Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 22, 2016 | כ״ב בכסלו תשע״ז

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 87

The story of Avraham and the angels is discussed further and many drashot are brought deriving behaviors to be emulated.  The mishna and gemara discuss the halachic details relating to workers being allowed to eat on the job – under what circumstances is it allowed?  How much can they eat?

ויפצר בם מאד אמר רבי אלעזר מכאן שמסרבין לקטן ואין מסרבין לגדול

“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.

כתיב ואקחה פת לחם וכתיב ואל הבקר רץ אברהם אמר רבי אלעזר מכאן שצדיקים אומרים מעט ועושים הרבה רשעים אומרים הרבה ואפילו מעט אינם עושים

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.

מנלן מעפרון מעיקרא כתיב ארץ ארבע מאות שקל כסף ולבסוף כתיב וישמע אברהם אל עפרון וישקל אברהם לעפרן את הכסף אשר דבר באזני בני חת ארבע מאות שקל כסף עבר לסחר דלא שקל מיניה אלא קנטרי דאיכא דוכתא דקרי ליה לתיקלא קנטירא

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.

כתיב קמח וכתיב סלת אמר רבי יצחק מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש

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.

כתיב לושי ועשי עגות וכתיב ויקח חמאה וחלב ובן הבקר ואילו לחם לא אייתי לקמייהו

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.

אמר אפרים מקשאה תלמידו של רבי מאיר משמיה דרבי מאיר אברהם אבינו אוכל חולין בטהרה היה ושרה אמנו אותו היום פירסה נדה

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.

ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך ויאמר הנה באהל להודיע ששרה אמנו צנועה היתה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי יצחק יודעים היו מלאכי השרת ששרה אמנו באהל היתה אלא מאי באהל כדי לחבבה על בעלה

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.

רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר כדי לשגר לה כוס של ברכה תני משום רבי יוסי למה נקוד על איו שבאליו לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שישאל אדם באכסניא שלו והאמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל על ידי בעלה שאני

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.

אחרי בלתי היתה לי עדנה אמר רב חסדא אחר שנתבלה הבשר ורבו הקמטין נתעדן הבשר ונתפשטו הקמטין וחזר היופי למקומו

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.

כתיב ואדני זקן וכתיב ואני זקנתי דלא מותיב הקדוש ברוך הוא כדקאמרה איהי

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?

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל גדול שלום שאפילו הקדוש ברוך הוא שינה בו שנאמר ותצחק שרה בקרבה וגו׳ ואדני זקן וכתיב ויאמר ה׳ אל אברהם וגו׳ ואני זקנתי

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?”

ותאמר מי מלל לאברהם הניקה בנים שרה כמה בנים הניקה שרה אמר רבי לוי אותו היום שגמל אברהם את יצחק בנו עשה סעודה גדולה היו כל אומות העולם מרננים ואומרים ראיתם זקן וזקנה שהביאו אסופי מן השוק ואומרים בנינו הוא ולא עוד אלא שעושין משתה גדול להעמיד דבריהם

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.

מה עשה אברהם אבינו הלך וזימן כל גדולי הדור ושרה אמנו זימנה את נשותיהם וכל אחת ואחת הביאה בנה עמה ומניקתה לא הביאה ונעשה נס בשרה אמנו ונפתחו דדיה כשני מעיינות והניקה את כולן ועדיין היו מרננים ואומרים אם שרה הבת תשעים שנה תלד אברהם בן מאה שנה יוליד מיד נהפך קלסתר פנים של יצחק ונדמה לאברהם פתחו כולם ואמרו אברהם הוליד את יצחק

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).

עד אברהם לא היה זקנה מאן דהוה בעי למשתעי בהדי אברהם משתעי בהדי יצחק בהדי יצחק משתעי בהדי אברהם אתא אברהם בעא רחמי והוה זקנה שנאמר ואברהם זקן בא בימים

§ 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.

עד יעקב לא הוה חולשא אתא יעקב בעא רחמי והוה חולשא שנאמר ויאמר ליוסף הנה אביך חלה עד דאתא אלישע לא הוה דחליש ואתפח אתא אלישע בעא רחמי ואתפח שנאמר ואלישע חלה את חליו אשר ימות בו מכלל דחלה חלי אחריתי

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.

