Bava Kamma — Daf 99a

והקדיחו יורה נותן לו דמי צמרו דמי צמרו אין דמי צמרו ושבחו לא לאו שהקדיחו לאחר נפילה דאיכא שבחא ושמע מינה אומן קונה בשבח כלי

אמר שמואל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהקדיחו בשעת נפילה דליכא שבחא אבל הקדיחו לאחר נפילה מאי נותן לו דמי צמרו ושבחו לימא שמואל לית ליה דרב אסי

אמר לך שמואל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דצמר וסמנין דבעל הבית וצבע אגר ידיה הוא דשקיל

אי הכי נותן לו דמי צמרו וסמנין מיבעי ליה אלא שמואל דחויי קא מדחי ליה

תא שמע הנותן טליתו לאומן גמרו והודיעו אפילו מכאן ועד עשרה ימים אינו עובר עליו משום (ויקרא יט, יג) לא תלין נתנה לו בחצי היום כיון ששקעה עליו החמה עובר עליו משום בל תלין

ואי ס"ד אומן קונה בשבח כלי אמאי עובר משום בל תלין

אמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא בגרדא דסרבלא דליכא שבחא

סוף סוף למאי יהבה נהליה לרכוכי כיון דרככיה היינו שבחא לא צריכא דאגריה לביטשי ביטשא ביטשא במעתא דהיינו שכירות

ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא דלא אגריה לביטשי מסייע ליה לרב ששת דבעו מיניה מרב ששת קבלנות עובר עליו משום בל תלין או אינו עובר ואמר להו רב ששת עובר

לימא דרב ששת פליגא אדרב אסי אמר שמואל בר אחא בשליחא דאיגרתא

לימא כתנאי עשה לי שירים נזמין וטבעות ואקדש לך כיון שעשאן מקודשת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אינה מקודשת עד שיגיע ממון לידה

מאי ממון אילימא אותו ממון מכלל דר"מ סבר אותו ממון לא אלא במאי מקדשא אלא פשיטא מאי ממון ממון אחר

וסברוה דכולי עלמא ישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף ודכולי עלמא המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת

מאי לאו באומן קונה בשבח כלי קמיפלגי דר"מ סבר אומן קונה בשבח כלי ורבנן סברי אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי

לא דכולי עלמא אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי אלא הכא בישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף קא מיפלגי

רבי מאיר סבר אין לשכירות אלא לבסוף ורבנן סברי יש לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף

ואי בעית אימא דכולי עלמא ישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף והכא במקדש במלוה קמיפלגי דרבי מאיר סבר המקדש במלוה מקודשת ורבנן סברי המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת

and it was burnt by the dye, he would have to pay the owner the value of his wool.  Now, it is only the value of the wool that he has to pay, but not the combined value of the wool and the increase in price.  Does this not apply even where it was burnt after the dye was put in,  in which case there has already been an increase in value, which would thus show  that the craftsman acquires title to the improvement carried out by him on any article? — Said Samuel: We are dealing here with a case where, e.g., it was burnt at the time when the dye was put in,  so that there has not yet been any increase in value. But what would it be if it were burnt after it was put in?  Would he really have to pay the combined value of the wool and the increase? Must we not therefore say that Samuel did not hold the view of R. Assi?  — Samuel might say to you that we are dealing here with a case where e.g., both the wool and the dye belonged to the owner, so that the dyer had to be paid only for the labour of his hands.  But if so, should it not have been stated that the dyer would have to pay the owner for the value of both his wool and his dye? — Samuel was only trying to point out that a refutation  would be possible.  Come and hear:  If he gave his garment to a craftsman and the latter finished it and informed him of the fact, even if from that time ten days elapsed [without his paying him] he would through that not be transgressing the injunction thou shalt not keep all night.  But if [the craftsman] delivered the garment to him in the middle of the day, as soon as the sun set [without payment having been made] the owner would through that transgress the injunction. Thou shalt not keep all night.  Now, if you assume that a craftsman acquires title to the improvement [carried out by him] on any article,  why should the owner be transgressing  the injunction. Thou shalt not keep all night? — Said R. Mari the son of R. Kahana: [The work required in this case was] to remove the woolly surface of a thick cloth where there was no accretion.  But be it as it may, since he gave it to him for the purpose of making it softer, as soon as he made it softer was there not already an improvement? — No; the ruling is necessary [for meeting the case] where he hired him to stamp upon it [and undertook to pay him] for every act of stamping one ma'ah,  which is but the hire [for labour]. But according to what we assumed previously that he was not hired for stamping,  [this ruling] would have been a support to [the view of] R. Shesheth, for when it was asked of R. Shesheth  whether in a case of contracting the owner would transgress  the injunction, Thou shalt not keep all night, or would not transgress, he answered that he would transgress! But are we [at the same time] to say that R. Shesheth differed from R. Assi?  — Samuel b. Aha said: [R. Shesheth was speaking] of a messenger sent to deliver a letter. Shall we say [that the same difference is found between] the following Tannaim? [For it was taught: If a woman says,] 'Make for me bracelets, earrings and rings,  and I will become betrothed unto thee,'  as soon as he makes them she becomes betrothed [unto him];  this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages say that she would not become betrothed until something of actual value has come into her possession.  Now, what is meant by actual value? We can hardly say that it refers to this particular value,  for this would imply that according to R. Meir [it was] not [necessary for her to come into possession] even of that value. If so, what would be the instrument to effect the betrothal?  It therefore appears evident that what was meant by 'actual value' was some other value.  Now again, it was presumed [by the students] that according to all authorities there is continuous [growth of liability for] hire from the very commencement of the work until the end of it,  and also that according to all authorities if one betroths [a woman] through [foregoing] a debt [owing to him from her], she would not be betrothed.  Would it therefore not appear that they  differed on the question whether a craftsman acquires title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article, R. Meir maintaining that a craftsman acquires title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article,  while the Rabbis maintained that the craftsman does not acquire title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article?  — No; all may agree that the craftsman does not acquire title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article, and here they differ as to whether there is progressive [liability for] hire from the very commencement of the work until the very end, R. Meir maintaining that there is no liability for hire except at the very end,  whereas the Rabbis maintained that there is progressive [liability for] hire  from the commencement until the very end.  Or if you wish I may say that in the opinion of all there is progressive [liability for] hire  from the very commencement to the end,  but here they  differ [in regard to the law] regarding one who betroths [a woman] by [forgoing] a debt [due from her], R. Meir maintaining that one who betroths [a woman] by [forgoing] a debt [due from her] would thereby effect a legal betrothal, whereas the [other] Rabbis maintained that he who betroths [a woman] by [forgoing] a debt [due from her] would thereby not effect a valid betrothal.