In the expanded narrative of Avraham’s encounter with the angels, numerous interpretations delve into the lessons embedded within his actions, offering insights into behaviors to emulate. Regarding the consumption of produce by a worker in the field where they toil, the Mishna lays out the conditions under which such consumption is permissible. What circumstances warrant this allowance? What are the boundaries to be observed? From where in the Torah are these laws derived?
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Bava Metzia 87
״וַיִּפְצַר בָּם מְאֹד״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִכָּאן שֶׁמְּסָרְבִין לְקָטָן, וְאֵין מְסָרְבִין לַגָּדוֹל.
“And he urged them greatly” (Genesis 19:3), only after which they acquiesced? Rabbi Elazar says: From here we learn that one may decline the request of a lesser man, but one may not decline the request of a great man.
כְּתִיב: ״וְאֶקְחָה פַת לֶחֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶל הַבָּקָר רָץ אַבְרָהָם״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִכָּאן שֶׁצַּדִּיקִים אוֹמְרִים מְעַט וְעוֹשִׂים הַרְבֵּה, רְשָׁעִים אוֹמְרִים הַרְבֵּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מְעַט אֵינָם עוֹשִׂים.
The Gemara continues analyzing the same passage. It is written: “And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and satisfy your heart” (Genesis 18:5), and it is written: “And Abraham ran to the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good” (Genesis 18:7). Rabbi Elazar said: From here we learn that the righteous say little and do much, whereas the wicked say much and do not do even a little.
מְנָלַן, מֵעֶפְרוֹן. מֵעִיקָּרָא כְּתִיב: ״אֶרֶץ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף״, וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם אֶל עֶפְרוֹן וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּאׇזְנֵי בְנֵי חֵת אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר״, דְּלָא שְׁקַל מִינֵּיהּ אֶלָּא קִנְטְרֵי, דְּאִיכָּא דּוּכְתָּא דְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ לְתִיקְלָא ״קִנְטֵירָא״.
From where do we derive this principle that the wicked say much and do not do even a little? We derive it from Ephron. Initially, it is written that Ephron said to Abraham: “A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between me and you?” (Genesis 23:15). And ultimately it is written: “And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant” (Genesis 23:16), i.e., shekels that could be used in any location. This teaches that not only did Ephron take shekels from Abraham, he took from him only centenaria [kantarei], i.e., superior coins, as there is a place where they call a shekel a centenarius.
כְּתִיב ״קֶמַח״ וּכְתִיב ״סֹלֶת״. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִכָּאן שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה צָרָה עֵינֶיהָ בְּאוֹרְחִים יוֹתֵר מִן הָאִישׁ.
The verse states: “Make ready quickly three measures of flour, fine flour” (Genesis 18:6). The Gemara questions the apparent redundancy. It is written: “Flour,” and it is also written: “Fine flour.” Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From here we learn that a woman is more stingy with guests than a man. Sarah wanted to use merely flour, and Abraham persuaded her to use fine flour.
כְּתִיב ״לוּשִׁי וַעֲשִׂי עֻגוֹת״, וּכְתִיב ״וַיִּקַּח חֶמְאָה וְחָלָב וּבֶן הַבָּקָר״, וְאִילּוּ לֶחֶם לָא אַיְיתִי לְקַמַּיְיהוּ!
The Gemara continues its analysis of the verses. It is written: “Knead it, and make cakes” (Genesis 18:6), and two verses later it is written: “And he took curd, and milk, and the calf which he prepared” (Genesis 18:8). Abraham served these items to the guests, and yet he did not bring bread before them despite having instructed Sarah to prepare baked goods.
אָמַר אֶפְרַיִם מִקְשָׁאָה תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ אוֹכֵל חוּלִּין בְּטׇהֳרָה הָיָה, וְשָׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם פֵּירְסָה נִדָּה.
Efrayim Miksha’a, disciple of Rabbi Meir, says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Abraham, our forefather, would eat non-sacred food only when he was in a state of ritual purity, i.e., he treated his food as though it were consecrated to God. And Sarah, our foremother, menstruated that day, which rendered the baked goods ritually impure, preventing Abraham from handling them. Therefore, they could not serve bread to their guests.
״וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַיֵּה שָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה בָאֹהֶל״, לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁשָּׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ צְנוּעָה הָיְתָה. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק: יוֹדְעִים הָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת שֶׁשָּׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ בָּאֹהֶל הָיְתָה, אֶלָּא מַאי ״בָּאֹהֶל״ – כְּדֵי לְחַבְּבָהּ עַל בַּעְלָהּ.
The next verse states: “And they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tent” (Genesis 18:9). The Gemara explains that this verse serves to inform us that Sarah, our foremother, was a modest woman, as she remained inside while the guests were present. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it is Rabbi Yitzḥak who says: The ministering angels, who visited Abraham in the guise of travelers, knew that Sarah, our foremother, was inside the tent. Rather, what was the purpose of their eliciting Abraham’s response: In the tent? It was in order to endear her to her husband, by accentuating Sarah’s modesty.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי לְשַׁגֵּר לָהּ כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה. תָּנֵי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לָמָּה נָקוּד עַל אַיּוֹ שֶׁבְּ״אֵלָיו״ – לִימְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שֶׁיִּשְׁאַל אָדָם בָּאַכְסַנְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם אִשָּׁה כְּלָל! עַל יְדֵי בַּעְלָהּ שָׁאנֵי.
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: They inquired about her in order to send her the cup of blessing. It is customary to recite Grace after Meals over a cup of wine, which is then distributed to those present. It is taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Why are there dots in the Torah scroll upon the letters alef, yod, and vav in the word “to him [eilav]”? These letters spell ayo, which means: Where is he? The Torah is teaching the proper etiquette, which is that a person should inquire of his hostess about his host, just as he should inquire about the welfare of his hostess from the host. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Shmuel say: One may not inquire about the welfare of a woman at all, as this is immodest? The Gemara answers: A greeting by means of her husband is different. Asking a husband about his wife is not considered immodest.
״אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי הָיְתָה לִּי עֶדְנָה״, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְבַּלָּה הַבָּשָׂר וְרַבּוּ הַקְּמָטִין – נִתְעַדֵּן הַבָּשָׂר וְנִתְפַּשְּׁטוּ הַקְּמָטִין, וְחָזַר הַיּוֹפִי לִמְקוֹמוֹ.
The Gemara analyzes the verses that describe Sarah at the time: “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old [veloti] shall I have pleasure [edna]” (Genesis 18:12). Rav Ḥisda says: After the skin had worn out [nitballa] and become full of wrinkles, the skin once again became soft [nitadden] and her wrinkles smoothed out, and Sarah’s beauty returned to its place.
כְּתִיב ״וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן״, וּכְתִיב ״וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי״ – דְּלָא מוֹתֵיב הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כִּדְקָאָמְרָה אִיהִי.
