Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Kamma

Folio 101a

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?¹  — 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',²  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'?³  — 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,⁴  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.'⁵  But how can he take them away? By means of soap? But soap would surely remove them without making any restitution!⁶  — 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.⁷  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?⁸  — No: the query might have application where coloured wool had meanwhile depreciated in price.⁹  Or if you wish I may say that it refers to where e.g., he painted with them an ape¹⁰  [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,¹¹  and as an ape¹²  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',¹³  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 'Orlah¹⁴  has to be destroyed by fire.¹⁵  This proves that appearance is a distinct item [in valuation]!¹⁶  — Said Raba: [It is different in this case where] any benefit visible to the eye¹⁷  was forbidden by the Torah as taught Uncircumcised: it shall not be eaten of;¹⁸  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.¹⁹

Come and hear: A garment which was dyed with the shells [of the fruits] of the sabbatical year has to be destroyed by fire!²⁰  — It is different there, as Scripture stated: 'It shall be'²¹  implying that it must always be as it was.²²

1. And the whole liability upon him would be to pay the original value of the dyes as supra p. 541.
2. Since his dyes form now an integral part of the defendant's wool.
3. And with reference to which you have accordingly become subject to the law of robbery.
4. For the dyes.
5. I.e., remove them from the wool.
6. To which a robber is subject; cf. Lev. V, 23.
7. And would therefore still have to pay for the dyes.
8. By having dyed it with the dyes misappropriated from the same plaintiff.
9. And the increase through the process of dyeing is below the price of the dyes, [in which case the plaintiff can say that he would have sold the pigments before the depreciation].
10. Or as interpreted by others 'a basket of willows' which he misappropriated from the same plaintiff.
11. And it was not a case of misappropriation at all.
12. Belonging to no particular owner who could be made liable.
13. V. p. 587. n. 2.
14. I.e., the fruit in the first three years of the plantation of the tree; cf. Glos.
15. 'Orl. III, 1. 'Orlah is proscribed from any use; cf. Lev. XIX, 23.
16. To render the garment itself proscribed.
17. Cf. Me'il. 20a.
18. Lev. XIX, 23.
19. Pes. 22b. Kid. 56b. 'Orlah thus affords no precedent.
20. Now, could it not be proved from this that mere colour is a distinct item!
21. Lev. XXV, 7.
22. Even after it has been changed and altered by various processes.

Raba pointed out a contradiction. We have learnt: 'A garment which was dyed with the shells [of the fruits] of 'Orlah has to be destroyed by fire,' thus proving that colour is a distinct item; but a contradiction could be pointed out: 'If a quarter [of a log]¹  of [the] blood [of a dead person] has been absorbed in the floor of a house, [all in] the house²  would become defiled,³  or as others say, '[all in] the house would not be defiled'; these two statements, however, do not differ, as the former refers to utensils which were there at the beginning,⁴  whereas the latter refers to the utensils which were brought there subsequently [after the blood was already absorbed 'in the ground].⁵  'If the blood was absorbed in a garment, we have to see: if on the garment being washed a quarter [of a log] of blood would come out of it,⁶  it would cause defilement,⁷  but if not, it would not cause defilement'!⁸  — Said R. Kahana: The ruling stated in this Mishnah is one of concessions made in respect of quarters [of a log], applicable in the case of blood of one weltering in his blood who defiles by [mere] Rabbinic enactment.⁹

Raba again pointed out a contradiction: We have learnt: '[Among] the species of dyes, the aftergrowths of woad and madder are subject to the law of the sabbatical year,¹⁰  and so also is any value received for them subject to the law of the sabbatical year; they are subject to the law of removal¹¹  and any value received for them is similarly subject to the law of removal,'¹²  thus proving that wood is subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year; but a contradiction could be pointed out: 'leaves of reeds and leaves of vines which have been heaped up for the purpose of making them into a hiding place upon a field, if they were gathered to be eaten would be subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year but if they were gathered for firewood they would not be subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year'!¹³  — But he himself answered: Scripture stated: 'for food',¹⁴  implying that the law applies only to produce from which a benefit is derived at the time of its consumption,¹⁵  so that the wood for fuel is excluded as the benefit derived from it¹⁶  is after its consumption. But is there not the wood of the pine tree [used for torches] from which a benefit is derived at the time of its consumption? — Raba said:

1. A liquid measure; cf. Glos.
2. Subject to defilement.
3. As a quarter of a log of blood of a dead person is equal in law to the corpse itself and is subject to Num. XIX, 14.
4. I.e., before the blood was absorbed in the ground when it caused defilement.
5. And could no more cause defilement.
6. As to the way of calculation, v. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.
7. As the blood is in stich a case still considered present and existing in the garment.
8. Because the blood could no more be considered present in the garment. Oh. III, 2. This proves that a mere colour is not a distinct item.
9. Since it was doubtful whether the quarter of the log of blood oozed out while the person was still alive and clean or afterwards and unclean; cf. Nid. 71a.
10. Lev. XXV. 2-7.
11. From the house into the field as soon as similar crops are no more to be found in the field; cf. Sheb. IX. 2-3.
12. Sheb. VII, 1.
13. Suk. 40a. Now, does this not prove that wood is not subject to the law of the sabbatical year?
14. Lev. XXV, 6.
15. Such as is the case with fruits as food.
16. For heating purposes.