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

Daf Yomi

May 27, 2024 | 讬状讟 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讚

  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 89

Ravina adds an additional method to derive that a worker is permitted to eat while working with detached produce and that it is prohibited to muzzle an ox even from attached produce. Four tannaitic sources are cited that derive details of the laws regarding the employer allowing a worker to eat from the produce. Each source derives a different detail from the word “thresh” in the verse about the ox – that it refers to items that grow from the ground, at a stage that the produce is ready to be picked and until the stage that it is obligated in tithing or separating challa. A question is asked whether one can toast grains or produce to sweeten them. Is this considered like eating grapes with another substance, which is not permitted, or not? Four sources are cited to address this question, but each is rejected as inconclusive, and the question remains unanswered. The last source states that one may not add salt to fruit, but this contradicts another source that permits it. Abaye and Rava each reconcile the contradiction differently, but both understand the salt issue to be relating to the obligation to tithe and not to what is permitted/not permitted for a worker to eat.

诪讻讚讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讞住讬诪讛 讚讬诇驻讬谞谉 砖讜专 砖讜专 诪砖讘转 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讚讜砖 讘讞住讬诪讛 砖讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬


Now, consider: All matters, i.e., all animals, are included in the halakha of muzzling, as we derive a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渁n ox鈥 stated here and the term 鈥渁n ox鈥 stated with regard to Shabbat. Just as the prohibition against having one鈥檚 animal perform labor on Shabbat applies not only to oxen but to all animals, as explicitly stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 5:14), so too the halakha of muzzling includes all animals, not merely oxen. If so, and the term 鈥渙x鈥 in this verse does not limit the halakha to that animal alone, let the Merciful One write in general terms: You shall not thresh while muzzling; why do I need the word 鈥渙x鈥 that the Merciful One writes?


诇讗拽讜砖讬 讞讜住诐 诇谞讞住诐 讜谞讞住诐 诇讞讜住诐 诪讛 讞讜住诐 讗讜讻诇 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗祝 谞讞住诐 讗讜讻诇 讘诪讞讜讘专 讜诪讛 谞讞住诐 讗讜讻诇 讘转诇讜砖 讗祝 讞讜住诐 讗讜讻诇 讘转诇讜砖


It serves to juxtapose and compare the one who muzzles to the muzzled animal, and likewise to compare the muzzled animal to the one who muzzles: Just as the one who muzzles, a person, may eat from produce attached to the ground, so too the muzzled animal may eat from attached produce. And just as the muzzled animal may eat from detached produce, so too the one who muzzles may eat from detached produce.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讜讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讜驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讬爪讗 讛讞讜诇讘 讜讛诪讞讘抓 讜讛诪讙讘谉 砖讗讬谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜


The Sages taught another exposition with regard to the wording in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not muzzle the ox in its threshing.鈥 The verse mentions threshing. Just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item grown from the ground, and it is performed at the time of the completion of its work, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is grown from the ground, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who milks a cow, one who makes butter from cream, and one who makes cheese from milk, as these are not grown from the ground, and therefore a laborer may not eat them.


诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讻讬 转讘讗 讘讻专诐 专注讱 谞驻拽讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 拽诪讛 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽诪讛 诇专讘讜转 谞诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗讜 讙讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 谞讬谞讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? This halakha can be derived from the words in the verse: 鈥淲hen you come into your neighbor鈥檚 vineyard鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:25), as these actions are not performed in a vineyard. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes: 鈥淪tanding鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:26), and, as explained earlier, this serves to include all items that stand, i.e., produce of all kinds, one might have thought that it also serves to include items that are not grown from the ground. The tanna therefore teaches us that this halakha applies only to food that grows from the ground.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讬爪讗 讛诪谞讻砖 讘砖讜诪讬诐 讜讘讘爪诇讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讬谉 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讛诐


It is taught in another baraita, with regard to the same term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item that is at the time of the completion of its work and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is at the time of the completion of its work, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who weeds garlic and onions, i.e., one hired to remove the wild growths from among garlic and onions. The reason is that since it is not the completion of their work, a laborer may not eat from them.


诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讜讗诇 讻诇讬讱 诇讗 转转谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪砖诇讬祝 拽讟讬谞讬 诪讘讬谞讬 讗诇讬诪讬


The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? It can be derived from: 鈥淏ut you shall not put any in your vessel鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:25), which indicates that if the laborer does not place the food into the owner鈥檚 vessels, he is not permitted to eat. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the tanna to teach the following halakha: Even though he also plucks and removes the small ones from between the thick ones, and therefore the work of the small garlic and onions has been completed, nevertheless, the laborer may not eat from them, as this is not the completion of the work of the entire field.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讬爪讗 讛讘讜讚诇 讘转诪专讬诐 讜讘讙专讜讙专讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 讗讬谉 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜


It is taught in another baraita concerning the term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for tithes, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithes, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who separates dates and dried figs, which are initially gathered together and stuck to each other before the laborer splits them apart with a rake. The reason is that since its work is completed for tithes when it has been gathered from the field, a laborer may not eat from it.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讘讜讚诇 讘转诪专讬诐 讜讘讙专讜讙专讜转 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘转讜讞诇谞讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who separates dates and dried figs, this laborer may eat from it? Rav Pappa said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to unripe dates, which are plucked before they are ready, and placed on the ground in order to ripen fully. The work of these fruits has not yet been completed even after they have been separated from each other.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讞诇讛 讜驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讞诇讛 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讬爪讗 讛诇砖 讜讛诪拽讟祝 讜讛讗讜驻讛 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讞诇讛 讚讗讬谉 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讜讛诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专