It is written that Sarah said: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and it is written: “And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I certainly bear a child, and I am old?” (Genesis 18:13). This verse indicates that the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not repeat to Abraham that which Sarah actually said, that her husband is old. Why did God change the wording of her statement so that she was referring to herself?
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: גָּדוֹל שָׁלוֹם, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁינָּה בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה בְּקִרְבָּהּ וְגוֹ׳ וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל אַבְרָהָם וְגוֹ׳ וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי״.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Peace is of such great importance that even the Holy One, Blessed be He, altered the truth for the sake of preserving peace, as it is stated: “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, and my lord is old,” and it is written: “And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I certainly bear a child, and I am old?”
״וַתֹּאמֶר מִי מִלֵּל לְאַבְרָהָם הֵנִיקָה בָנִים שָׂרָה״, כַּמָּה בָּנִים הֵנִיקָה שָׂרָה? אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁגָּמַל אַבְרָהָם אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ עָשָׂה סְעוּדָה גְּדוֹלָה. הָיוּ כׇּל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מְרַנְּנִים וְאוֹמְרִים: רְאִיתֶם זָקֵן וּזְקֵנָה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ אֲסוּפִי מִן הַשּׁוּק וְאוֹמְרִים: בְּנֵינוּ הוּא, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מִשְׁתֶּה גָּדוֹל לְהַעֲמִיד דִּבְרֵיהֶם!
In reference to Sarah having given birth to Isaac, the verse states: “And she said: Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah should nurse children?” (Genesis 21:7). The Gemara asks: How many children did Sarah nurse? Why does the verse use the plural form when she had only one child? Rabbi Levi says: That day when Abraham weaned his son Isaac, he prepared a great celebratory feast. All of the nations of the world were gossiping and saying to each other: See this old man and old woman who brought a foundling from the market and are saying: He is our son, and moreover they are making a great feast to bolster their claim.
מָה עָשָׂה אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ – הָלַךְ וְזִימֵּן כׇּל גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר, וְשָׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ זִימְּנָה אֶת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם. וְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת הֵבִיאָה בְּנָהּ עִמָּהּ, וּמְנִיקָתָהּ לֹא הֵבִיאָה, וְנַעֲשָׂה נֵס בְּשָׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ וְנִפְתְּחוּ דַּדֶּיהָ כִּשְׁנֵי מַעֲיָינוֹת, וְהֵנִיקָה אֶת כּוּלָּן. וַעֲדַיִין הָיוּ מְרַנְּנִים וְאוֹמְרִים: ״אִם שָׂרָה הֲבַת תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה תֵּלֵד, אַבְרָהָם בֶּן מֵאָה שָׁנָה יוֹלִיד״? מִיָּד נֶהְפַּךְ קְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים שֶׁל יִצְחָק וְנִדְמָה לְאַבְרָהָם, פָּתְחוּ כּוּלָּם וְאָמְרוּ: ״אַבְרָהָם הוֹלִיד אֶת יִצְחָק״.
What did Abraham, our forefather, do? He went and invited all of the great men of that generation, and Sarah, our foremother, invited their wives. Each and every one of the wives brought her child with her but did not bring her wet nurse. And a miracle occurred to Sarah, our foremother, and her breasts were opened like two springs, and she nursed all of these children. And still those people were gossiping and saying to each other: Even if Sarah, at ninety years of age, can give birth, can Abraham, at one hundred years of age, father a child? Immediately, the countenance of Isaac’s face transformed and appeared exactly like that of Abraham. Everyone exclaimed and said: “Abraham fathered Isaac” (Genesis 25:19).
עַד אַבְרָהָם לֹא הָיָה זִקְנָה. מַאן דַּהֲוָה בָּעֵי (לְמִשְׁתַּעֵי) [לְאִישְׁתַּעוֹיֵי] בַּהֲדֵי אַבְרָהָם – מִשְׁתַּעֵי בַּהֲדֵי יִצְחָק. בַּהֲדֵי יִצְחָק מִשְׁתַּעֵי בַּהֲדֵי אַבְרָהָם. אֲתָא אַבְרָהָם בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי וַהֲוָה זִקְנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים״.
§ The Gemara continues discussing Abraham: Until Abraham, there was no aging, i.e., old age was not physically recognizable. Consequently, one who wanted to speak to Abraham would mistakenly speak to Isaac, and vice versa: An individual who wanted to speak to Isaac would speak to Abraham, as they were indistinguishable. Abraham came and prayed for mercy, and aging was at last noticeable, as it is stated: “And Abraham was old, well stricken in age” (Genesis 24:1), which is the first time that aging is mentioned in the Bible.
עַד יַעֲקֹב לָא הֲוָה חוּלְשָׁא. אֲתָא יַעֲקֹב בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי וַהֲוָה חוּלְשָׁא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה״. עַד דַּאֲתָא אֱלִישָׁע לָא הֲוָה דְּחָלֵישׁ וְאִתְּפַח. אֲתָא אֱלִישָׁע בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי וְאִתְּפַח, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וֶאֱלִישָׁע חָלָה אֶת חׇלְיוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בּוֹ״ – מִכְּלָל דְּחָלָה חֹלִי אַחֲרִיתִי.
Until Jacob, there was no illness leading up to death; rather, one would die suddenly. Jacob came and prayed for mercy, and illness was brought to the world, allowing one to prepare for his death, as it is stated: “And one said to Joseph: Behold, your father is sick” (Genesis 48:1), which is the first time that sickness preceding death is mentioned in the Bible. Until Elisha, one did not fall ill and then heal, as everyone who fell ill would die. Elisha came and prayed for mercy and he was healed, as it is written: “Now Elisha fell ill with his illness from which he was to die” (II Kings 13:14). By inference, one can derive that he had previously fallen ill with other illnesses from which he did not die.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳלָאִין חָלָה אֱלִישָׁע – אֶחָד שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְגֵיחֲזִי בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, וְאֶחָד שֶׁגֵּירָה דּוּבִּין בַּתִּינוֹקוֹת, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וֶאֱלִישָׁע חָלָה אֶת חׇלְיוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בּוֹ״.
The Sages taught: Elisha fell ill with three illnesses: One was due to the fact that he pushed Gehazi away with both hands, i.e., he banished Gehazi without granting him a chance to repent (see II Kings, chapter 5). One was due to the fact that he incited bears against young children (see II Kings 2:23–25). And one was the illness from which he died, as it is stated: “Now Elisha fell ill of his illness from which he was to die” (II Kings 13:14).
אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַתְחִילוּ בַּמְּלָאכָה צֵא וֶאֱמוֹר לָהֶם עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם עָלַי אֶלָּא פַּת וְקִטְנִית כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַב חִסְדָּא: פַּת קִטְנִית תְּנַן, אוֹ פַּת וְקִטְנִית תְּנַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָאֱלֹהִים! צְרִיכָה וָיו כִּי מוּרְדְּיָא דְלִבְרוּת.
