Today’s daf TB Baba Kama 99 litigates whether Rav Asi’s position, a craftsman acquires ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel- אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי, stated on the previous daf is correct.
“The
mishna teaches that if one gave a carpenter a chest, a box, or a cabinet to
fix, and he damaged it, the carpenter is liable to pay for the damage. Rav
Asi says: The Sages taught that a carpenter is liable to pay damages
only in a case where one gave the carpenter a chest, a box, or a
cabinet to drive a nail into them, i.e., he gave the carpenter complete
vessels to repair, and he drove the nail into them and broke them. But
if one gave wood to a carpenter to build a chest, a box, or a cabinet, and
he built a chest, a box, or a cabinet from the wood, and before
giving it to the owner the carpenter broke them, he is exempt
from paying for the damage caused to these vessels, and must pay only for the
damage caused to the wood.
“What is the reason for this? It is because a craftsman acquires ownership
rights through the enhancement of the vessel. The craftsman is
considered to have acquired the vessel through his work, which enhances its
value, and it remains in his possession until he returns it to the owners.
Consequently, if he damages the vessel in any way, he is damaging his own item,
and must return only the value of the raw materials to the owners.”
(Sefaria.org translation)
We have
learned previously that a change in an item will transfer ownership. For
example, if the thief makes a
change in the stolen object, the thief acquires the stolen object (שנוי קונה) and pays the victim the cost of the
stolen object at the time of the theft.
The
Schottenstein edition of the Talmud Bavli on our massehket writes:
“Rav Asi maintains
that when one contracts a craftsman to complete a specific job for a specific
amount of money, we do not view the craftsman as earning a wage. Rather, we
view him as becoming a partial owner in the product that he creates. Thus, in
the case of the carpenter, the owner owns the wood and the carpenter owns the
improvement he made to the wood. When he subsequently returns the finished
product to the owner, he is in effect ‘selling’ his portion in the finished
product to the owner, and the payment he receives from the owner is considered ‘proceeds
of a sale,’ rather than a wage. As such, if the contractor fashioned the wood
into a utensil and then broke it before returning it, he is liable to pay only
for the value of the wood that he received from the owner, not from the value
of the finished utensil. For he- the craftsman- was the owner of the
improvement at the time that he damaged it.
“Rashba explains
that the craftsman acquires all the improvement (even the amount in excess of
his fee) in the event that he ruins the utensil, since it is certain they did
not improve it in order to be liable to pay the owner for ruining that
improvement. And in the event they does not ruin the utensil, he acquires only
a portion of the improvement corresponding to his fee.” (daf 98b5, note 49)
Disagreeing,
Rebbeinu Baruhk explains that the craftsman acquires the entire vessel because
of his improvement. The Rebbeinu Yisheyahu of Trani rights that this concept
was only said concerning the obligation of the craftsman. He is not liable for
the enhancement of the vessel if he damages it. He has no right to the object
itself.
Just as the
Gemara remains inconclusive whether Rav Asi is correct or not, so too poskin arrive at different conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment