ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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.
(a) According to Rebbi Meir, if a carpenter takes the owner's wood and
manufactures a bench instead of a chair, he acquires the bench and pays the
owner for his wood. Rebbi Yehudah holds - that the owner takes the bench and
pays the carpenter the lesser of the Sh'vach and the expenses, like he ruled
in our Mishnah, with regard to a dyer who uses the wrong color dyes.
(b) Rebbi Meir concurs with Rebbi Yehudah - in a case where he gave the
carpenter wood to manufacture a good-quality chair, and he produced a
poor-quality one, where he does not acquire the chair.
(a) We ask whether 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim al ha'Tzemer' or not. The
She'eilah not be in a case when someone stole raw dye, ground it, soaked it
and dyed with it - because then, he would have acquired the dye with Shinuy,
even before dyeing with it.
(b) We then suggest that the She'eilah is when he stole soaked dye and dyed
with it - whether 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim ... ', because the dye is
available, and the owner can demand it back, or not, because there is no
real dye there, and he has no claim on the Ganav.
(c) We reject this interpretation however, on the grounds - that the Ganav
is obligated to return the dye that he stole, whether the dye is considered
available or not.
(d) So we twist the She'eilah round the other way - whether 'Ein Sh'vach
Samemanim ... ' and the Ganav is obligated to pay for the dye, or 'Yesh
Sh'vach Samemanim ... ', and he can tell the owner to extract it from the
(a) We reject this interpretation too on the grounds - that the only way of
removing the dye is via Tzafun (as we learned earlier), and Tzafun destroys
it, depriving him of the Mitzvah of Hashavah ("ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah").
(b) So we establish the She'eilah when Reuven stole wool and dye belonging
to Shimon, dyed the wool with the dye and returned it to the owner (in which
case, assuming that 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim be'Tzemer', he will have
performed the Mitzvah of Hashavah). Had the value of his wool increased,
the increase in price would have paid for what he stole anyway. But we are
speaking - when the price of dyed wool decreased.
(c) Alternatively, we are speaking - when he stole (not wool together with
the paint, but) a monkey (whose price does not increase when it is painted)
which he duly painted and returned to the owner.
(a) Ravina establishes the case when the wool and the dye belong to two
different people. The case is - when a monkey stole dye and painted
someone's wool, which explains adequately why the Ganav is not liable to pay
for the dye.
(b) And the She'eilah is - whether 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim ... ', and the
owner of the wool is obligated to pay the owner for the dye that he has now
acquired, or 'Ein Sh'vach Samemanim ... ', and he is Patur, because he is
not considered as having it.
(a) The Mishnah in Orlah states - that a garment that has been dyed with the
peels of Orlah fruit must be burned.
(b) There is no proof from here that dyes that are visible are considered an
entity (because 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim al ha'Tzemer') - because the Torah
includes Hana'ah in the Isur Orlah (as we shall now see), and enhancing the
looks of an article is considered Hana'ah (even if generally, it is not
considered an entity).
(c) We learn the prohibition of eating Orlah from the Pasuk in Kedoshim
"Areilim Lo Ye'achel", and from "va'Araltem Orlaso es Piryo" - that Hana'ah
is forbidden too.
(d) The two types of Hana'ah specifically mentioned by the Tana are - dyeing
with Orlah fruit and using it as fuel.
(a) The Mishnah in Orlah states that a garment that has been dyed with peels
of Sh'mitah fruit - must be burned.
(b) There is no proof from here that dyes that are visible are considered an
entity - because the Torah in Behar uses the expression "Tih'yeh" with
regard to Sh'mitah, from which we Darshen 'be'Havayasah Tehei',
incorporating in the Isur even what is not normally considered an entity.
(a) The Mishnah in Ohalos discusses blood of a corpse that became absorbed
in the ground of a house. Some say 'ha'Bayis Tamei', others, 'ha'Bayis
Tahor'. 'ha'Bayis Tamei' does not mean that the house is Tamei, but - that
the people and the objects in the house are.
(b) To render whatever is in the house Tamei be'Ohel ha'Meis requires - a
Revi'is (ha'Lug) of blood.
(c) In fact, says Rava, the Tana'im do not argue - because the former is
referring to objects that are in the house before the blood becomes absorbed
in the ground, the latter, about objects that are brought in only
(a) Of course - a garment that absorbed a Revi'is of blood from a corpse
Tamei. Why should it become Tahor?
Another example of 'Kulei Revi'iyos' is Dam Tevusah - a Revi'is of blood
that oozed from a dying person, some of it whilst he was alive and some
after he died, and we don't know whether the majority oozed out after he
died (in which case, it would be Metamei be'Ohel), or not.
(b) When the Tana says in this regard 'Im Miskabeses ha'Kesus ve'Yotzei
Mimenu Revi'is Dam, Tamei ... ", he means - that like in the previous case,
if he brought the garment into the house, that the objects in the house
become Tamei or remain Tahor (as we shall now explain).
(c) The statement means - that if there is sufficient blood absorbed in the
garment that, if one were to wash it, a Revi'is of blood would come out with
the water, then it renders the things in house Tamei.
(d) Rav Kahana reconciles this Mishnah with the Mishnah in Orlah that we
quoted above 'Beged she'Tzav'o bi'K'lipei Orlah, Yidalek' - by establishing
it among the 'Kulei Revi'iyos' (the leniencies regarding a Revi'is Dam).
Normally, he holds 'Chazuta Milsa Hi' (as does Rava [see Tosfos DH 'Rava
(a) The Mishnah in Shevi'is rules that Kedushas Shevi'is pertains to wild
safflower and woad (two types of plants that are used as dyes) and their
value (i.e. the money that one receives from their sale). The significance
of the statement ...
1. ... 'Yesh Lahen Kedushas Shevi'is' is - that one is forbidden to use them
for commercial purposes or as dyes.
(b) The Beraisa say that - the leaves of canes and of vines that one
collected and stored for the winter have Kedushas Shevi'is if they were
initially collected for food, but not if they collected it as fuel.
2. ... Yesh Lahen Biy'ur' - that, as soon as nothing is left in the fields,
they must be cleared out of the house.
(c) Rava ...
1. ... reconciles this apparent discrepancy by differentiating between wood
that is for dyeing - where the benefit comes simultaneously with its
destruction, and wood that is for fuel - where the benefit comes only after
it has been destroyed.
2. ... derives this from the word "le'Ochlah" (the source of things that
have Kedushas Shevi'is) - from which we extrapolate that anything that does
not provide benefit as it is being destroyed (but only afterwards), is
precluded from Kedushas Shevi'is.
(a) We query this from Eitzim de'Mashchan - a type of wood that can be used
a a torch, which gives benefit as it is being destroyed, yet it is not
subject to Kedushaas Shevi'is, a Kashya on Rava.
(b) To which Rava replies 'S'tam Eitzim le'Hasakah Hein Omdin' - meaning
that even Eitzim de'Mashchan is normally used as firewood, (unless if is
specifically designated as a torch), and is therefore no different than
other types of wood.
(c) Three categories of wood and plants regarding the Din of Shevi'is have
emerged. The Din with regard to ...
1. ... wood is - 'S'tam Eitzim le'Hasakah Hein Omdin', and is not therefore
subject to Kedushas Shevi'is.
2. ... wild dyes is - that they are, because they are normally designated
3. ... The leaves of canes and vines is - that we go after what they are
collected for; if they are collected as food, they are subject to Kedushas
Shevi'is, whereas if they are collected as fuel, they are not.