§ The mishna (83a) teaches that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya said to his son: Rather, before they begin engaging in their labor, go out and say to them: The stipulation that food will be provided is on the condition that you have the right to claim from me only a meal of bread and legumes, which is the typical meal given to laborers. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ḥisda: Did we learn: Bread of legumes [pat kitnit], i.e., inferior-quality bread made of legumes, or did we learn: Bread and legumes [pat vekitnit]? Rav Ḥisda said to him: By God! That word vekitnit requires at its beginning the letter vav as large as an oar [mordeya] made of cypress wood [deliberot], i.e., pat vekitnit is undoubtedly the correct version.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. הַכֹּל לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דִּתְנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ כְּאֶחָד וְכִשְׁנַיִם מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כַּפָּחוּת שֶׁבַּשְּׂכִירוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶם.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya did not need to state this, as the principle is: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: This term: Everything, serves to add what? What is the tanna including by this term? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which we learned in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a laborer and said to him: I will pay you as one or two of the residents of the city are paid, he gives him wages in accordance with the lowest wage paid in that region. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Rabbis say: One divides the difference between the highest and lowest paid wages, thereby giving the wages to this laborer according to the average of the regional custom. This halakha is alluded to in the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה: הָעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, וּבְתָלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ, וּבְדָבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלִים: הָעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע
MISHNA: This mishna details the halakha that a laborer is permitted to eat from the produce with which he is working. And these laborers may eat by Torah law: A laborer who works with produce attached to the ground at the time of the completion of its work, e.g., harvesting produce; and a laborer who works with produce detached from the ground before the completion of its work, i.e., before it is sufficiently processed and thereby subject to tithes. And this is the halakha provided that they are working with an item whose growth is from the land. And these are laborers who may not eat: A laborer who works with produce attached to the ground
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, וּבְתָלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ, וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ.
not at the time of the completion of its work, i.e., while it is still growing; and a laborer who works with produce detached from the ground after the completion of its work, when it is sufficiently processed and therefore subject to tithes; and a laborer who works with an item whose growth is not from the land.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ״. אַשְׁכְּחַן כֶּרֶם, כֹּל מִילֵּי מְנָא לַן?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that a laborer may eat from produce attached to the ground, derived? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you have enough at your own pleasure; but you shall not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25). The Gemara asks: We find a source for a vineyard; from where do we derive that a laborer may likewise eat from any other type of produce?
גָּמְרִינַן מִכֶּרֶם: מָה כֶּרֶם מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
The Gemara answers: We derive it from a comparison to the case of a vineyard: Just as a vineyard is unique in that it is an entity whose growth is from the ground, and the laborer eats from it at the time of the completion of its work, i.e., when he is harvesting the grapes, so too with regard to any entity whose growth is from the ground and it is at the time of the completion of its work, a laborer may eat from it.
מָה לְכֶרֶם – שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת! גָּמְרִינַן מִקָּמָה. קָמָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ וְקָטַפְתָּ מְלִילוֹת בְּיָדֶךָ״.
The Gemara challenges this derivation: What is notable about a vineyard? It is notable in that the owner of a vineyard is obligated in the mitzva of olelot, the obligation to leave incomplete clusters of grapes for the poor (see Leviticus 19:10). Accordingly, one should not be able to derive the halakha of other types of produce from the halakha of a vineyard. The Gemara explains: We derive the halakha that a laborer may eat from other crops from the halakha that he may eat standing grain. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that he may eat standing grain itself? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck ears with your hand; but you shall not move a sickle on to your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deuteronomy 23:26).
מָה לְקָמָה שֶׁכֵּן חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה! וּמִמַּאי דְּהַאי קָמָה קָמָה דְּמִתְחַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה הִיא? דִּלְמָא כֹּל קָמָה קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא!
The Gemara responds: What is notable about standing grain? It is notable in that the owner of dough prepared from grain is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla. The Gemara asks an incidental question: And from where do you know that this standing grain mentioned in the verse is the same standing grain whose owner is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla? Perhaps the Merciful One is discussing any standing produce, not only the five grains from which ḥalla must be separated.
אָתְיָא ״קָמָה״ ״קָמָה״, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ בַּקָּמָה״. מָה הָתָם קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה.
The Gemara answers: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term “standing” written here and the term “standing” written elsewhere. It is written here: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deuteronomy 23:26), and it is written there, with regard to harvesting the barley for the omer offering: “Seven weeks you shall count for yourself; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain” (Deuteronomy 16:9). Just as there, in the verse referring to the harvesting of the omer, it is the owner of standing grain who is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla, as barley is one of the five grains, so too here, with regard to a laborer, it is discussing standing grain whose owner is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla.
אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְקָמָה שֶׁכֵּן חַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה! כֶּרֶם יוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְכֶרֶם שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת! קָמָה תּוֹכִיחַ.
The Gemara resumes its discussion by reiterating its earlier question. The comparison between standing grain and other produce can be refuted as follows: What is notable about standing grain? It is notable in that the owner of dough prepared from grain is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla. The Gemara answers: Let the case of a vineyard prove that this comparison is valid, as the mitzva of ḥalla does not apply to the produce of a vineyard, and yet a laborer may eat from it. The Gemara asks: What is notable about a vineyard? It is notable in that its owner is obligated in the mitzva of olelot. The Gemara responds: Let the case of standing grain prove that this is not a decisive factor, as its owner is not obligated in the mitzva of olelot and even so a laborer may eat from it.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
Since no exact comparison can be drawn to either a vineyard or standing grain alone, the Gemara suggests a combined solution: The inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case, a vineyard, is not like the aspect of that case, standing grain. Their common denominator is that each one grows from the earth and at the time of the completion of its work the laborer may eat from it. So too, with regard to any type of produce that grows from the earth, at the time of the completion of its work, a laborer may eat from it.
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד מִזְבֵּחַ. וַאֲתָא נָמֵי זַיִת, דְּאִית בֵּיהּ צַד מִזְבֵּחַ!
The Gemara asks: What is unique about their common denominator? It is unique in that they have an aspect relating to the altar, i.e., the products of both a vineyard and standing grain differ from other types of produce in that they are both offered on the altar. Wine is brought for libations and flour in meal-offerings. The Gemara suggests tangentially: An olive should also be derived through this category of those products which a laborer may eat, as it too has an aspect relating to the altar, in the oil of meal-offerings.
וְזַיִת בְּמָה הַצַּד אָתֵי? הוּא גּוּפֵיהּ כֶּרֶם אִיקְּרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּבְעֵר מִגָּדִישׁ וְעַד קָמָה וְעַד כֶּרֶם זָיִת״! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״כֶּרֶם זַיִת״ – אִקְּרֵי, ״כֶּרֶם״ סְתָמָא – לָא אִקְּרֵי.
The Gemara refutes this suggestion: And is the halakha of an olive derived from the common factor of the two types of produce mentioned earlier? But it itself is called the fruit of a vineyard [kerem], as it is written: “And he burned up both the piles of produce and the standing grain, and also the olive yards [kerem zayit]” (Judges 15:5). Rav Pappa said: This verse does not mean that an olive is considered the product of a vineyard, as in the verse it is called olive yard [kerem zayit], and it is not called a plain vineyard. Therefore, the halakha of olives must be derived by analogy from the common denominator.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְחֶרְמֵשׁ״ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חֶרְמֵשׁ.
The Gemara resumes its discussion: In any case, it is difficult, as there still has not been found a source according to which the halakha that a laborer may eat when he is working applies to all types of produce. Rather, Shmuel said: The verse states with regard to a laborer who may eat produce: “But you shall not move a sickle” (Deuteronomy 23:26). This serves to include all types of produce that are cut with a sickle.
וְהַאי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁעַת חֶרְמֵשׁ – אֱכוֹל, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת חֶרְמֵשׁ – לָא תֵּיכוֹל!
The Gemara asks: But this word “sickle” is necessary to teach a different halakha with regard to a laborer: At the time of the sickle, i.e., when the work has been completed and the produce is being picked, you may eat. But when it is not yet the time of the sickle, you may not eat. If so, how can Shmuel use the term “sickle” as the source for the halakha that a laborer may eat all kinds of produce that are cut with a sickle?
הָהוּא מִ״וְּאֶל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״ נָפְקָא. תִּינַח דְּבַר חֶרְמֵשׁ, דְּלָאו בַּר חֶרְמֵשׁ מְנָא לַן?
The Gemara answers: That halakha, with regard to when a laborer may eat, is derived from the verse: “But you may not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25), as the Gemara will explain later. Therefore, the word “sickle” is not required to teach that halakha and can be used as the source of the halakha that a laborer may eat all kinds of produce that are cut with a sickle, as stated by Shmuel. The Gemara asks: Shmuel’s derivation works out well for any type of produce that requires a sickle for its harvest. But from where do we derive that the same applies to a type of produce that does not require a sickle for its harvest?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָמַר קְרָא ״קָמָה״ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה. וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: ״קָמָה״, קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה!
Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak said that the halakha concerning which produce a laborer may eat is derived from a different source. The verse states: “Standing [kama]” (Deuteronomy 23:26), and the unmodified term kama serves to include any standing produce. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say earlier that the term standing is referring specifically to standing produce whose owner is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla, and not to other produce?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִקַּמֵּי דְּנֵיתֵי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״ – אִיתְרַבִּי לֵיהּ כֹּל דְּבַר חֶרְמֵשׁ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִיחַיַּיב בְּחַלָּה. ״קָמָה״ לְמָה לִי – לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה.
The Gemara answers: That matter applies before we derived a halakha from the mention of “sickle.” Now that a halakha was derived from “sickle,” any type of produce that requires a sickle for its harvesting is included, as stated earlier, and this applies even though the owner of that particular produce is not obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla. Accordingly, why do I need the term “standing”? It serves to include any standing produce.
וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּנָפְקָא לַן מֵחֶרְמֵשׁ וּמִקָּמָה ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: And now that we have derived the halakha concerning which produce a laborer is entitled to eat both from the mention of “sickle” and from “standing,” why do I need the earlier verse: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you have enough at your own pleasure; but you may not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25)?
אָמַר רָבָא, לְהִלְכוֹתָיו. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״כִּי תָבֹא״, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בִּיאָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּפוֹעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּפוֹעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara answers that Rava said: This verse is required for its unique halakhot, as it is taught in a baraita that the phrase “when you come [tavo]” is interpreted as follows: Coming [bia] is stated here, and coming is also stated there: “In the same day you shall give him his wages, and the sun shall not go down [tavo] upon it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). Just as there, in Deuteronomy, chapter 24, the verse is speaking of a laborer, so too here, in Deuteronomy, chapter 23, the verse is speaking of a laborer, despite the fact that this detail is not stated explicitly in the verse.
״בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״, וְלֹא בְּכֶרֶם נׇכְרִי. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גֶּזֶל נׇכְרִי אָסוּר, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵי פּוֹעֵל. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גֶּזֶל נׇכְרִי מוּתָּר – הַשְׁתָּא גְּזֵילָה מוּתָּר, פּוֹעֵל מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The baraita continues analyzing the verse: The phrase “in your neighbor’s vineyard” indicates that it is prohibited for a laborer to put the grapes in his vessel only while he is working in the vineyard of a Jew, but not in the vineyard of a gentile, where he may place grapes in his vessel. The Gemara digresses to discuss this point: This explanation works out well according to the one who says that robbery from a gentile is prohibited; this is why it was necessary for the verse to permit a laborer to eat the gentile’s grapes. But according to the one who says that robbery from a gentile is permitted, now that robbery itself is permitted, is it necessary to teach that a laborer in the vineyard of a gentile is permitted to put grapes in his vessel?
מוֹקֵים לַהּ: ״בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ – וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״ – וְלֹא מוֹצֵץ. ״עֲנָבִים״ וְלֹא עֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר.
The Gemara answers: The one who maintains that robbery from a gentile is permitted interprets the phrase “in your neighbor’s vineyard” as teaching that a laborer may eat produce only in his neighbor’s vineyard, but he may not eat produce of consecrated property. The baraita continues: The term “then you may eat” indicates that a laborer must eat the entire grape and may not suck its juice and cast the rest away. The word “grapes” teaches that a laborer may eat only grapes by themselves and not grapes and something else, i.e., he may not use a condiment to make the grapes more palatable to enable him to eat an excessive amount.
״כְּנַפְשְׁךָ״ – כְּנֶפֶשׁ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת כָּךְ נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל. מָה נַפְשְׁךָ אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, אַף נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר.
The term: “At your own pleasure [kenafshekha]” (Deuteronomy 23:25), can also mean: As you are. Consequently, the term kenafshekha teaches that just as the halakha is concerning the owner of the vineyard himself, so is the halakha concerning you, the laborer himself: Just as the owner, alluded to by the term nafshekha, may eat from the produce before its labor is complete and is exempt from separating tithes, so too, the laborer himself may eat and is exempt from tithes.
״שׇׂבְעֶךָ״, וְלֹא אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה. ״וְאַל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְכֶלְיוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְכֶלְיוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל.
The expression: “until you have enough” indicates that a laborer may eat until he is satiated, but he may not engage in excessive eating. The phrase “but you may not put any in your vessel” teaches that at a time when you put the grapes in the owner’s vessels, i.e., when harvesting the grapes, then you may eat, but at a time when you are not putting the grapes in the owner’s vessels, i.e., if the laborer is performing other tasks in the vineyard before harvesting, you may not eat.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין הַטֶּבֶל מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר
§ Rabbi Yannai says: The owner of untithed produce is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Bava Metzia 87
״וַיִּפְצַר בָּם מְאֹד״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִכָּאן שֶׁמְּסָרְבִין לְקָטָן, וְאֵין מְסָרְבִין לַגָּדוֹל.
“And he urged them greatly” (Genesis 19:3), only after which they acquiesced? Rabbi Elazar says: From here we learn that one may decline the request of a lesser man, but one may not decline the request of a great man.
כְּתִיב: ״וְאֶקְחָה פַת לֶחֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶל הַבָּקָר רָץ אַבְרָהָם״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִכָּאן שֶׁצַּדִּיקִים אוֹמְרִים מְעַט וְעוֹשִׂים הַרְבֵּה, רְשָׁעִים אוֹמְרִים הַרְבֵּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מְעַט אֵינָם עוֹשִׂים.
The Gemara continues analyzing the same passage. It is written: “And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and satisfy your heart” (Genesis 18:5), and it is written: “And Abraham ran to the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good” (Genesis 18:7). Rabbi Elazar said: From here we learn that the righteous say little and do much, whereas the wicked say much and do not do even a little.
מְנָלַן, מֵעֶפְרוֹן. מֵעִיקָּרָא כְּתִיב: ״אֶרֶץ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף״, וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם אֶל עֶפְרוֹן וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּאׇזְנֵי בְנֵי חֵת אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר״, דְּלָא שְׁקַל מִינֵּיהּ אֶלָּא קִנְטְרֵי, דְּאִיכָּא דּוּכְתָּא דְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ לְתִיקְלָא ״קִנְטֵירָא״.
From where do we derive this principle that the wicked say much and do not do even a little? We derive it from Ephron. Initially, it is written that Ephron said to Abraham: “A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between me and you?” (Genesis 23:15). And ultimately it is written: “And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant” (Genesis 23:16), i.e., shekels that could be used in any location. This teaches that not only did Ephron take shekels from Abraham, he took from him only centenaria [kantarei], i.e., superior coins, as there is a place where they call a shekel a centenarius.
כְּתִיב ״קֶמַח״ וּכְתִיב ״סֹלֶת״. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִכָּאן שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה צָרָה עֵינֶיהָ בְּאוֹרְחִים יוֹתֵר מִן הָאִישׁ.
The verse states: “Make ready quickly three measures of flour, fine flour” (Genesis 18:6). The Gemara questions the apparent redundancy. It is written: “Flour,” and it is also written: “Fine flour.” Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From here we learn that a woman is more stingy with guests than a man. Sarah wanted to use merely flour, and Abraham persuaded her to use fine flour.
כְּתִיב ״לוּשִׁי וַעֲשִׂי עֻגוֹת״, וּכְתִיב ״וַיִּקַּח חֶמְאָה וְחָלָב וּבֶן הַבָּקָר״, וְאִילּוּ לֶחֶם לָא אַיְיתִי לְקַמַּיְיהוּ!
The Gemara continues its analysis of the verses. It is written: “Knead it, and make cakes” (Genesis 18:6), and two verses later it is written: “And he took curd, and milk, and the calf which he prepared” (Genesis 18:8). Abraham served these items to the guests, and yet he did not bring bread before them despite having instructed Sarah to prepare baked goods.
אָמַר אֶפְרַיִם מִקְשָׁאָה תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ אוֹכֵל חוּלִּין בְּטׇהֳרָה הָיָה, וְשָׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם פֵּירְסָה נִדָּה.
Efrayim Miksha’a, disciple of Rabbi Meir, says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Abraham, our forefather, would eat non-sacred food only when he was in a state of ritual purity, i.e., he treated his food as though it were consecrated to God. And Sarah, our foremother, menstruated that day, which rendered the baked goods ritually impure, preventing Abraham from handling them. Therefore, they could not serve bread to their guests.
״וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַיֵּה שָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה בָאֹהֶל״, לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁשָּׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ צְנוּעָה הָיְתָה. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק: יוֹדְעִים הָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת שֶׁשָּׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ בָּאֹהֶל הָיְתָה, אֶלָּא מַאי ״בָּאֹהֶל״ – כְּדֵי לְחַבְּבָהּ עַל בַּעְלָהּ.
The next verse states: “And they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tent” (Genesis 18:9). The Gemara explains that this verse serves to inform us that Sarah, our foremother, was a modest woman, as she remained inside while the guests were present. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it is Rabbi Yitzḥak who says: The ministering angels, who visited Abraham in the guise of travelers, knew that Sarah, our foremother, was inside the tent. Rather, what was the purpose of their eliciting Abraham’s response: In the tent? It was in order to endear her to her husband, by accentuating Sarah’s modesty.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי לְשַׁגֵּר לָהּ כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה. תָּנֵי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לָמָּה נָקוּד עַל אַיּוֹ שֶׁבְּ״אֵלָיו״ – לִימְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שֶׁיִּשְׁאַל אָדָם בָּאַכְסַנְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם אִשָּׁה כְּלָל! עַל יְדֵי בַּעְלָהּ שָׁאנֵי.
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: They inquired about her in order to send her the cup of blessing. It is customary to recite Grace after Meals over a cup of wine, which is then distributed to those present. It is taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Why are there dots in the Torah scroll upon the letters alef, yod, and vav in the word “to him [eilav]”? These letters spell ayo, which means: Where is he? The Torah is teaching the proper etiquette, which is that a person should inquire of his hostess about his host, just as he should inquire about the welfare of his hostess from the host. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Shmuel say: One may not inquire about the welfare of a woman at all, as this is immodest? The Gemara answers: A greeting by means of her husband is different. Asking a husband about his wife is not considered immodest.
״אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי הָיְתָה לִּי עֶדְנָה״, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְבַּלָּה הַבָּשָׂר וְרַבּוּ הַקְּמָטִין – נִתְעַדֵּן הַבָּשָׂר וְנִתְפַּשְּׁטוּ הַקְּמָטִין, וְחָזַר הַיּוֹפִי לִמְקוֹמוֹ.
The Gemara analyzes the verses that describe Sarah at the time: “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old [veloti] shall I have pleasure [edna]” (Genesis 18:12). Rav Ḥisda says: After the skin had worn out [nitballa] and become full of wrinkles, the skin once again became soft [nitadden] and her wrinkles smoothed out, and Sarah’s beauty returned to its place.
כְּתִיב ״וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן״, וּכְתִיב ״וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי״ – דְּלָא מוֹתֵיב הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כִּדְקָאָמְרָה אִיהִי.
It is written that Sarah said: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and it is written: “And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I certainly bear a child, and I am old?” (Genesis 18:13). This verse indicates that the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not repeat to Abraham that which Sarah actually said, that her husband is old. Why did God change the wording of her statement so that she was referring to herself?
