POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 99
4) DOES A CRAFTSMAN ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP IN A VESSEL THAT HE IMPROVES?
(a) Suggestion: A Mishnah supports Rav Asi.
5) USING IMPROVEMENTS TO A VESSEL TO MAKE KIDUSHIN
1. (Mishnah): Reuven gave wool to a dyer, and the dye
was ruined - he pays the value of the wool.
(b) Rejection (Shmuel): No, the dye was ruined the moment the
wool entered, the wool was never improved.
i. He does not pay the higher value of dyed wool!
2. Suggestion: The dye was ruined after it was absorbed
by the wool.
(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.
(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
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
4. Rejection #2: Rather, Shmuel merely shows that there
is no proof from our Mishnah (but he could agree to
1. If the worker returned the garment in mid-day, if
Reuven does not pay by sundown he transgresses.
(e) Answer #1: This worker only smoothes the garment, there
is no improvement.
2. If a craftsman acquires ownership in a vessel that he
improves, why does Reuven transgress (the worker has
(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
(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;
(b) Rejection #1: No - all hold that a craftsman does not
acquire ownership in a vessel that he improves;
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
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
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
(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);
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).
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
6) IMPROPER SLAUGHTER
1. The case is, he added material to what she gave him
to make the jewelry;
(e) The following Tana'im also argue on this.
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).
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
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
(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
(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
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.
(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.
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
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
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
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.
(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
(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;
(j) Answer: The Beraisa means he is liable because he (truly)
2. A baker received flour to make bread, and he made
bread that crumbles;
3. A slaughterer did an invalid slaughter.
(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
i. He should have permitted the slaughter, as R.
Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah;
4. Rejection: It is forbidden to say such a thing!
ii. If he forbids it as Chachamim, he should
obligate the slaughterer to pay!
i. (Beraisa): A judge may not say, 'I wanted to
acquit you, but the other judges outnumbered
me' - "One who goes talebearing reveals
5. Answer #2: Rather, he made 2 (contradictory) rulings
to your benefit:
i. He prevented you from eating a doubtful
ii. He prevented you from doubtful theft (taking
money from the slaughterer - perhaps he is