1)WHEN DO WE SAY UMAN KONEH BI'SHVACH KLI? [wages: Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli]
1.Question: Does one transgress "Lo Salin" for withouseholdlding wages of a Kablan (one hired to complete a task for a fixed price)?
i.If we say that Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli (a craftsman immediately acquires the improvements he makes to a Kli), then wages are not due to him, this is merely a loan (the employer owes him for the improvements on the Kli);
ii.If Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli, then wages are due (and he transgresses).
2.Answer (Rav Sheshes): He transgresses.
3.Bava Kama 98b (Rav Asi): If a carpenter received wood to make a chest, and he broke it, he is exempt, for Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli.
4.Question (Beraisa): If Reuven gave his garment to an Uman (Levi), who returned it during the day, if Reuven does not pay before sundown, he transgresses Bal Talin (not paying a worker on the same day).
i.If Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli, why does Reuven transgress? (Levi acquired, and sold it to Reuven. Reuven does not owe wages, rather, for a sale!)
5.Answer: Rather, Levi is paid a set wage for each time he presses it. Only a Kablan (a worker contracted for an entire job) is Koneh bi'Shvach Kli.
6.Suggestion: Rav Sheshes argues with Rav Asi.
7.Rejection (Shmuel bar Acha): Rav Sheshes discusses one hired to deliver a letter (there is no improvement to acquire).
8.(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one said 'make this metal into rings for me, and I will be Mekudeshes to you', once he makes them, she is Mekudeshes;
9.Chachamim say, she is Mekudeshes only when she gets (additional) money.
10.Suggestion: They argue about whether or not a loan (what she owes him for his labor) can be Mekadesh. Both Tana'im hold that wages accrue continuously, from the start of the job until the end, so they are like a loan that she owes to him.
11.Rejection #1: No, all agree that a loan cannot Mekadesh. R. Meir holds that wages are due at the end. Chachamim hold that wages accrue continuously.
12.Rejection #2: All agree that wages accrue, and that a loan cannot be Mekadesh. They argue about whether or not Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli.
13.Rejection #3 (Rava): All agree that Ein Uman Koneh, that wages accrue, and that a loan cannot be Mekadesh. The case is, he added to what she gave to him, and also pardoned her debt to him. They argue about whether she intends to become Mekudeshes through his addition, or through the loan (which is invalid).
1.Rif (68b and Bava Kama 35a): Rav Sheshes taught that Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli. The Halachah follows him. Rava concluded that all agree that Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli. We do not rely on the rejection of the proof from our Mishnah (there is no improvement). The Halachah does not follow Rav Asi. If a craftsman received wood to make a chest, and he broke it, he is liable.
2.Rebuttal (Rosh Kidushin 2:11): The proof (from Rava) is invalid. To reject the suggestion that Tana'im argue about this, he had to say that all agree that Ein Uman Koneh. He could not say that all agree that Uman Koneh, for then all would say that she is Mekudeshes. R. Tam rules like Rav Asi.
3.Rosh (Bava Kama 9:14): If the Tana'im argue about Uman Koneh, the Halachah follows Chachamim who say that she is not Mekudeshes because Ein Uman Koneh. If they do not argue about this, all hold that Ein Uman Koneh. However, one could say that they argue about whether or not wages accrue continuously.
4.Rambam (Hilchos Sechirus 10:4): If one gave to an Uman wood to make a chest, and he broke it, he is liable, for Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli.
5.Rosh (Avodah Zarah 5:35): If a Yisrael gave silver to a Nochri Uman to make a Kli, he need not immerse it. Some require Tevilah according to the opinion that Uman Koneh; Bahag rules like this. The Rif rules that Ein Uman Koneh; it does not need Tevilah, for it was never called the Nochri's. It is unlike Klei Midyan.
i.Beis Yosef (YD 120 DH Yisrael, and Bedek ha'Bayis): The Rosh means that all agree that it does not need Tevilah, for it was never called the Nochri's. The Ritzba requires Tevilah even if a Nochri fixed a Yisrael's broken Kli that did not hold a Revi'is.
1.Shulchan Aruch (CM 306:2): If Reuven gave to an Uman wood to make a chest, and he broke it, he pays to Reuven the value of a chest, for Ein Uman Koneh.
i.Darchei Moshe (EH 28:8): The Tur says that Ein Uman Koneh, the Uman is liable. Perhaps he means that if Reuven seized payment, we do not force him to return it, but we do not force the Uman to pay due to Safek. (In Kidushin, the Tur says that Uman Koneh.) Alternatively, the Rosh concludes that Uman Koneh, but the Tur rules like the Rif and Rambam.
ii.Taz (EH 28:28, citing Maharshal): The Tur obligates paying, so we cannot say that it is a Safek! Rather, the Tur erred.
iii.SMA (6): The correct text of the Tur holds everywhere that Ein Uman Koneh, like I explained in Drishah (EH 28:38 DH Shuv).
iv.Shach (3): It is proper to rule that this law is a Safek. Bahag, the Ri, R. Tam Semag, and the Terumas ha'Deshen rule like Rav Asi, that Uman Koneh. It seems that the Rosh was unsure. If Bava Metzia he brought only the Rif's opinion; he relied on what he wrote in Kidushin. In Bava Kama he concluded 'however, one could say that they argue about whether or not wages accrue continuously.' I.e. it would have been simpler for Rava to say that they argue about whether wages accrue continuously. Rava did not, for he holds that the Halachah follows R. Meir. Regarding Tevilah, all Poskim hold that Uman Koneh. Regarding money, it is a Safek, so ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah. Bal Talin applies to a worker who does not improve the Kli, even according to the opinion that Uman Koneh.
2.Shulchan Aruch (YD 120:10): If a Yisrael gave silver to a Nochri Uman to make a Kli, he need not immerse it.
3.Rema: Some disagree. One should immerse it without a Berachah.
i.Gra (25): This opinion (the Ritzba) holds that Uman Koneh.
ii.Bach (DH u'Mah): The Ritzba requires Tevilah only if it was not considered a Kli before (it could not hold a Revi'is), and the Nochri added his own silver. /
iii.Shach (21): The Ritzba requires Tevilah even if all the silver was the Yisrael's. One must be stringent about an Isur mid'Oraisa.
iv.Taz (12): The Rema did not mention fixing a Kli that did not hold a Revi'is, for he does not rule like the Ritzba regarding this. Alternatively, since it was useless before, this is included in making a new Kli.
4.Rema: If a Yisrael made a Kli from a Nochri's silver and a Yisrael bought it, he immerses it without a Berachah.
i.Taz (13): The Isur v'Heter connotes that one immerses it with a Berachah, even if the Nochri never received it. It seems that the Rema holds that an Uman acquires only improvements. He cannot keep the Kli itself, for he did not teaches that acquire it. The Rema is stringent for the other opinions.
UMAN KONEH BI'SHVACH KLI REGARDING KIDUSHIN (Kidushin 48)
IS AN UMAN KONEH BI'SHVACH KLI? (Bava Kama 95)