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: גָּדוֹל שָׁלוֹם, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁינָּה בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה בְּקִרְבָּהּ וְגוֹ׳ וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל אַבְרָהָם וְגוֹ׳ וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי״.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Peace is of such great importance that even the Holy One, Blessed be He, altered the truth for the sake of preserving peace, as it is stated: “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, and my lord is old,” and it is written: “And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I certainly bear a child, and I am old?”
״וַתֹּאמֶר מִי מִלֵּל לְאַבְרָהָם הֵנִיקָה בָנִים שָׂרָה״, כַּמָּה בָּנִים הֵנִיקָה שָׂרָה? אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁגָּמַל אַבְרָהָם אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ עָשָׂה סְעוּדָה גְּדוֹלָה. הָיוּ כׇּל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מְרַנְּנִים וְאוֹמְרִים: רְאִיתֶם זָקֵן וּזְקֵנָה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ אֲסוּפִי מִן הַשּׁוּק וְאוֹמְרִים: בְּנֵינוּ הוּא, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מִשְׁתֶּה גָּדוֹל לְהַעֲמִיד דִּבְרֵיהֶם!
In reference to Sarah having given birth to Isaac, the verse states: “And she said: Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah should nurse children?” (Genesis 21:7). The Gemara asks: How many children did Sarah nurse? Why does the verse use the plural form when she had only one child? Rabbi Levi says: That day when Abraham weaned his son Isaac, he prepared a great celebratory feast. All of the nations of the world were gossiping and saying to each other: See this old man and old woman who brought a foundling from the market and are saying: He is our son, and moreover they are making a great feast to bolster their claim.
מָה עָשָׂה אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ – הָלַךְ וְזִימֵּן כׇּל גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר, וְשָׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ זִימְּנָה אֶת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם. וְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת הֵבִיאָה בְּנָהּ עִמָּהּ, וּמְנִיקָתָהּ לֹא הֵבִיאָה, וְנַעֲשָׂה נֵס בְּשָׂרָה אִמֵּנוּ וְנִפְתְּחוּ דַּדֶּיהָ כִּשְׁנֵי מַעֲיָינוֹת, וְהֵנִיקָה אֶת כּוּלָּן. וַעֲדַיִין הָיוּ מְרַנְּנִים וְאוֹמְרִים: ״אִם שָׂרָה הֲבַת תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה תֵּלֵד, אַבְרָהָם בֶּן מֵאָה שָׁנָה יוֹלִיד״? מִיָּד נֶהְפַּךְ קְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים שֶׁל יִצְחָק וְנִדְמָה לְאַבְרָהָם, פָּתְחוּ כּוּלָּם וְאָמְרוּ: ״אַבְרָהָם הוֹלִיד אֶת יִצְחָק״.
What did Abraham, our forefather, do? He went and invited all of the great men of that generation, and Sarah, our foremother, invited their wives. Each and every one of the wives brought her child with her but did not bring her wet nurse. And a miracle occurred to Sarah, our foremother, and her breasts were opened like two springs, and she nursed all of these children. And still those people were gossiping and saying to each other: Even if Sarah, at ninety years of age, can give birth, can Abraham, at one hundred years of age, father a child? Immediately, the countenance of Isaac’s face transformed and appeared exactly like that of Abraham. Everyone exclaimed and said: “Abraham fathered Isaac” (Genesis 25:19).
עַד אַבְרָהָם לֹא הָיָה זִקְנָה. מַאן דַּהֲוָה בָּעֵי (לְמִשְׁתַּעֵי) [לְאִישְׁתַּעוֹיֵי] בַּהֲדֵי אַבְרָהָם – מִשְׁתַּעֵי בַּהֲדֵי יִצְחָק. בַּהֲדֵי יִצְחָק מִשְׁתַּעֵי בַּהֲדֵי אַבְרָהָם. אֲתָא אַבְרָהָם בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי וַהֲוָה זִקְנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים״.
§ The Gemara continues discussing Abraham: Until Abraham, there was no aging, i.e., old age was not physically recognizable. Consequently, one who wanted to speak to Abraham would mistakenly speak to Isaac, and vice versa: An individual who wanted to speak to Isaac would speak to Abraham, as they were indistinguishable. Abraham came and prayed for mercy, and aging was at last noticeable, as it is stated: “And Abraham was old, well stricken in age” (Genesis 24:1), which is the first time that aging is mentioned in the Bible.
עַד יַעֲקֹב לָא הֲוָה חוּלְשָׁא. אֲתָא יַעֲקֹב בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי וַהֲוָה חוּלְשָׁא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה״. עַד דַּאֲתָא אֱלִישָׁע לָא הֲוָה דְּחָלֵישׁ וְאִתְּפַח. אֲתָא אֱלִישָׁע בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי וְאִתְּפַח, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וֶאֱלִישָׁע חָלָה אֶת חׇלְיוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בּוֹ״ – מִכְּלָל דְּחָלָה חֹלִי אַחֲרִיתִי.
Until Jacob, there was no illness leading up to death; rather, one would die suddenly. Jacob came and prayed for mercy, and illness was brought to the world, allowing one to prepare for his death, as it is stated: “And one said to Joseph: Behold, your father is sick” (Genesis 48:1), which is the first time that sickness preceding death is mentioned in the Bible. Until Elisha, one did not fall ill and then heal, as everyone who fell ill would die. Elisha came and prayed for mercy and he was healed, as it is written: “Now Elisha fell ill with his illness from which he was to die” (II Kings 13:14). By inference, one can derive that he had previously fallen ill with other illnesses from which he did not die.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳלָאִין חָלָה אֱלִישָׁע – אֶחָד שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְגֵיחֲזִי בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, וְאֶחָד שֶׁגֵּירָה דּוּבִּין בַּתִּינוֹקוֹת, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וֶאֱלִישָׁע חָלָה אֶת חׇלְיוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בּוֹ״.
The Sages taught: Elisha fell ill with three illnesses: One was due to the fact that he pushed Gehazi away with both hands, i.e., he banished Gehazi without granting him a chance to repent (see II Kings, chapter 5). One was due to the fact that he incited bears against young children (see II Kings 2:23–25). And one was the illness from which he died, as it is stated: “Now Elisha fell ill of his illness from which he was to die” (II Kings 13:14).
אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַתְחִילוּ בַּמְּלָאכָה צֵא וֶאֱמוֹר לָהֶם עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם עָלַי אֶלָּא פַּת וְקִטְנִית כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַב חִסְדָּא: פַּת קִטְנִית תְּנַן, אוֹ פַּת וְקִטְנִית תְּנַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָאֱלֹהִים! צְרִיכָה וָיו כִּי מוּרְדְּיָא דְלִבְרוּת.
