so that

there is still

no

enhancement

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

The Gemara discusses Shmuel’s words: It follows from his words that only in a case in which 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 hold in accordance with Rav Asi,

for according to Rav Asi, “an artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel,” and even after the fall he has only the value of his wool? And since we establish the law in accordance with Shmuel in monetary matters, we should not rule in accordance with Rav Asi from this point onward.

And we reject this: In truth, Shmuel holds in accordance with Rav Asi, but

Shmuel could say to you: With what are we dealing here? With a case in which

the

wool and

the

dyes belong to the owner of the house, and

the

dyer takes his wage [he takes payment only for his work]; in such a case it is not applicable to say, “an artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel,” since the substances are what enhance the wool ,

and the artisan is merely a hired laborer.

And we challenge this:

If so, he should have to give him the value of his wool and the dyes.

Since the substances, too, belong to the owner of the house?

Rather,

the words of

Shmuel

can be explained in another manner: In truth, he holds in accordance with Rav Asi, but

he is merely rejecting him.

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

The Gemara discusses the words of Rav Asi:

Come and hear,

we learned in a beraita:

“One who gives his cloak to an artisan

to repair it,

he finished it, and informed him,

but he had still not returned the cloak to him,

even from now until ten days, he does not transgress on its account the prohibition of ‘You shall not leave it overnight.’

But if he

gave it to him [that is, the artisan returned the cloak]

at midday,

as soon as the sun set over him, he transgresses on its account the prohibition of ‘Do not leave it overnight’ .”

And if it enters your mind that an artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel, why does he transgress on its account the prohibition of “Do not leave it overnight,”

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

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:

It is referring

to a launderer of garments,

[a clothes launderer]

for there is no enhancement,

and therefore he does not acquire the enhancement of the vessel; he is considered a day laborer, and he transgresses on its account the prohibition of “Do not leave it overnight.”

And we challenge this:

In the end, for what purpose did he give it to him? To soften it,

and if so,

since softening it is itself enhancement,

he should acquire the vessel through this enhancement?

And we answer:

It is necessary [to say that he hired him for treading on it]

for treading,

and he pays him for each

treading, a coin, which is wage-hire.

And therefore he transgresses on its account the prohibition of “Do not leave it overnight” .

And according to what we initially assumed, that he did not hire him for treading,

that is, that he is not a hired laborer but a contractor,

it supports

the words of

Rav Sheshet

—there is proof from the beraita

for Rav Sheshet’s words.

They asked

[him]

Rav Sheshet:

One who gives [something] to an artisan to do work on it for him as

a contractor,

does he

transgress on its account the prohibition of “Do not leave it overnight,” or does he not transgress?

And Rav Sheshet said to them: He transgresses!

And according to the earlier assumption, that the beraita is dealing with a contractor, there is proof for these words of Rav Sheshet.

And we inquire into it:

Shall we say that the words of

Rav

Sheshet,

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

disagree with the words of

Rav

Asi,

above: “An artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel”?

Since, if we say that the prohibition of “Do not leave it overnight” applies to an artisan, then certainly he does not acquire the enhancement of the vessel.

For if he acquired it, he is not considered his hired laborer; rather, there is here a new sale at the end of his work.

Shmuel bar Aḥa said:

In truth, Rav Sheshet agrees that “an artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel.” Indeed, one who gives his vessels to an artisan does not transgress the prohibition of “Do not leave it overnight,” since the artisan acquired the vessel through the enhancement that he produced in it, and there is a new sale afterward.

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

a letter messenger,

who hired a person on a contract basis to deliver a particular letter for him; and in such a case Rav Sheshet innovated that the law of “Do not leave it overnight” applies to a contractor.

The students of the academy discussed the words of Rav Asi:

Shall we say

that the words of Rav Asi—that an artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel—are

dependent upon a dispute.

That is, they depend upon a dispute among the tannaim:

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

‘Make for me bracelets

[armlets]

and earrings and rings, and

for the payment for your work

k

i

ddush me to yourself,’

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

as soon as he made them, she is betrothed. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

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

And we inquire into it:

What is the money?

That is, what money must reach her hand?

If we say it is that same money,

that is, the bracelets that she gave him,

it follows that Rabbi Meir holds

that even

that same money need not

reach her hand; and if so, according to Rabbi Meir, this is difficult:

But through what is she betrothed ?

Rather, it is obvious: What is “money”?

Other money.

And they assumed,

[the students of the academy who discussed the words of Rav Asi assumed],

that everyone—

between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis—held that

wage-hire exists from the beginning until the end.

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

And

likewise they assumed

that everyone

held:

“One who betroths with a loan is not betrothed,”

and if so, this is difficult: Why, according to Rabbi Meir, did the betrothal take effect? For the wage for the work he performed with her became a debt, as above, and it is impossible to betroth with a loan ?

And therefore the students of the academy concluded:

Is it not that they disagree

over the

law of whether an artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel.

For Rabbi Meir holds—

an artisan acquires the enhancement of the vessel.

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

And the Rabbis hold—

an artisan does not acquire the enhancement of the vessel,

and here there is only a loan, for payment for his work, and one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed.

And we reject this:

No.

For

it is possible to say that

everyone holds that an artisan does not acquire the enhancement of the vessel.

Rather,

in what do they disagree?

Here they disagree over the law of

whether

“wage-hire exists from the beginning until the end.”

Rabbi Meir holds—

wage-hire exists only at the end.

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

And the Rabbis hold—

wage-hire exists from the beginning until the end,

as above, and it is a loan, and one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed.

And if you wish, say

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

everyone

holds that

wage-hire exists from the beginning until the end.

And here they disagree over the law of

one who

betroths with a loan.

For Rabbi Meir holds—

one who betroths with a loan is betrothed. And the Rabbis hold—

one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed.