Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

4) DOES A CRAFTSMAN ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP IN A VESSEL THAT HE IMPROVES?

(a) Suggestion: A Mishnah supports Rav Asi.

1. (Mishnah): Reuven gave wool to a dyer, and the dye was ruined - he pays the value of the wool.

i. He does not pay the higher value of dyed wool!

2. Suggestion: The dye was ruined after it was absorbed by the wool.

(b) Rejection (Shmuel): No, the dye was ruined the moment the wool entered, the wool was never improved.
(c) Inference: Had the dye become ruined after the wool entered, he would pay for the improved wool.

1. Suggestion: Shmuel argues on Rav Asi.
2. Rejection #1: No - the case is, Reuven owns the wool and the dye, the dyer is only paid for his labor.
3. Objection: If so, the dyer should pay for the wool and dye!
4. Rejection #2: Rather, Shmuel merely shows that there is no proof from our Mishnah (but he could agree to Rav Asi).

(d) Question (Beraisa): Reuven gave his garment to a craftsman; he finished, and informed Reuven - even if Reuven does not come for 10 days (to take and pay for it), he does not transgress keeping a worker's wages overnight;

1. If the worker returned the garment in mid-day, if Reuven does not pay by sundown he transgresses.
2. If a craftsman acquires ownership in a vessel that he improves, why does Reuven transgress (the worker has his wages)!

(e) Answer #1: This worker only smoothes the garment, there is no improvement.
(f) Objection: If so, why did he give the garment to him?
(g) Answer #2: Rather, the worker is paid a set wage for each time he presses it; only a Kablan (a worker contracted for a whole job) acquires ownership in a vessel that he improves.
(h) Originally, we thought that he was hired for the whole job - this supports Rav Sheshes.

1. Question: One who hires a Kablan - does the transgression of keeping wages overnight apply?
2. Answer (Rav Sheshes): Yes.
3. Suggestion: Rav Sheshes argues on Rav Asi (if a craftsman acquires ownership in a vessel that he improves, he already has his wages)!
4. Rejection (Shmuel bar Acha): The case is, he was contracted to deliver a letter (there is no improvement to acquire).

(a) Suggestion: Tana'im argue whether a craftsman acquires ownership in a vessel that he improves.

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): 'Make for me bracelets and rings and I will be Mekudeshes to you' - once he makes them, she is Mekudeshes;
2. Chachamim say, she is not Mekudeshes until money comes to her.
3. Question: What money is this?

i. Suggestion: If the bracelets and rings - then R. Meir would say, even without getting them she is Mekudeshes - what made the Kidushin?!

4. Answer: Rather, additional money.
5. We are currently holding that both Tana'im agree that wages are only due at the end of the job, and that one who is Mekadesh with a loan, the Kidushin is void.

i. Suggestion: R. Meir holds that a craftsman acquires ownership in a vessel that he improves (so giving her the jewelry is as giving his money), Chachamim hold that a craftsman does not acquire ownership in a vessel that he improves.

(b) Rejection #1: No - all hold that a craftsman does not acquire ownership in a vessel that he improves;

1. R. Meir holds that wages are only due at the end of the job (so it is as if he gives her the value of all his work when he gives her the jewelry, this makes Kidushin);
2. Chachamim hold that wages accrue from the beginning of the job until the end (so she owes him for his work - giving her the jewelry is as pardoning the debt, and this does not make Kidushin).

(c) Rejection #2: All hold that wages accrue from the beginning of the job until the end (so giving her the jewelry is as pardoning what she owes him);

1. R. Meir holds that one who is Mekadesh with a loan, the Kidushin takes effect;
2. Chachamim hold that the Kidushin is void.

(d) Rejection #3 (Rava): All hold that wages accrue from the beginning of the job until the end, and that one who is Mekadesh with a loan, the Kidushin is void, and that a craftsman does not acquire ownership in a vessel that he improves;

1. The case is, he added material to what she gave him to make the jewelry;
2. R. Meir holds that one who is Mekadesh with a loan and a Perutah, she intends to be Mekudeshes through the new money (and this works);
3. Chachamim hold that she intends to be Mekudeshes through the loan (and this does not work).

(e) The following Tana'im also argue on this.

