Bava Kamma 089

1:
Our mishnah is concerned with how payment is to be made in respect of tasks done by a professional that are performed unsatisfactorily. For us moderns one of the problems of our present mishnah (in common with so many other mishnahs, of course) is that there are too many unidentified 'he's in the text. Originally, these mishnahs were learned and repeated orally and the sages knew how to interpret them. In order to facilitate their interpretation for us we must rewrite some of the clauses by adding identification of the 'he' involved.

2.
The first clause of our mishnah is concerned with a situation in which the task is performed so badly that the result is useless. A customer gives wool to a dyer in order that it be coloured. However, the dyer overheats the tub and the wool is burned. In such a case the dyer must compensate the customer to the full extent of the value of his wool.

3:
The next clause is concerned with a case where the dyer botched his task and the work is unsatisfactory. The term used by our mishnah is not clear. Rambam, in his commentary on our mishnah, says that the word we have rendered 'badly' means that the wool is now an ugly colour, not at all what the customer expected, and it is clear that the dyer was guilty of negligence. The Gemara [BK 101a] explains that the botching is caused by the wool having been over-dyed by the sediment at the bottom of the tub. Now, it is possible that even though the colour is not what the customer expected it is a presentable colour and the wool is now worth more than it was worth before the dying process. Rambam's explanation is quite succinct:

The increase in the value of the cloth is one half of a dinar (it was originally worth one dinar and is now worth one dinar and a half). Thus the customer must pay the dyer half the value of the increase. However, Rambam continues:

4:
The last clause of our mishnah is concerned with downright negligence. The customer asked for the cloth to be dyed one colour and the dyer effects a different colour entirely. Regarding such a situation there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Me'ir and Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai.

5:
Rabbi Me'ir holds that in the case of such blatant negligence the dyer must repay the customer the full value of the cloth and he keeps the cloth for himself because the dyer has bought it from the customer, as it were, by not following instructions. (If the customer prefers he can pay the dyer the agreed fee, the dyer's expenses, and take back his cloth.)

6:
Rabbi Yehudah holds that the amount involved depends on the present value of the cloth. If the added value of the cloth is greater than the dyer's outlay the customer must pay the dyer his expenses; if the outlay is greater than the added value of the cloth the customer must pay the dyer the sum of the added value.

7:
Let's illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, because it is his opinion that is accepted halakhah.

Rivka gives Micah a roll of woolen cloth worth ten dinars and asks for it to be dyed blue. She wants that colour for a dress she has in mind. Micah and Rivka agree that the cost to Rivka will be 7 dinars (even though Micah's outlay to do the job is only 4 dinars). Micah makes a mistake and dyes the cloth green. Now, although Rivka hasn't got the colour she wanted the cloth is now worth more than it was originally worth: it is now worth 15 dinars. In such a case Rivka must pay Micah 4 dinars, because Micah is 'punished' for not following instructions. Alternatively, Rivka gives Micah a roll of woolen cloth worth 4 dinars and asks for it to be dyed blue. They agree that the cost to Rivka will be 7 dinars (even though Micah's outlay to do the job is only 4 dinars). Micah makes a mistake and dyes the cloth green and the cloth is now worth 6 dinars. Rivka must pay Micah 2 dinars, because Micah is 'punished' for not following instructions.