Study Bava Kamma folio 99A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
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?
and it was burned in the cauldron in which it was dyed, the dyer gives the owner the value of his wool. The Talmud infers: The value of his wool, yes, the dyer must pay that amount, but the value of the wool and its enhanced value, no, he need not pay. The Talmud suggests: Is this not referring to a case where the wool was burned after falling into the cauldron and the dye had taken hold, so that there is enhanced value, and one can learn from the Mishnah that a craftsman acquires ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, and therefore the dyer need not pay the enhanced value?
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?
Shmuel said: This is not a proof. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the wool was burned at the moment of falling into the cauldron, before the dye had taken hold, so that there is no enhancement. The Talmud asks: But according to this opinion, what would the halakha be if it was burned after falling into the cauldron, when the dye had taken hold? Would the dyer give the owner the value of his wool and its enhancement? should we say that Shmuel does not accept the statement of Rav Asi, and holds that a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel?
אמר לך שמואל: הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון דצמר וסמנין דבעל הבית, וצבע אגר ידיה הוא דשקיל.
The Talmud rejects this statement. Shmuel could have said to you: With what are we dealing here in the Mishnah? We are dealing with a case where the wool and herbs used in the dye both belong to the homeowner, and the dyer is taking only the payment of his hand, i.e., the wages for his labor, and nothing else. In this case, the craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, but in a case where the craftsman provides the materials, he does acquire such rights.