1. (Beraisa): '(You are Mekudeshes to me) with the wages of what I worked for you' - she is not Mekudeshes; 'With the wages of what I will work for you' - she is Mekudeshes;
2. R. Noson says, 'With the wages of what I will work for you' - she is not Mekudeshes, all the more so, 'With the wages of what I worked for you'.
3. R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says, whether he said 'With the wages of what I will work for you' or 'what I worked for you', she is not Mekudeshes;

i. If he added his own material, she is Mekudeshes.

4. R. Noson argues on the first Tana regarding wages (R. Noson says wages accrue from the beginning, the first Tana holds, wages are only due at the end);
5. R. Noson and Rebbi argue regarding Kidushin with a Perutah and a loan (R. Noson says she intends to become Mekudeshes through the loan, Rebbi says, through the Perutah).

(a) (Shmuel): A slaughterer who slaughtered improperly is liable - he is a damager, he is negligent;

1. It is as if he was told to slaughter in one place and slaughtered elsewhere.

(b) Question: Why did Shmuel say he is a damager and he is negligent?
(c) Answer: If he only said he is a damager - one might have thought, that is only when he slaughtered for wages, but if he slaughtered for free, he is exempt - 'he is negligent' teaches, he is liable even if he slaughtered for free.
(d) Question (Rav Chama bar Gurya - Beraisa): A slaughterer slaughtered improperly - if he is a professional, he is exempt; if not, he is liable;

1. If he was paid, in either case he is liable.

(e) Shmuel: You should have understood that my law is as R. Meir - why do you ask from a Beraisa that is as Chachamim?!

1. 'He is a damager, he is negligent; it is as if he was told to slaughter in one place and slaughtered elsewhere' - this is as R. Meir, who says that a person must watch what he does.
2. Question: Where did R. Meir say this?
3. Answer #1 (Mishnah - R. Meir): The owner of an animal tied or locked in front of it properly, and it escaped and damaged - whether Tam or Mu'ad, he is liable.
4. Rejection: There, R. Meir and Chachamim argue how to expound the verses.
1. Answer #2 (Mishnah - R. Meir): Reuven gave wool to Shimon to dye red, and he died it black, or vice-versa - Shimon pays him the value of the wool he received.
5. Rejection: There, he intentionally changed from what he was told.
6. Answer #3 (Beraisa - R. Meir): If his jug broke and he did not clear away the fragments; his camel fell, and he did not stand it up - he is liable for damage they caused;

i. Chachamim say, Beis Din does not make him pay, but Heaven holds him accountable.
ii. R. Meir holds, one who trips is considered negligent; Chachamim say, he is not.

(f) (Rabah bar bar Chanah, citing R. Yochanan): A slaughterer slaughtered improperly - even if he is a professional as the slaughterers of Tzipori, he is exempt.
(g) Question: Did R. Yochanan really say that?!

1. R. Yochanan once ruled that a butcher (who improperly slaughtered a chicken) will be exempt if he can prove that he is an expert to slaughter chickens.

(h) Answer: A professional is exempt if he slaughtered for free, he is liable if he was paid.

1. (R. Zeira): One who wants that the slaughterer should be liable if the slaughter is invalid, he should pay him beforehand.

(i) Question (Beraisa): In the following cases, one is liable for substandard work, because he is as one who receives wages (even though he works for free):

1. A grinder received wheat to grind, and he did not moisten it first, and he made coarse flour;
2. A baker received flour to make bread, and he made bread that crumbles;
3. A slaughterer did an invalid slaughter.

(j) Answer: The Beraisa means he is liable because he (truly) receives wages.
(k) A man slaughtered through Hagramah (the majority of the windpipe was cut, but not the majority of any 1 ring; Tana'im argue whether this is valid). Rav ruled that the animal may not be eaten, but the slaughterer is exempt.

1. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi (to the animal's owner): Rav made 2 (contradictory) rulings in your case!
2. Question: What did they mean by this?
3. Answer #1: He made 2 (contradictory) rulings to your detriment:

i. He should have permitted the slaughter, as R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah;
ii. If he forbids it as Chachamim, he should obligate the slaughterer to pay!

4. Rejection: It is forbidden to say such a thing!

i. (Beraisa): A judge may not say, 'I wanted to acquit you, but the other judges outnumbered me' - "One who goes talebearing reveals secrets".

5. Answer #2: Rather, he made 2 (contradictory) rulings to your benefit:

i. He prevented you from eating a doubtful Neveilah;
ii. He prevented you from doubtful theft (taking money from the slaughterer - perhaps he is exempt).