§ The mishna (83a) teaches that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya said to his son: Rather, before they begin engaging in their labor, go out and say to them: The stipulation that food will be provided is on the condition that you have the right to claim from me only a meal of bread and legumes, which is the typical meal given to laborers. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ḥisda: Did we learn: Bread of legumes [pat kitnit], i.e., inferior-quality bread made of legumes, or did we learn: Bread and legumes [pat vekitnit]? Rav Ḥisda said to him: By God! That word vekitnit requires at its beginning the letter vav as large as an oar [mordeya] made of cypress wood [deliberot], i.e., pat vekitnit is undoubtedly the correct version.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. הַכֹּל לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דִּתְנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ כְּאֶחָד וְכִשְׁנַיִם מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כַּפָּחוּת שֶׁבַּשְּׂכִירוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶם.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya did not need to state this, as the principle is: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: This term: Everything, serves to add what? What is the tanna including by this term? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which we learned in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a laborer and said to him: I will pay you as one or two of the residents of the city are paid, he gives him wages in accordance with the lowest wage paid in that region. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Rabbis say: One divides the difference between the highest and lowest paid wages, thereby giving the wages to this laborer according to the average of the regional custom. This halakha is alluded to in the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה: הָעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, וּבְתָלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ, וּבְדָבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלִים: הָעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע
MISHNA: This mishna details the halakha that a laborer is permitted to eat from the produce with which he is working. And these laborers may eat by Torah law: A laborer who works with produce attached to the ground at the time of the completion of its work, e.g., harvesting produce; and a laborer who works with produce detached from the ground before the completion of its work, i.e., before it is sufficiently processed and thereby subject to tithes. And this is the halakha provided that they are working with an item whose growth is from the land. And these are laborers who may not eat: A laborer who works with produce attached to the ground
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, וּבְתָלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ, וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ.
not at the time of the completion of its work, i.e., while it is still growing; and a laborer who works with produce detached from the ground after the completion of its work, when it is sufficiently processed and therefore subject to tithes; and a laborer who works with an item whose growth is not from the land.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ״. אַשְׁכְּחַן כֶּרֶם, כֹּל מִילֵּי מְנָא לַן?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that a laborer may eat from produce attached to the ground, derived? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you have enough at your own pleasure; but you shall not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25). The Gemara asks: We find a source for a vineyard; from where do we derive that a laborer may likewise eat from any other type of produce?
גָּמְרִינַן מִכֶּרֶם: מָה כֶּרֶם מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
The Gemara answers: We derive it from a comparison to the case of a vineyard: Just as a vineyard is unique in that it is an entity whose growth is from the ground, and the laborer eats from it at the time of the completion of its work, i.e., when he is harvesting the grapes, so too with regard to any entity whose growth is from the ground and it is at the time of the completion of its work, a laborer may eat from it.
מָה לְכֶרֶם – שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת! גָּמְרִינַן מִקָּמָה. קָמָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ וְקָטַפְתָּ מְלִילוֹת בְּיָדֶךָ״.
The Gemara challenges this derivation: What is notable about a vineyard? It is notable in that the owner of a vineyard is obligated in the mitzva of olelot, the obligation to leave incomplete clusters of grapes for the poor (see Leviticus 19:10). Accordingly, one should not be able to derive the halakha of other types of produce from the halakha of a vineyard. The Gemara explains: We derive the halakha that a laborer may eat from other crops from the halakha that he may eat standing grain. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that he may eat standing grain itself? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck ears with your hand; but you shall not move a sickle on to your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deuteronomy 23:26).
מָה לְקָמָה שֶׁכֵּן חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה! וּמִמַּאי דְּהַאי קָמָה קָמָה דְּמִתְחַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה הִיא? דִּלְמָא כֹּל קָמָה קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא!
The Gemara responds: What is notable about standing grain? It is notable in that the owner of dough prepared from grain is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla. The Gemara asks an incidental question: And from where do you know that this standing grain mentioned in the verse is the same standing grain whose owner is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla? Perhaps the Merciful One is discussing any standing produce, not only the five grains from which ḥalla must be separated.
אָתְיָא ״קָמָה״ ״קָמָה״, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ בַּקָּמָה״. מָה הָתָם קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה.
The Gemara answers: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term “standing” written here and the term “standing” written elsewhere. It is written here: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deuteronomy 23:26), and it is written there, with regard to harvesting the barley for the omer offering: “Seven weeks you shall count for yourself; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain” (Deuteronomy 16:9). Just as there, in the verse referring to the harvesting of the omer, it is the owner of standing grain who is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla, as barley is one of the five grains, so too here, with regard to a laborer, it is discussing standing grain whose owner is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla.
אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְקָמָה שֶׁכֵּן חַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה! כֶּרֶם יוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְכֶרֶם שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת! קָמָה תּוֹכִיחַ.
The Gemara resumes its discussion by reiterating its earlier question. The comparison between standing grain and other produce can be refuted as follows: What is notable about standing grain? It is notable in that the owner of dough prepared from grain is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla. The Gemara answers: Let the case of a vineyard prove that this comparison is valid, as the mitzva of ḥalla does not apply to the produce of a vineyard, and yet a laborer may eat from it. The Gemara asks: What is notable about a vineyard? It is notable in that its owner is obligated in the mitzva of olelot. The Gemara responds: Let the case of standing grain prove that this is not a decisive factor, as its owner is not obligated in the mitzva of olelot and even so a laborer may eat from it.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
Since no exact comparison can be drawn to either a vineyard or standing grain alone, the Gemara suggests a combined solution: The inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case, a vineyard, is not like the aspect of that case, standing grain. Their common denominator is that each one grows from the earth and at the time of the completion of its work the laborer may eat from it. So too, with regard to any type of produce that grows from the earth, at the time of the completion of its work, a laborer may eat from it.
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד מִזְבֵּחַ. וַאֲתָא נָמֵי זַיִת, דְּאִית בֵּיהּ צַד מִזְבֵּחַ!
The Gemara asks: What is unique about their common denominator? It is unique in that they have an aspect relating to the altar, i.e., the products of both a vineyard and standing grain differ from other types of produce in that they are both offered on the altar. Wine is brought for libations and flour in meal-offerings. The Gemara suggests tangentially: An olive should also be derived through this category of those products which a laborer may eat, as it too has an aspect relating to the altar, in the oil of meal-offerings.
וְזַיִת בְּמָה הַצַּד אָתֵי? הוּא גּוּפֵיהּ כֶּרֶם אִיקְּרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּבְעֵר מִגָּדִישׁ וְעַד קָמָה וְעַד כֶּרֶם זָיִת״! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״כֶּרֶם זַיִת״ – אִקְּרֵי, ״כֶּרֶם״ סְתָמָא – לָא אִקְּרֵי.
