(Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven gave wood to a carpenter to make a chair, and he made a bench, or vice-versa, he pays the value of the wood he received;

R. Yehudah says, Reuven pays the increased value or the expenses, whichever is smaller.

R. Meir admits that if he was told to make a nice chair or bench and made an unsightly one, Reuven pays the increased value or the expenses, whichever is smaller.

Question: Do we say that wool increases in value due to ingredients (of dye)?

Question: What is the case?

If Reuven stole Shimon's ingredients, grated them, soaked them and dyed his own wool with them, he already acquired them by changing them (and must pay for them)!

Answer #1: Rather, Shimon's ingredients were already soaking, and Reuven dyed his own wool with them.

If we say that the ingredients increase the value of the wool, Shimon can demand compensation;

If there is no increased value on the wool, Reuven can say 'I don't have anything of yours'.

Objection: Even if there is no increased value on the wool, Reuven must pay for depriving Shimon of his ingredients!

Answer: Rather, if we say that the wool did not increase in value, Reuven pays for the ingredients;

If the increased value is on the wool, Reuven can say 'here is the wool. Take your ingredients back.'

Question: How can he take them back?

Answer: He can wash the wool with soap.

Objection: Soap can remove the dye from the wool, but it cannot restore the dye!

Answer #2: Rather, Reuven stole Shimon's wool and ingredients, dyed the wool and returned it.

If we say that the increased value due to the ingredients is on the wool, Reuven returned everything;

If the value of the ingredients is not on the wool, Reuven did not return the ingredients and he must pay for them.

Question: It should suffice that he returned wool worth more than what he stole!

Answer #1: The price of dye declined (so the increased value is less than the value of the ingredients he stole).

Answer #2: He dyed a monkey (some say - a box). It is not worth more due to the dye.

Answer #3 (to Question (1) - Ravina): A monkey dyed Reuven's wool with Shimon's ingredients;

If there is increased value due to the ingredients on the wool, Reuven must compensate Shimon;

If there is no increased value, Reuven is exempt.

Answer #1 (Mishnah): If a garment was dyed with peels of (fruit of) Orlah, it must be burned.

This teaches that the appearance is significant (it increases the value)!

Rejection (Rava): Orlah is special. The Torah forbids any visible benefit from Orlah;

(Beraisa): "Do not eat Areilim" forbids eating;

Earlier, the verse says "Va'araltem Orlaso (its Orlah will be closed (forbidden) to you), its fruit." This forbids benefit, dying, or burning a lamp with Orlah.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): If a garment was dyed with peels of (fruit of) Shemitah, it must be burned.

Rejection: Shemitah is special. It says "it will be" to teach that the appearance counts.

Question (Rava): Mishnayos differ about whether or not appearance is significant!

(Mishnah #1): If a garment was dyed with peels of Orlah, it must be burned.

This teaches that the appearance is significant.

Contradiction (Mishnah #2): If a Revi'is of blood was absorbed in the floor of a house, (Kelim in) the house are Tehorim. Some say that they are Teme'im;

Really, these two opinions do not argue. Kelim in the house before the blood was absorbed are Teme'im. Those that entered the house after it was absorbed are Tehorim.

(Continuation of Mishnah #2): If a Revi'is of blood was absorbed in a garment, (it is Tamei, but) it has Tum'as Ohel (it is Metamei what is over or below it or under a common roof) if a Revi'is of blood will come out through washing it. (This shows that the mere appearance of blood makes no difference!)

Answer (Rav Kahana): (Normally, appearance is significant.) Mishnah #2 discusses Tevusah blood (we are unsure if it came out before or after death). Since its Tum'as Ohel is only mid'Rabanan, Chachamim were lenient.

Question (Rava): An anonymous Mishnah and Beraisa disagree about whether or not wood has Kedushah of Shemitah!

(Mishnah): If plants used for dyes, such as saffron or woad, grew by themselves in Shemitah, Kedushas Shemitah and Bi'ur (one must get rid of them when they are not available in the field) applies to them and money used to buy them.

This shows that wood has Kedushah of Shemitah.

(Beraisa): (If stalks of) reeds or vines were stored up:

If they were stored to be eaten (by animals), they have Kedushah of Shemitah;

If they were stored (to be burned) like wood, they do not have Kedushah of Shemitah.

Answer (Rava): Regarding Shemitah it says "to eat". This is benefit derived at the same time that the Peros are consumed;

This excludes wood, for the (primary) benefit (heat) comes after it is consumed (i.e. when it is coals).

Question: If so, Kedushah of Shemitah should apply to oil-coated wood, for it can serve like a torch. It illuminates at the same time that the wood is consumed!

Answer (Rava): Normally, wood is gathered to be burned (for heat, not illumination).

(Rav Kahana): Tana'im argue about whether or not wood has Kedushas Shemitah.

(Beraisa): Peros (e.g. wine) of Shemitah may not be used for soaking (flax) or laundering;

R. Yosi permits this.

Question: What is Chachamim's reason?

Answer: It says "to eat" - not to soak or launder;

R. Yosi expounds "for you" - for all your needs.

Question: What do Chachamim learn from "for you"?

Answer: It includes other needs, but only those similar to eating, in which the benefit comes at the same time that the Peros are consumed;

This excludes soaking and laundering, for the wine is ruined immediately, and the benefit comes much later.

Question: How does R. Yosi expound "to eat"?

Answer (Beraisa): "(The Peros are) to eat", not for a bandage.

Suggestion: Perhaps we should rather exclude laundering!

Rejection: "For you" permits laundering.

Question: Perhaps we should learn the other way! Perhaps "to eat" forbids laundering, and "for you" permits a bandage!

Answer: It is more reasonable to permit laundering, which everyone needs, than a bandage, which not everyone needs.

Question: Like whom is the following Beraisa?

(Beraisa): "(The Peros are) to eat", not for a bandage, not to sprinkle wine on the floor (to scent the house), and not to induce vomiting.

Answer: It is like R. Yosi. If it were like Chachamim, it would also exclude soaking and laundry.