Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 9

the Gemarathat this is his decision.] " If the partition which was placed between the vineyard and corn was broken, the court has to order him twice to repair it. If he, however, did not care to fulfil the order, then the products are prohibited, and the owner of the partition has to suffer the damage." MISHNA IV. : If one gave wool to the dyer, and it was spoiled in the kettle, the value of the wool is to be paid. If it was poorly dyed, by reason of the kettle not being clean, if the increase in value of the wool is more than the expense, then he pays the expense only; and conversely, the increase only. If one has given wool to be dyed red, and it is dyed black, or con- versely, R. Meir says : The value of the wool is to be paid. R. Jehudah says: It must be seen which was greater, the increase or the expense. GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If one has given wood to the carpenter to make a chair of it, and he has made a bench, or conversely, the value of the wood is to be paid. So is the TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 229 decree of R. Meir. R. Jehudah says: " If the increase is more than the expense," etc. (as stated in the Mishna). R. Meir, however, agrees that such a decision applies if the agreement was to make a nice one and he made it unsightly. The school- men propounded a question : Is the color of the dyes to be con- sidered as existing upon the wool, or not ? How is it to be understood if one has stolen the wool and the dyes of the same man, and has dyed the wool with the same, and then returns the wool ? Now, if it is considered as existing, then he has returned all he has stolen from him ; and if not, he has returned him only the wool ? But even suppose not, is not the price of the wool increased by that ? Nay! The case was that the dyed wool became cheaper after it was stolen. Rabbina said : The question is in case the wool belongs to one and the dyes to another, and a monkey came and dyed this wool with these dyes. Shall we then assume that the dyes are considered as existing upon the wool, and the owner of the dyes can say: " Pay me for my dyes which are upon your wool" ? Or, per- haps can the other say: " There is nothing that belongs to you, as the color of your dyes is not taken into consideration." Come and hear: A garment which is dyed with the rinds of fruits grown in the sabbatic year must be burned. Hence it is to be inferred that the color of dyes is considered as existing ? There is a difference, as the Scripture uses the expression, " It shall be," which means: It shall always be considered as existing. " R, Jehudah says," etc. R. Joseph was sitting behind R. Abba, before R. Huna, and R. Huna said: The Halakha pre- vails in accord with R. Joshua ben Karcha and also with R. Jehudah. R. Joseph then turned his face, and said: It is neces- sary to say that the Halakha prevails in accord with R. Joshua ben Karcha, lest one say that, as there is a rule where an indi- vidual and the majority differ, the Halakha prevails as the majority; therefore he comes to teach us that here the Halakha prevails according to the individual. [What is the case of R. Joshua ben Karcha ? The case of the following Boraitha, where it is said that before the pagans' holidays there should be col- lected from them only such debts as are not known by any writ- ing; but if there is a note, it must not be collected.] But for what purpose was it necessary to state: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah ? Is this not self-evident ? Is there not an anonymous Mishna after the Mishna in which they differ, 230 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. and there is a rule that in such a case the Halakha prevails in accordance with the anonymous Mishna — namely, in this First Gate, R. Meir and R. Jehudah differ in our Mishna stated above, and in the Second Gate there is an anonymous Mishna that he who has changed the order must suffer the damages, which is certainly in accordance with R. Jehudah's theory ? [Said the Gemara:] R. Huna holds that his statement was nec- essary, because at a first glance one may say that the order of the Mishnayoth is not to be taken into consideration ; and, con- sequently, there is not an anonymous Mishna after the Mishna which was discussed. If so, what, then, is the rule ? R. Joseph may say : We can say to every anonymous Mishna which comes after a discussion that there is no order in the Mishnayoth. And what would R. Huna say to this ? He might say that only in one tract is the order of the Mishna not to be taken into con- sideration, but in two different tracts it must be considered. And R. Joseph ? He maintains that the whole of Section Dam- ages is considered as one tract. And if you prefer, it may be said that, even to him who does not consider the whole section as one tract, the anonymous Mishna in the Second Gate, which is placed among decided Halakhas without any change, prevails. The rabbis taught : If one has given money to his messenger to buy wheat and he buys barley, or vice versa, there was taught in one Boraitha that the decrease as well as increase is accounted to the messenger; and in another one, the decrease only, but the increase must be divided. Said R. Johanan : The different opinions of the Boraithas present no difificulty: one is in accord- ance with R. Meir, who holds that change gives title, and the other one is in accord with R. Jehudah, who holds it does not. R. Elazar opposed : How can we infer that according to R. Meir even the increase belongs to the messenger? Perhaps R. Meir spoke only of an article that one needs for his own use, but not for the market (as there is a difference which article he buys as soon as there is profit on it). And, therefore, said R. Elazar, both Boraithas are in accord with R. Meir, and present, never- theless, no difificulty. The first means when it was bought for eating, and the other for the market. In the West they ridi- culed Johanan's explanation according to R. Jehudah, for who had informed the man of the wheat that he shall pass title to the man of the money (and why should the sender get a share of the increase) ? R. Samuel bar Sasarti thus opposed this: If it is so, then even when the messenger has bought the same TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 231 article he was ordered to buy, then the profit should not belong to the sender ? Said R. Abuhi : Then there is a difference, because the messenger fulfilled what he was ordered, and he is considered as the owner himself. The rabbis taught: One who buys a field in the name of his neighbor, he for whom it was bought, is not to be compelled to sell it; but if he bought it under this condition, then he may be compelled. How is this to be understood ? Said R. Shesheth: