Study Bava Metzia folio 78B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is called a robber. Since he contravened their agreement and did not receive approval of the other party, it is considered as though he stole the animal from its owner. A robber is liable for any damage that occurs, even due to circumstances beyond his control.
The Talmud asks: Which of R' Meir’s statements indicates that this is his opinion? If we say that it is R' Meir’s statement with regard to a dyer, this claim can be refuted. As we learned in a Mishnah (Bava Kamma 100b): With regard to one who gives wool to a dyer to dye it red for him, and instead
R' Yehuda says: If the value of the enhancement resulting from the dying exceeds the dyer’s expenses, then the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement. This apparently indicates that because the dyer diver
The Talmud challenges this proof. From where do you know that this Mishnah is the source of R' Meir’s opinion with regard to reneging on an agreement made with an employer? Perhaps it is different there, as the dyer acquired the wool by means of the physical change in a substance, and it is for that
Rather, the source of the opinion of R' Meir is the case of Purim collection. As it is taught in a baraita: The Purim collection, i.e., money collected for the Purim feast for paupers, may be used only for Purim; the city collection, i.e., money collected for poor people of a certain city, is giv