1)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, if a carpenter takes the owner's wood and manufactures a bench instead of a chair, he acquires the bench and pays the owner for his wood. Rebbi Yehudah holds - that the owner takes the bench and pays the carpenter the lesser of the Sh'vach and the expenses, like he ruled in our Mishnah, with regard to a dyer who uses the wrong color dyes.

(b)Rebbi Meir concurs with Rebbi Yehudah however - in a case where he gave the carpenter wood to manufacture a good-quality chair, and he produced a poor-quality one, where he does not acquire the chair.

2)

(a)We ask whether 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim al ha'Tzemer' or not - whether a mere change of appearance is considered a Shinuy or not.

(b)The She'eilah cannot be in a case where someone stole raw dye, ground it, soaked it and dyed with it - because then, he would have acquired the dye with Shinuy, even before dyeing with it.

(c)We then suggest that the She'eilah is where he stole soaked dye and dyed with it - whether 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim ... ', because the dye is available, and the owner can demand it back, or not, because there is no real dye there, and he has no claim on the Ganav.

(d)We reject this interpretation too however, on the grounds - that the Ganav is obligated to return the dye that he stole, whether the dye is considered available or not.

(e)So we twist the She'eilah round the other way - whether 'Ein Sh'vach Samemanim ... ' and the Ganav is obligated to pay for the dye, or 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim ... ', and he can tell the owner to extract it from the wool.

3)

(a)We reject this interpretation too, on the grounds - that the only way of removing the dye is via Tzafun (as we learned earlier), a process which actually destroys it, depriving him of the Mitzvah of Hashavah ("ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah").

(b)So we establish the She'eilah when Reuven stole wool and dye belonging to Shimon, dyed the wool with the dye and returned it to the owner (in which case, assuming that 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim be'Tzemer', he will have performed the Mitzvah of Hashavah). Had the value of his wool increased, the increase in price would have paid for what he stole anyway. But we are speaking - when the price of dyed wool decreased.

(c)Alternatively, we are speaking - where he stole (not wool together with the paint, but) a monkey (whose price does not increase when it is painted) which he duly painted and returned to the owner.

4)

(a)Ravina establishes the case where the wool and the dye belong to two different people, and the case is - where a monkey stole dye and painted someone's wool, and the owner of the former is now claiming his dye from the latter.

(b)And the She'eilah is - whether 'Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim ... ', and the owner of the wool is obligated to pay the owner for the dye that he has now acquired, or 'Ein Sh'vach Samemanim ... ', and he is Patur, because he does not actually possess it.

5)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Mishnah in Orlah which rules - that a garment that has been dyed with the peels of Orlah fruit must be burned.

(b)There is no proof from there that dyes that are visible are considered an entity ('Yesh Sh'vach Samemanim al ha'Tzemer') - because the Torah forbids having Hana'ah from Orlah, and enhancing the looks of an article is considered Hana'ah (even if generally, it is not considered an entity).

(c)We learn the prohibition of eating Orlah from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Areilim Lo Ye'achel", and from "va'Araltem Orlaso es Piryo" - that Hana'ah is forbidden too.

(d)The two types of Hana'ah specifically mentioned by the Tana are - dyeing with Orlah fruit and using it as fuel.

6)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which rules that a garment that has been dyed with peels of Sh'mitah fruit - must be burned.

(b)There is no proof from here that dyes that are visible are considered an entity - because the Pasuk in Behar uses the expression "Tih'yeh" with regard to Sh'mitah, from which we Darshen 'be'Havayasah Tehei', incorporating in the Isur even things that are not normally considered an entity.

7)

(a)Rava cites two apparent conflicting Mishnahs. The Mishnah in Ohalos discusses blood of a corpse that became absorbed in the ground of a house. Some say 'ha'Bayis Tamei', others, 'ha'Bayis Tahor'. 'ha'Bayis Tamei' does not mean that the house is Tamei, but - that the people and the objects in the house are.

(b)To render whatever is in the house Tamei be'Ohel ha'Meis requires - a Revi'is (ha'Lug) of blood.

(c)In fact, says Rava, the Tana'im do not argue - because the former is referring to objects that are in the house before the blood became absorbed in the ground, the latter, about objects that were brought in only afterwards.

8)

(a)A garment that absorbed a Revi'is of blood from a corpse is Tamei.

(b)When the Tana says in this regard 'Im Miskabeses ha'Kesus ve'Yotzei Mimenu Revi'is Dam, Tamei ... ", he means - that (like in the previous case), if he brought the garment into the house, the objects in the house do, or don't, become Tamei (as we shall now explain).

(c)What the Tana now means is - that if there is sufficient blood absorbed in the garment that, if one were to wash it, a Revi'is of blood would come out with the water, then it renders the objects in the house Tamei; otherwise not.

9)

(a)Rav Kahana reconciles this Mishnah with the Mishnah in Orlah that we quoted earlier 'Beged she'Tzav'o bi'K'lipei Orlah, Yidalek' - by establishing it among the 'Kulei Revi'iyos' (the leniencies regarding a Revi'is Dam).

(b)Normally however, the Tana holds 'Chazuta Milsa Hi' (as does Rava [see Tosfos DH 'Rava Rami']), resolving our She'eilah.

(c)Another example of 'Kulei Revi'iyos' is Dam Tevusah - a Revi'is of blood that oozed from a dying person, some of it whilst he was alive and some after he died, and we don't know whether the majority oozed out after he died (in which case, it would be Metamei be'Ohel), or not.

10)

(a)Rava cites a Mishnah in Shevi'is which rules that Kedushas Shevi'is pertains to wild safflower and madder (two types of plants that are used as dyes) and their value (i.e. the money that one receives from their sale). The significance of the statement ...

1. ... 'Yesh Lahen Kedushas Shevi'is' is - that one is forbidden to use them for commercial purposes or as dyes.

2. ... Yesh Lahen Biy'ur' is - that as soon as nothing is left in the fields, they must be cleared out of the house.

(b)The Beraisa say that - the leaves of canes and of vines that one collected and stored for the winter have Kedushas Shevi'is provided they were initially collected for food, but not if they were collected as fuel.

(c)Rava ...

1. ... reconciles this apparent discrepancy by differentiating between wood that is for dyeing - where the benefit comes simultaneously with its destruction, and wood that is for fuel - where the benefit comes only after it has been destroyed, and he ...

2. ... learnss this from the word "le'Ochlah" (the source of things that have Kedushas Shevi'is) - from which we extrapolate that only fruit from which derives benefit as it is being destroyed is subject to Kedushas Shevi'is (but not if the benefit comes only afterwards).

11)

(a)We query this from Eitzim de'Mashchan - a type of wood that can be used a a torch, which gives benefit as it is being destroyed, yet it is not subject to Kedushaas Shevi'is, a Kashya on Rava.

(b)To which Rava replies 'S'tam Eitzim le'Hasakah Hein Omdin' - meaning that even Eitzim de'Mashchan is normally used as firewood, (unless it is specifically designated as a torch), and is therefore no different than other types of wood.

(c)Three categories of wood and plants regarding the Din of Shevi'is have emerged. The Din with regard to ...

1. ... wood is - 'S'tam Eitzim le'Hasakah Hein Omdin', and is not therefore subject to Kedushas Shevi'is.

2. ... wild dyes is - that they are, because they are normally designated for dyeing.

3. ... The leaves of canes and vines is - that we go after what they are collected for; if they are collected as food, they are subject to Kedushas Shevi'is, whereas if they are collected as fuel, they are not.