Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 9:5 ירושלמי בבא קמא ט׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: If one gave wool to the dyer and the vat burned it, he gives him the value of his wool^47,By his unprofessional work he changed the material from his prior state and acquired it as his property for which he has to pay.⁴⁸In this case, the material is lost; it is impossible to refer to improved value.. If he dyed it poorly, if the increased value is more than the expenses⁴⁹The dyer’s cash expenses for dye and fuel., he gives him his expenses; if the expenses are more than the increased value he gives him the increased value.
To dye it red and he dyed it black, black and he dyed it red, Rebbi Meïr says, he gives him the value of his wool⁴⁷By his unprofessional work he changed the material from his prior state and acquired it as his property for which he has to pay.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses; if the expenses are more than the increased value he gives him the increased value.

HALAKHAH: “If one gave wool to the dyer,” etc. Rav Huna said, if chemicals burned it⁵⁰The dye ruined the wool., but if the vat burned it⁵¹By overheating with too little fluid in the vat before dye was added. Then the wool was not changed from its original state. Rav Huna has to emend the text of the Mishnah., he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even⁵²This means: Only if chemicals burned it; otherwise one follows the text of the Mishnah. if chemicals burned it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

What means “if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses”? A person gave to another five lots⁵³The translation follows the reading of E and Tosaphot 100b, s.v. אם, which read מנוי “portions” rather than מיני “kinds”. The same reading is found in שיטה מקובצת ad 100b. E starts the sentence by: אית בר נש “there is a man”. of wool, five portions of dye, and ten minas for his wages. He told him, dye it red, but the other dyed it black. He told him, if you had dyed it red, it would have been worth 25 minas, now that you dyed it black it is worth only 20 minas. You lost yours, I did not lose mine⁵⁴He deducts 5 minas from the dyer’s wages. This argument is about value, not cost.. Rebbi Jonah⁵⁵E and שיטה מקובצת read: R. Yose. said, you can understand from here that if a person gave to another eight denars to buy for him wheat in Tiberias but he bought for him in Sepphoris, he may say to him, if you had bought for me in Tiberias there would have been 25 modii⁵⁶Modius, a Roman measure of volume, 64 quartarii, about 8.51, 2/3 of a se’ah.; now that you bought in Sepphoris there are only 20 modii. You lost yours, I did not lose mine⁵⁷He deducts the price of 5 modii from the broker’s fee..

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him⁵⁸Since the agent did not fulfill the conditions of his agency, he acquired the barley for himself and has to carry the entire financial risk in selling the barley and buying wheat instead. Since the risk is entirely the agent’s, the eventual gain also is his.. We stated otherwise⁵⁹Tosephta Bava meṣi‘a 4:20.: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.⁶⁰The unfaithful agent is disadvantaged. Nevertheless, one has to find a reason for the unequal treatment of loss and gain.” ⁶¹Added from E; there is no Genizah text for the remainder of the Tractate. The addition seems necessary and the oversight of the Leiden scribe is easily explained. In the Babli, 102b, the identification of the Tannaїm is ascribed to R. Joḥanan who, however, is quoted there to the effect that R. Jehudah does not accept that unfaithful execution of an agency makes the agent the owner of the object acquired.[He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer⁶²In Demay 6:12 (Notes 194–196), this opinion is attributed to R. Jehudah. Since ownership is transferred when the seller hands over the goods, it matters to whom the seller intended to transfer title. Usually the seller does not know whether the buyer is acting on his own account or as an agent; the law will have to tell the seller what to intend.. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money⁶³In Demay 6:12 (Notes 194–196), this opinion is attributed to R. Yose. R. Meïr is not mentioned there.. Why does he (not)⁶⁴It seems that this word should be deleted; it is missing in the quote given by Bet Yosef, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ §123. split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person⁶⁵One should not trade with another person’s money. In the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 117b, this is a statement of R. Joḥanan.. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat?⁶⁶According to R. Jehudah, anything bought through an agent should need another transfer of ownership from agent to principal. This clearly is not practice. ⁶⁷Added from E, not in L.[Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer⁶⁸R. Nasa agrees with R. Joḥanan in practice but formulates it in a way applicable to any situation.. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him⁶⁵One should not trade with another person’s money. In the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 117b, this is a statement of R. Joḥanan..

Rebbi Samuel bar Abba objected before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did we not state⁶⁹Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:5.: “Both the person who dedicates⁷⁰He dedicates his entire property to the Temple. The administrators of the Temple have to foreclose all of his properties. and the one who vows his own valuation⁷¹He vows the amount specified in Lev. 27:1–8 as valuation, which for an adult male is fixed in v. 3 as 50 holy sheqel, interpreted as 50 tetradrachmas (Qiddushin 1:1, Note 339). exclude their wives’ and children’s clothing.⁷²The Mishnah there also excludes “dye which was dyed for them (the wife and children).” If R. Joḥanan is correct and by law the seller intends to benefit the owner of the money by which he is paid, who told the dyer or the clothier to transfer his intent from the husband, the giver of the money, to the wife and children, the beneficiaries?” He answered, nobody thought to include their wives’ and children’s clothing⁷³The problem in ‘Arakhin has nothing to do with our problem here since a vow is always subject to the exclusions stipulated by the person making the vow.. But did we not state: “My valuation on myself”; at the moment when he said, my valuation on myself, he only obligated himself for fifty tetradrachmas⁷¹He vows the amount specified in Lev. 27:1–8 as valuation, which for an adult male is fixed in v. 3 as 50 holy sheqel, interpreted as 50 tetradrachmas (Qiddushin 1:1, Note 339).. If he says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge what is worn by my wife and children? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: One who says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge a particular thing, one cannot use that particular thing as a pledge⁷⁴Again, this is a reformulation of the previous statement in a form universally applicable.. Rav Hoshaia in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This implies that one does not foreclose valuations from movables by biblical decree⁷⁵If the administrators of the Temple operated according to a biblical decree, all stipulations would be invalid (cf. Ketubot 9:1, Note 5). If stipulations are respected, the process of foreclosure of movables cannot be biblical. but only from the rabbis.