Bava Kamma - Daf 101

• If יש שבח סמנין על הצמר

The Gemara asks a question: יש שבח סמנין על הצמר – Is the improvement of dye on the wool considered something material, או אין שבח סמנין על הצמר – or is the improvement of dye on the wool not considered something material? Rashi explains the question is if חזותא מילתא היא – appearance is a significant matter, making the dye still considered “present.” Since stolen dye must be returned, the case must be where one stole wool and dye belonging to the same person, and he dyed the wool with it, and then returned the dyed wool. If יש שבח סמנים ע"ג צמר (i.e., the dye is still considered present), he has returned everything he stole, but if not, he must pay for the stolen dye. Since the wool’s increased value would compensate for the stolen dye, the case must be where dyed wool decreased in value, and its improvement is less than the dye’s value. Alternatively, he dyed a monkey with the dye, which does not increase in value. Ravina explained the case where a monkey took one person’s dye and dyed another person’s wool with it. If the dye is considered present, its owner can claim compensation from the wool’s owner.

• חזותא מילתא היא re: קליפי ערלה and a reviis of blood in a garment

Rava posed a contradiction: A Mishnah states: בגד שצבעו בקליפי ערלה ידלק – a garment which was dyed with the peels of orlah fruit should be set afire. This proves חזותא מילתא היא – appearance is considered a significant matter (and the orlah is still considered present). However, another Mishnah states: רביעית דם שנבלעה בבית – a revi’is of blood which was absorbed in a house, הבית טמא – the utensils in the house are tamei through אהל. Another version says they are tahor, and the Gemara explains that utensils which were in the house before the absorption are tamei, and utensils brought in afterwards are tahor. The Mishnah concludes: נבלעה בכסות – If [the blood] was absorbed into a garment and brought into the house, then if a reviis would come out of the garment when washed, the house is tamei. If not, the house is tahor, because any fully absorbed blood (which cannot be cleaned out) is not considered present, despite being visible!? The Gemara explains this is a leniency applied to a reviis of דם תבוסה דרבנן – tevusah-blood, which is only metamei through אהל Rabbinically. Rashi defines this as blood which flowed out while the person was dying, and it is unknown if he was alive when it came out.

• If wood is subject to shemittah sanctity

Rava posed a contradiction: A Mishnah states regarding dyes: ספיחי סטים וקוצה – Aftergrowth of safflower and woad, which grew by itself without being planted, יש להן שביעית ולדמיהן שביעית – they possess shemittah sanctity, and the money paid for them possesses shemittah sanctity (e.g., they cannot be used for business purposes). They also are subject to ביעור – removal by a designated time. This proves that wood possesses shemittah sanctity. However, a Baraisa teaches that if one gathered leaves of cane reeds or grapevines, לקטן לאכילה – if he gathered them for food for animals, they possess shemittah sanctity, but if he gathered them לעצים – for wood, אין בהן משום קדושת שביעית – they do not possess shemittah sanctity (and can be used after the time of ביעור)!? The Gemara answers that the passuk says "לאכלה" – to eat, teaching: במי שהנאתו וביעורו שוין – shemittah sanctity applies to [produce] whose benefit and consumption coincide (like food), יצאו עצים שהנאתן אחר ביעורן – this excludes wood, whose benefit (baking) is after its consumption (after the wood is reduced to coals).