תנו רבנן שלשה חלאין חלה אלישע אחד שדחפו לגיחזי בשתי ידיו ואחד שגירה דובין בתינוקות ואחד שמת בו שנאמר ואלישע חלה את חליו אשר ימות בו

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).

אלא עד שלא יתחילו במלאכה צא ואמור להם על מנת שאין לכם עלי אלא פת וקטנית כו׳ אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב חסדא פת קטנית תנן או פת וקטנית תנן אמר ליה האלהים צריכה ויו כי מורדיא דלברות

§ 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.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אינו צריך הכל כמנהג המדינה הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דתנן השוכר את הפועל ואמר לו כאחד וכשנים מבני העיר נותן לו כפחות שבשכירות דברי רבי יהושע וחכמים אומרים משמנין ביניהם

§ 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.

מתני׳ ואלו אוכלין מן התורה העושה במחובר לקרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה ובתלוש מן הקרקע עד שלא נגמרה מלאכתו ובדבר שגידולו מן הארץ ואלו שאין אוכלים העושה במחובר לקרקע

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

בשעה שאין גמר מלאכה ובתלוש מן הקרקע מאחר שנגמרה מלאכתו ובדבר שאין גידולו מן הארץ

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.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי דכתיב כי תבא בכרם רעך ואכלת אשכחן כרם כל מילי מנא לן

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?

גמרינן מכרם מה כרם מיוחד דבר שגידולי קרקע ובשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו אף כל דבר שגידולי קרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו

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.

מה לכרם שכן חייב בעוללות גמרינן מקמה קמה גופה מנא לן דכתיב כי תבא בקמת רעך וקטפת מלילות בידך

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).

מה לקמה שכן חייבת בחלה וממאי דהאי קמה קמה דמתחייבת בחלה היא דלמא כל קמה קאמר רחמנא

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.

אתיא קמה קמה כתיב הכא כי תבא בקמת רעך וכתיב התם מהחל חרמש בקמה מה התם קמה דמיחייבא בחלה אף הכא נמי קמה דמיחייבא בחלה

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.

איכא למיפרך מה לקמה שכן חייבת בחלה כרם יוכיח מה לכרם שכן חייב בעוללות קמה תוכיח

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.

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שכן דבר שגידולי קרקע ובשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו אף כל דבר שגידולי קרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו

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.

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח ואתא נמי זית דאית ביה צד מזבח

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.

וזית במה הצד אתי הוא גופיה כרם איקרי דכתיב ויבער מגדיש ועד קמה ועד כרם זית אמר רב פפא כרם זית אקרי כרם סתמא לא אקרי

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.

מכל מקום קשיא אלא אמר שמואל אמר קרא וחרמש לרבות כל בעלי חרמש

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.

והאי חרמש מיבעי ליה בשעת חרמש אכול שלא בשעת חרמש לא תיכול

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?

ההוא מואל כליך לא תתן נפקא תינח דבר חרמש דלאו בר חרמש מנא לן

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?

אלא אמר רבי יצחק אמר קרא קמה לרבות כל בעלי קמה והא אמרת קמה קמה דמיחייבא בחלה

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?

הני מילי מקמי דניתי חרמש השתא דאתי חרמש איתרבי ליה כל דבר חרמש ואף על גב דלא מיחייב בחלה קמה למה לי לרבות כל בעלי קמה

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.

והשתא דנפקא לן מחרמש ומקמה כי תבא בכרם רעך למה לי

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)?

אמר רבא להלכותיו כדתניא כי תבא נאמר כאן ביאה ונאמר להלן לא תבוא עליו השמש מה להלן בפועל הכתוב מדבר אף כאן בפועל הכתוב מדבר

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.

בכרם רעך ולא בכרם נכרי הניחא למאן דאמר גזל נכרי אסור היינו דאיצטריך קרא למישרי פועל אלא למאן דאמר גזל נכרי מותר השתא גזילה מותר פועל מיבעיא

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?

מוקים לה בכרם רעך ולא של הקדש ואכלת ולא מוצץ ענבים ולא ענבים ודבר אחר

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.

כנפשך כנפש של בעל הבית כך נפשו של פועל מה נפשך אוכל ופטור אף נפשו של פועל אוכל ופטור

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.

שבעך ולא אכילה גסה ואל כליך לא תתן בשעה שאתה נותן לכליו של בעל הבית אתה אוכל ובשעה שאי אתה נותן לכליו של בעל הבית אי אתה אוכל

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.

