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 101
BAVA KAMA 101 (19 Cheshvan) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Chaim
Mordechai ben Harav Yisrael Azriel (Feldman) of Milwaukee by
the members of his family.
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.
(a) Question: Do we say that wool increases in value on
account of ingredients (of dye)?
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
1. Question: What is the case?
(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): A garment was dyed with peels of
(fruit of) Orlah- it must be burned.
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
3. Answer #2: Rather, Reuven stole Shimon's wool and
ingredients, dyed the wool and returned it.
ii. If there is no increased value on the wool,
Reuven can say 'I don't have anything of
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
v. If the increased value is on the wool, Reuven
can say 'Here is the wool, take your
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!
i. If we say that the increased value due to the
ingredients is on the wool, Reuven returned
4. Answer #3 (Ravina): A monkey dyed Reuven's wool with
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.
i. If there is increased value due to the
ingredients on the wool, Reuven must compensate
ii. If there is no increased value, Reuven is
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
(d) Answer #2 (Beraisa): A garment was dyed with peels of
(fruit of) Shemitah - it must be burned.
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
(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
3) WOOD OF SHEMITAH
1. (Mishnah #1): A garment was dyed with peels of Orlah
- it must be burned.
(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
i. This teaches that the appearance is
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)!
(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.
(b) Answer (Rava): By Shemitah it says "To eat" - benefit
obtained as the produce is consumed;
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.
1. This excludes wood, for the (greatest) benefit
(heat) comes after it is consumed (i.e. when they
(c) (Rav Kahana): Tana'im argue whether wood has Kedushah of
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).
1. (Beraisa): (Wine of) Shemitah may not be used for
soaking (flax) or laundering; R. Yosi permits this.
(d) Question: As whom is the following Beraisa?
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
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
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
iii. Answer: "For you" permits laundering.
iv. Question: Why not learn the other way - "To
eat" - forbids laundering, "For you" permits a
v. Answer: It is more reasonable to permit
laundering, which all people need, than a
bandage, which not everyone needs.
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.