The Gemara refutes this suggestion: And is the halakha of an olive derived from the common factor of the two types of produce mentioned earlier? But it itself is called the fruit of a vineyard [kerem], as it is written: “And he burned up both the piles of produce and the standing grain, and also the olive yards [kerem zayit]” (Judges 15:5). Rav Pappa said: This verse does not mean that an olive is considered the product of a vineyard, as in the verse it is called olive yard [kerem zayit], and it is not called a plain vineyard. Therefore, the halakha of olives must be derived by analogy from the common denominator.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְחֶרְמֵשׁ״ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חֶרְמֵשׁ.
The Gemara resumes its discussion: In any case, it is difficult, as there still has not been found a source according to which the halakha that a laborer may eat when he is working applies to all types of produce. Rather, Shmuel said: The verse states with regard to a laborer who may eat produce: “But you shall not move a sickle” (Deuteronomy 23:26). This serves to include all types of produce that are cut with a sickle.
וְהַאי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁעַת חֶרְמֵשׁ – אֱכוֹל, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת חֶרְמֵשׁ – לָא תֵּיכוֹל!
The Gemara asks: But this word “sickle” is necessary to teach a different halakha with regard to a laborer: At the time of the sickle, i.e., when the work has been completed and the produce is being picked, you may eat. But when it is not yet the time of the sickle, you may not eat. If so, how can Shmuel use the term “sickle” as the source for the halakha that a laborer may eat all kinds of produce that are cut with a sickle?
הָהוּא מִ״וְּאֶל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״ נָפְקָא. תִּינַח דְּבַר חֶרְמֵשׁ, דְּלָאו בַּר חֶרְמֵשׁ מְנָא לַן?
The Gemara answers: That halakha, with regard to when a laborer may eat, is derived from the verse: “But you may not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25), as the Gemara will explain later. Therefore, the word “sickle” is not required to teach that halakha and can be used as the source of the halakha that a laborer may eat all kinds of produce that are cut with a sickle, as stated by Shmuel. The Gemara asks: Shmuel’s derivation works out well for any type of produce that requires a sickle for its harvest. But from where do we derive that the same applies to a type of produce that does not require a sickle for its harvest?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָמַר קְרָא ״קָמָה״ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה. וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: ״קָמָה״, קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה!
Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak said that the halakha concerning which produce a laborer may eat is derived from a different source. The verse states: “Standing [kama]” (Deuteronomy 23:26), and the unmodified term kama serves to include any standing produce. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say earlier that the term standing is referring specifically to standing produce whose owner is obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla, and not to other produce?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִקַּמֵּי דְּנֵיתֵי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״ – אִיתְרַבִּי לֵיהּ כֹּל דְּבַר חֶרְמֵשׁ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִיחַיַּיב בְּחַלָּה. ״קָמָה״ לְמָה לִי – לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה.
The Gemara answers: That matter applies before we derived a halakha from the mention of “sickle.” Now that a halakha was derived from “sickle,” any type of produce that requires a sickle for its harvesting is included, as stated earlier, and this applies even though the owner of that particular produce is not obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla. Accordingly, why do I need the term “standing”? It serves to include any standing produce.
וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּנָפְקָא לַן מֵחֶרְמֵשׁ וּמִקָּמָה ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: And now that we have derived the halakha concerning which produce a laborer is entitled to eat both from the mention of “sickle” and from “standing,” why do I need the earlier verse: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you have enough at your own pleasure; but you may not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25)?
אָמַר רָבָא, לְהִלְכוֹתָיו. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״כִּי תָבֹא״, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בִּיאָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּפוֹעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּפוֹעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara answers that Rava said: This verse is required for its unique halakhot, as it is taught in a baraita that the phrase “when you come [tavo]” is interpreted as follows: Coming [bia] is stated here, and coming is also stated there: “In the same day you shall give him his wages, and the sun shall not go down [tavo] upon it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). Just as there, in Deuteronomy, chapter 24, the verse is speaking of a laborer, so too here, in Deuteronomy, chapter 23, the verse is speaking of a laborer, despite the fact that this detail is not stated explicitly in the verse.
״בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״, וְלֹא בְּכֶרֶם נׇכְרִי. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גֶּזֶל נׇכְרִי אָסוּר, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵי פּוֹעֵל. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גֶּזֶל נׇכְרִי מוּתָּר – הַשְׁתָּא גְּזֵילָה מוּתָּר, פּוֹעֵל מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The baraita continues analyzing the verse: The phrase “in your neighbor’s vineyard” indicates that it is prohibited for a laborer to put the grapes in his vessel only while he is working in the vineyard of a Jew, but not in the vineyard of a gentile, where he may place grapes in his vessel. The Gemara digresses to discuss this point: This explanation works out well according to the one who says that robbery from a gentile is prohibited; this is why it was necessary for the verse to permit a laborer to eat the gentile’s grapes. But according to the one who says that robbery from a gentile is permitted, now that robbery itself is permitted, is it necessary to teach that a laborer in the vineyard of a gentile is permitted to put grapes in his vessel?
מוֹקֵים לַהּ: ״בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ – וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״ – וְלֹא מוֹצֵץ. ״עֲנָבִים״ וְלֹא עֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר.
The Gemara answers: The one who maintains that robbery from a gentile is permitted interprets the phrase “in your neighbor’s vineyard” as teaching that a laborer may eat produce only in his neighbor’s vineyard, but he may not eat produce of consecrated property. The baraita continues: The term “then you may eat” indicates that a laborer must eat the entire grape and may not suck its juice and cast the rest away. The word “grapes” teaches that a laborer may eat only grapes by themselves and not grapes and something else, i.e., he may not use a condiment to make the grapes more palatable to enable him to eat an excessive amount.
״כְּנַפְשְׁךָ״ – כְּנֶפֶשׁ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת כָּךְ נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל. מָה נַפְשְׁךָ אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, אַף נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר.
The term: “At your own pleasure [kenafshekha]” (Deuteronomy 23:25), can also mean: As you are. Consequently, the term kenafshekha teaches that just as the halakha is concerning the owner of the vineyard himself, so is the halakha concerning you, the laborer himself: Just as the owner, alluded to by the term nafshekha, may eat from the produce before its labor is complete and is exempt from separating tithes, so too, the laborer himself may eat and is exempt from tithes.
״שׇׂבְעֶךָ״, וְלֹא אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה. ״וְאַל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְכֶלְיוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְכֶלְיוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל.
The expression: “until you have enough” indicates that a laborer may eat until he is satiated, but he may not engage in excessive eating. The phrase “but you may not put any in your vessel” teaches that at a time when you put the grapes in the owner’s vessels, i.e., when harvesting the grapes, then you may eat, but at a time when you are not putting the grapes in the owner’s vessels, i.e., if the laborer is performing other tasks in the vineyard before harvesting, you may not eat.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין הַטֶּבֶל מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר
§ Rabbi Yannai says: The owner of untithed produce is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing
Follow