אמר רבי ינאי אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר

§ Rabbi Yannai says: The owner of untithed produce is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 87

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 87

ויפצר בם מאד אמר רבי אלעזר מכאן שמסרבין לקטן ואין מסרבין לגדול

“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.

כתיב ואקחה פת לחם וכתיב ואל הבקר רץ אברהם אמר רבי אלעזר מכאן שצדיקים אומרים מעט ועושים הרבה רשעים אומרים הרבה ואפילו מעט אינם עושים

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.

מנלן מעפרון מעיקרא כתיב ארץ ארבע מאות שקל כסף ולבסוף כתיב וישמע אברהם אל עפרון וישקל אברהם לעפרן את הכסף אשר דבר באזני בני חת ארבע מאות שקל כסף עבר לסחר דלא שקל מיניה אלא קנטרי דאיכא דוכתא דקרי ליה לתיקלא קנטירא

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.

כתיב קמח וכתיב סלת אמר רבי יצחק מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש

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.

כתיב לושי ועשי עגות וכתיב ויקח חמאה וחלב ובן הבקר ואילו לחם לא אייתי לקמייהו

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.

אמר אפרים מקשאה תלמידו של רבי מאיר משמיה דרבי מאיר אברהם אבינו אוכל חולין בטהרה היה ושרה אמנו אותו היום פירסה נדה

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.

ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך ויאמר הנה באהל להודיע ששרה אמנו צנועה היתה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי יצחק יודעים היו מלאכי השרת ששרה אמנו באהל היתה אלא מאי באהל כדי לחבבה על בעלה

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.

רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר כדי לשגר לה כוס של ברכה תני משום רבי יוסי למה נקוד על איו שבאליו לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שישאל אדם באכסניא שלו והאמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל על ידי בעלה שאני

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.

אחרי בלתי היתה לי עדנה אמר רב חסדא אחר שנתבלה הבשר ורבו הקמטין נתעדן הבשר ונתפשטו הקמטין וחזר היופי למקומו

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.

כתיב ואדני זקן וכתיב ואני זקנתי דלא מותיב הקדוש ברוך הוא כדקאמרה איהי

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?

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל גדול שלום שאפילו הקדוש ברוך הוא שינה בו שנאמר ותצחק שרה בקרבה וגו׳ ואדני זקן וכתיב ויאמר ה׳ אל אברהם וגו׳ ואני זקנתי

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?”

ותאמר מי מלל לאברהם הניקה בנים שרה כמה בנים הניקה שרה אמר רבי לוי אותו היום שגמל אברהם את יצחק בנו עשה סעודה גדולה היו כל אומות העולם מרננים ואומרים ראיתם זקן וזקנה שהביאו אסופי מן השוק ואומרים בנינו הוא ולא עוד אלא שעושין משתה גדול להעמיד דבריהם

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.

מה עשה אברהם אבינו הלך וזימן כל גדולי הדור ושרה אמנו זימנה את נשותיהם וכל אחת ואחת הביאה בנה עמה ומניקתה לא הביאה ונעשה נס בשרה אמנו ונפתחו דדיה כשני מעיינות והניקה את כולן ועדיין היו מרננים ואומרים אם שרה הבת תשעים שנה תלד אברהם בן מאה שנה יוליד מיד נהפך קלסתר פנים של יצחק ונדמה לאברהם פתחו כולם ואמרו אברהם הוליד את יצחק

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).

עד אברהם לא היה זקנה מאן דהוה בעי למשתעי בהדי אברהם משתעי בהדי יצחק בהדי יצחק משתעי בהדי אברהם אתא אברהם בעא רחמי והוה זקנה שנאמר ואברהם זקן בא בימים

§ 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.

עד יעקב לא הוה חולשא אתא יעקב בעא רחמי והוה חולשא שנאמר ויאמר ליוסף הנה אביך חלה עד דאתא אלישע לא הוה דחליש ואתפח אתא אלישע בעא רחמי ואתפח שנאמר ואלישע חלה את חליו אשר ימות בו מכלל דחלה חלי אחריתי

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.

תנו רבנן שלשה חלאין חלה אלישע אחד שדחפו לגיחזי בשתי ידיו ואחד שגירה דובין בתינוקות ואחד שמת בו שנאמר ואלישע חלה את חליו אשר ימות בו

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).

