Bava Kamma — Daf 101a

כפרא דודי:

תנו רבנן הנותן עצים לחרש לעשות מהן כסא ועשה מהן ספסל ספסל ועשה מהן כסא ר' מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי עציו רבי יהודה אומר אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו את היציאה ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח

ומודה רבי מאיר אם נתן עצים לחרש לעשות מהן כסא נאה ועשה מהן כסא כעור ספסל נאה ועשה ספסל כעור אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו דמי היציאה ואם היציאה. יתירה על השבח נותן לו דמי השבח:

איבעיא להו יש שבח סמנין על הצמר או אין שבח סמנין על הצמר

היכי דמי אילימא דגזל סמנין ודקינהו ותרנהו וצבע בהן תיפוק ליה משום דקנינהו בשינוי

לא צריכא דגזל סמנין שרויין וצבע בהו מאי יש שבח סמנין על גבי צמר דאמר ליה הב לי סמנאי דשקלתינהו או דלמא אין שבח סמנין על גבי הצמר דא"ל לית לך גבאי ולא מידי

אמרי ואי אין שבח סמנין על גבי צמר מי מצי אמר ליה לית לך גבאי ולא מידי נימא ליה הב לי סמנאי דאפסדתינהו

אלא להך גיסא אין שבח סמנין על גבי הצמר ובעי שלומי ליה או דלמא יש שבח סמנין על גבי צמר וא"ל הא מנחי קמך שקלינהו שקלינהו במאי שקליה בצפון צפון עבורי מיעבר השבה לא עביד

אלא הב"ע כגון דגזל צמר וסמנין דחד וצבעיה לההוא צמר בהנך סמנין וקא מהדר ליה ניהליה לצמר יש שבח סמנין ע"ג הצמר וקא מהדר ליה סמנין וצמר או דלמא אין שבח סמנין על גבי צמר וצמר מהדר ליה סמנין לא מהדר ליה

אמרי תיפוק ליה דאייקר ליה ניהליה בדמי לא צריכא דזל ציבעא ואיבעית אימא כגון שצבע בהו קופא

רבינא אמר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דצמר דחד וסמנין דחד וקאתי קוף וצבעיה לההוא צמר בהנך סמנין יש שבח סמנין על גבי צמר דאמר ליה הב לי סמנאי דגבך נינהו או דלמא אין שבח סמנין על גבי צמר ואמר ליה לית לך גבאי כלום

תא שמע בגד שצבעו בקליפי ערלה ידלק אלמא חזותא מילתא היא

אמר רבא הנאה הנראה לעינים אסרה תורה דתניא (ויקרא יט, כג) ערלים לא יאכל אין לי אלא איסור אכילה מנין שלא יהנה ממנו ולא יצבע [בו] ולא ידליק בו את הנר

תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, כג) וערלתם ערלתו את פריו ערלים לא יאכל לרבות את כולם

תא שמע בגד שצבעו בקליפי שביעית ידלק שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא כה, ז) תהיה בהויתה תהא

He dyed it with the sediments of the kettles. Our Rabbis taught: If pieces of wood were given to a joiner to make a chair and he made a bench out of them, or to make a bench and he made a chair out of them R. Meir says that he will have to refund to the owner the value of his wood, whereas R. Judah says that if the increase in value exceeds his outlay the owner would pay the joiner his outlay, whereas if the outlay exceeds the increase in value he would have to pay him no more than the increase. R. Meir, however, agrees that where pieces of wood were given to a joiner to make a handsome chair out of and he made an ugly chair out of them, or to make a handsome bench and he made an ugly one if the increased value would exceed the outlay the owner would pay the joiner the amount of his outlay, whereas if the outlay exceeded the increase in value he would have to pay him no more than the amount of the increase. It was asked: Is the improvement effected by colours a [separate] item independent of the wool, or is the improvement effected by colours not a [separate] item independent of the wool? How can such a question arise in practice? The case can hardly be one where a man misappropriated pigments and after having crushed and dissolved them he dyed wool with them, for would he not have acquired title to them through the change which they underwent?  — No; the query could have application only where he misappropriated pigments already dissolved and used them for dyeing, so that if the improvement effected by colours is a [separate] item independent of the wool the plaintiff might plead: 'Give me back the dyes which you have taken from me',  but if on the other hand the improvement effected by colours is not a [separate] item independent of the wool the defendant might say to him: 'I have nothing of yours with me.' But I would here say: [Even] if the improvement effected by colours is not a [separate] item independent of the wool, why should the defendant be able to say to him: 'I have nothing of yours with me', seeing that the plaintiff can say to him: 'Give me back the pigments of which you have deprived me'?  — We must therefore take the other alternative: Are we to say that the improvement effected by colours is not a [separate] item independent of the wool and the defendant would have to pay him,  or is the improvement effected by colours a [separate] item independent of the wool and the defendant can say to him: 'Here are your dyes before you and you can take them away.'  But how can he take them away? By means of soap? But soap would surely remove them without making any restitution!  — We must therefore be dealing here [in the query] with a case were e.g., a robber misappropriated dyes and wool of one and the same owner, and dyed that wool with those dyes and was returning to him that wool. Now, if the improvement effected by colours is a [separate] item independent of the wool, the robber would thus be returning both the dyes and the wool, but if the improvement effected by colours is not a [separate] item independent of the wool, it was only the wool which he was returning, whereas the dyes he was not returning.  But I would still say: Why should it not be sufficient [for the robber to do this] seeing that he caused the wool to increase in value?  — No: the query might have application where coloured wool had meanwhile depreciated in price.  Or if you wish I may say that it refers to where e.g., he painted with them an ape  [in which case there was thereby no increase in value]. Rabina said: We were dealing here [in the query] with a case where e.g., the wool belonged to one person and the dyes to another,  and as an ape  came along and dyed that wool of the one with those dyes of the other; now, is the improvement effected by the colours a [separate] item independent of the wool so that the owner of the dyes is entitled to say to the owner of the wool: 'Give me my dyes which are with you',  or is the improvement effected by colours not a [separate] item apart from the wool, so that he might retort to him: 'I have nothing belonging to you'? — Come and hear: A garment which was dyed with the shells of the fruits of 'Orlah  has to be destroyed by fire.  This proves that appearance is a distinct item [in valuation]!  — Said Raba: [It is different in this case where] any benefit visible to the eye  was forbidden by the Torah as taught Uncircumcised: it shall not be eaten of;  this gives me only its prohibition as food. Whence do I learn that no other benefit should be derived from it, that it should not be used for dyeing with, that a candle should not be lit with it? It was therefore stated further, Ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: … uncircumcised, it shall not be eaten of, for the purpose of including all of these. Come and hear: A garment which was dyed with the shells [of the fruits] of the sabbatical year has to be destroyed by fire!  — It is different there, as Scripture stated: 'It shall be'  implying that it must always be as it was.