Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CRAFTSMEN THAT DEVIATED

(a) (Beraisa - R. Meir): Reuven gave wood to a carpenter to make a chair, and he made a bench, or vice-versa - he pays the value of the wood he received;

1. R. Yehudah says, Reuven pays the increased value or the expenses, whichever is smaller.
2. R. Meir admits, if he was told to make a nice chair or bench and made an unbefitting one, Reuven pays the increased value or the expenses, whichever is smaller.

(a) Question: Do we say that wool increases in value on account of ingredients (of dye)?

1. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If Reuven stole Shimon's ingredients, grated them, soaked them and dyed his own wool with them - he already acquired them by changing them (and must pay for them)!

2. Answer #1: Rather, Shimon's ingredients were already soaking, and Reuven dyed his own wool with them.

i. If we say that the ingredients increase the value of the wool, Shimon can demand compensation;
ii. If there is no increased value on the wool, Reuven can say 'I don't have anything of yours'.
iii. Objection: Even if there is no increased value on the wool, Reuven must pay for depriving Shimon of his ingredients!
iv. Answer: Rather, if we say that the wool did not increase in value, Reuven pays for the ingredients;
v. If the increased value is on the wool, Reuven can say 'Here is the wool, take your ingredients back'.
vi. Question: How can he take them back?
vii. Answer: He can wash the wool with soap.
viii.Question: Soap can remove the dye from the wool, it cannot restore the dye!

3. Answer #2: Rather, Reuven stole Shimon's wool and ingredients, dyed the wool and returned it.

i. If we say that the increased value due to the ingredients is on the wool, Reuven returned everything;
ii. If the value of the ingredients is not on the wool, Reuven did not return the ingredients and he must pay for them.
iii. Question: But it suffices that he returned wool worth more than what he stole!
iv. Answer #1: The price of dye declined (so the increased value is less than the value of the ingredients he stole).
v. Answer #2: He dyed a monkey (some say - a box), it is not worth more when dyed.

4. Answer #3 (Ravina): A monkey dyed Reuven's wool with Shimon's ingredients.

i. If there is increased value due to the ingredients on the wool, Reuven must compensate Shimon;
ii. If there is no increased value, Reuven is exempt.

(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): A garment was dyed with peels of (fruit of) Orlah- it must be burned.

1. This teaches that the appearance is significant (increases the value)!

(c) Rejection (Rava): Orlah is special, there the Torah forbids any visible benefit.

1. (Beraisa): "Do not eat Arelim" - this forbids eating;
2. Earlier, the verse says "Va'araltem Arlaso (its Orlah will be closed (forbidden) to you), its fruit" - this forbids benefit, dying, or burning a lamp with Orlah.

(d) Answer #2 (Beraisa): A garment was dyed with peels of (fruit of) Shemitah - it must be burned.
(e) Rejection: Shemitah is special, it says "It will be" - this teaches that the appearance counts.

2) IS APPEARANCE SIGNIFICANT?

(a) Question (Rava): Mishnayos argue whether appearance is significant!

1. (Mishnah #1): A garment was dyed with peels of Orlah - it must be burned.

i. This teaches that the appearance is significant.

2. (Mishnah #2): A Revi'is of blood was absorbed in the floor of a house - (vessels in) the house are Tehorim; some say, they are Teme'im;

i. Really, these 2 opinions do not argue - vessels in the house before the blood was absorbed are Teme'im, those that entered the house after it was absorbed are Tehorim.

3. (Continuation of Mishnah #2): If a Revi'is of blood was absorbed in a garment - (it is Tamei, but) it only conveys Tum'ah in a Ohel if a Revi'is of blood will come out through washing it (but the mere appearance of blood makes no difference)!

(b) Answer (Rav Kahana): (Normally, appearance is significant;) Mishnah #2 speaks of Tevusah blood (we are unsure if it came out before or after death) - since it only conveys Tum'ah in a Ohel mid'Rabanan, Chachamim were lenient.

(a) Question (Rava): An anonymous Mishnah and Beraisa argue whether wood has Kedushah of Shemitah!

1. (Mishnah): Plants used for dyes, such as saffron or woad, which grew by themselves in Shemitah - the Kedushah of Shemitah and the law of Bi'ur (getting rid of them when they are not available in the field) applies to them and money used to buy them.

i. This shows that wood has Kedushah of Shemitah.

2. (Beraisa): (Stalks of) reeds or vines that were stored up: if to be eaten (by animals) - they have Kedushah of Shemitah; if as wood (to be burned) - they do not have Kedushah of Shemitah.

(b) Answer (Rava): By Shemitah it says "To eat" - benefit obtained as the produce is consumed;

1. This excludes wood, for the (greatest) benefit (heat) comes after it is consumed (i.e. when they became coals).
2. Question: But oil-coated wood serves as a torch, illuminating as the wood is consumed - Kedushah of Shemitah should apply to it!
3. Answer (Rava): Normally, wood is gathered to be burned (for heat, not illumination).

(c) (Rav Kahana): Tana'im argue whether wood has Kedushah of Shemitah.

1. (Beraisa): (Wine of) Shemitah may not be used for soaking (flax) or laundering; R. Yosi permits this.
2. Question: What is Chachamim's reason?
3. Answer: "To eat" - not to soak or launder.

i. R. Yosi expounds "For you" - for all your needs.

4. Question: What do Chachamim learn from "For you"?
5. Answer: It includes other needs, but only those similar to eating, the benefit comes as the produce is consumed;

i. This excludes soaking and laundering, for the wine is ruined immediately, the benefit only comes much later.

6. Question: How does R. Yosi expound "To eat"?
7. Answer: as the following Beraisa.

i. (Beraisa): "To eat" - not for a bandage.
ii. Question: Perhaps we should rather exclude laundering?
iii. Answer: "For you" permits laundering.
iv. Question: Why not learn the other way - "To eat" - forbids laundering, "For you" permits a bandage?
v. Answer: It is more reasonable to permit laundering, which all people need, than a bandage, which not everyone needs.

(d) Question: As whom is the following Beraisa?

1. (Beraisa): "To eat" - not for a bandage, not to sprinkle wine on the floor (to scent the house), not to induce vomiting.

(e) Answer: As R. Yosi - if as Chachamim, it would also exclude soaking and laundry.