אלא עד שלא יתחילו במלאכה צא ואמור להם על מנת שאין לכם עלי אלא פת וקטנית כו׳ אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב חסדא פת קטנית תנן או פת וקטנית תנן אמר ליה האלהים צריכה ויו כי מורדיא דלברות

§ 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.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אינו צריך הכל כמנהג המדינה הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דתנן השוכר את הפועל ואמר לו כאחד וכשנים מבני העיר נותן לו כפחות שבשכירות דברי רבי יהושע וחכמים אומרים משמנין ביניהם

§ 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.

מתני׳ ואלו אוכלין מן התורה העושה במחובר לקרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה ובתלוש מן הקרקע עד שלא נגמרה מלאכתו ובדבר שגידולו מן הארץ ואלו שאין אוכלים העושה במחובר לקרקע

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

בשעה שאין גמר מלאכה ובתלוש מן הקרקע מאחר שנגמרה מלאכתו ובדבר שאין גידולו מן הארץ

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.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי דכתיב כי תבא בכרם רעך ואכלת אשכחן כרם כל מילי מנא לן

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?

גמרינן מכרם מה כרם מיוחד דבר שגידולי קרקע ובשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו אף כל דבר שגידולי קרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו

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.

מה לכרם שכן חייב בעוללות גמרינן מקמה קמה גופה מנא לן דכתיב כי תבא בקמת רעך וקטפת מלילות בידך

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).

מה לקמה שכן חייבת בחלה וממאי דהאי קמה קמה דמתחייבת בחלה היא דלמא כל קמה קאמר רחמנא

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.

אתיא קמה קמה כתיב הכא כי תבא בקמת רעך וכתיב התם מהחל חרמש בקמה מה התם קמה דמיחייבא בחלה אף הכא נמי קמה דמיחייבא בחלה

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.

איכא למיפרך מה לקמה שכן חייבת בחלה כרם יוכיח מה לכרם שכן חייב בעוללות קמה תוכיח

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.

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שכן דבר שגידולי קרקע ובשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו אף כל דבר שגידולי קרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו

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.

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח ואתא נמי זית דאית ביה צד מזבח

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.

וזית במה הצד אתי הוא גופיה כרם איקרי דכתיב ויבער מגדיש ועד קמה ועד כרם זית אמר רב פפא כרם זית אקרי כרם סתמא לא אקרי

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.

מכל מקום קשיא אלא אמר שמואל אמר קרא וחרמש לרבות כל בעלי חרמש

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.

והאי חרמש מיבעי ליה בשעת חרמש אכול שלא בשעת חרמש לא תיכול

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?

ההוא מואל כליך לא תתן נפקא תינח דבר חרמש דלאו בר חרמש מנא לן

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?

אלא אמר רבי יצחק אמר קרא קמה לרבות כל בעלי קמה והא אמרת קמה קמה דמיחייבא בחלה

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?

הני מילי מקמי דניתי חרמש השתא דאתי חרמש איתרבי ליה כל דבר חרמש ואף על גב דלא מיחייב בחלה קמה למה לי לרבות כל בעלי קמה

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.

והשתא דנפקא לן מחרמש ומקמה כי תבא בכרם רעך למה לי

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)?

אמר רבא להלכותיו כדתניא כי תבא נאמר כאן ביאה ונאמר להלן לא תבוא עליו השמש מה להלן בפועל הכתוב מדבר אף כאן בפועל הכתוב מדבר

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.

בכרם רעך ולא בכרם נכרי הניחא למאן דאמר גזל נכרי אסור היינו דאיצטריך קרא למישרי פועל אלא למאן דאמר גזל נכרי מותר השתא גזילה מותר פועל מיבעיא

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?

מוקים לה בכרם רעך ולא של הקדש ואכלת ולא מוצץ ענבים ולא ענבים ודבר אחר

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.

כנפשך כנפש של בעל הבית כך נפשו של פועל מה נפשך אוכל ופטור אף נפשו של פועל אוכל ופטור

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.

שבעך ולא אכילה גסה ואל כליך לא תתן בשעה שאתה נותן לכליו של בעל הבית אתה אוכל ובשעה שאי אתה נותן לכליו של בעל הבית אי אתה אוכל

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.

אמר רבי ינאי אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר

§ Rabbi Yannai says: The owner of untithed produce is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing

Scroll To Top