It is taught in another baraita, with regard to the same term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for 岣lla, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for 岣lla, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who kneads dough, and one who smooths it over with water and oil, and one who bakes, as its work is completed for 岣lla, and therefore a laborer may not eat from it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why do I need this halakha; hasn鈥檛 its work already been completed for tithes when the produce is brought inside the house? It was already stated that once the work has been completed for produce which is subject to tithes, a laborer may no longer partake of it.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讬讻讗 诪注砖专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讗专抓 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘砖讘注 砖讻讬讘砖讜 讜讘砖讘注 砖讞讬诇拽讜 讚讗诪专 诪专 砖讘注 砖讻讬讘砖讜 讜砖讘注 砖讞讬诇拽讜 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘讞诇讛 讜诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘诪注砖专


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since in this baraita we are dealing with places outside of Eretz Yisrael, where there is no obligation of tithes. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that this is referring to a place outside of Eretz Yisrael, the obligation to separate 岣lla also does not apply. Rather, the ruling in the baraita is actually stated with regard to Eretz Yisrael, and it is not difficult, as it is referring to those seven years in which they conquered Eretz Yisrael, and to the seven in which they divided it. As the Master said: During the seven years in which the Jewish people conquered Eretz Yisrael and the seven in which they divided Eretz Yisrael, they were obligated in 岣lla but they were not obligated in the separation of tithes.


诪讬讚讬 诪注砖专 拽讗 讙专讬诐 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 拽讗 讙专讬诐


The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this answer: Is the obligation to separate tithes the decisive factor with regard to a laborer? That is not the case, as the completion of the work is the decisive factor, while the obligation to separate tithes is mentioned only because it coincides with the completion of the work. Even if there is no mitzva to separate tithes, nevertheless the work is completed at the same stage.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻专讜讱 讜转谞讬 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 讜诇讞诇讛 讜驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 讜诇讞诇讛 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜


Rather, Ravina said: One should combine the two baraitot and teach them as one, as follows: With regard to the term threshing, just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for tithe, in the case of most produce, and an item which is not completed for 岣lla, in the case of species of grain, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithe or for 岣lla, a laborer may eat it.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讜注诇 诪讛讜 砖讬讛讘讛讘 讘讗讜专 讜讬讗讻诇 诪讬 讛讜讬 讻注谞讘讬诐 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 专砖讗讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛砖拽讜转 驻讜注诇讬诐 讬讬谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 讛专讘讛 专砖讗讬谉 驻讜注诇讬谉 诇讟讘诇 驻讬转诐 讘爪讬专 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讻诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 讛专讘讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a laborer, what is the halakha concerning the possibility that he may singe fruit or grain in fire, to improve its taste, and eat it? The question is whether this is considered like eating grapes and something else, which is prohibited, or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this problem from a baraita: A homeowner is permitted to give his laborers wine to drink, so that they will not eat many grapes from his harvest, and for their part the laborers are permitted to dip their bread in brine, so that they will eat many grapes. This baraita indicates that such a practice is permitted.


诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 驻讬专讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 驻讜注诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注谞讘讬诐 讘专讗砖讬 讗讜诪谞讬讜转 砖诇讛诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讘讛讘讜 讘讗讜专


The Gemara refutes this proof: We did not raise the difficulty with regard to the fitness of the man himself to eat, as it is obvious that one may act in advance so that he will be able to eat a great deal. When this dilemma was raised to us, it was with regard to the fitness of the produce for eating. May they be prepared by singeing? What, then, is the halakha? The Gemara offers another suggestion: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Laborers may eat grapes at the end of their rows of vines, provided that they do not singe the grapes in fire.


讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 诪讗讬


The Gemara rejects this claim: This affords no proof, as the prohibition there is not because of his use of the fire but due to his neglect of his labor, as he has no right to busy himself with other matters during his work time. When the dilemma is raised to us, it is with regard to a case where he does not have to stop his work, e.g., when he has his wife and children with him, who can singe the fruit for him without him having to pause in his labor. What is the halakha in a case of this kind?


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬讛讘讛讘 讘讗讜专 讜讬讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讬讻诪讜专 讘讗讚诪讛 讜讬讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讬驻专讬讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讛住诇注 讜讬讗讻诇 讗讘诇 诪驻专讬讱 注诇 讬讚 注诇 讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讜诐 诪转讜拽讬 驻讬专讗 住诇注 诪讗讬 诪转讜拽讬 驻讬专讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪诪转讬拽 驻讜专转讗


The Gemara again suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: A laborer may not singe produce in fire and eat, and he may not heat produce in the ground and eat, and he may not break produce on rocks and eat, but he may break it little by little and eat. Once again, the Gemara refutes the proof: There too, the reason is due to his neglect of his labor. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the case. As, if it enters your mind that it is prohibited due to his sweetening of the produce, what sweetening of the produce is there in his use of a rock? The Gemara responds: This is not a conclusive argument, as it is impossible that the produce would not be sweetened a little.


转讗 砖诪注 驻讜注诇讬谉 砖讛讬讜 注讜讚专讬诐 讘转讗谞讬诐 讜讙讜讚专讬诐 讘转诪专讬诐 讜讘讜爪专讬诐 讘注谞讘讬诐 讜诪讜住拽讬谉 讘讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜驻讟讜专讬诐 砖讛转讜专讛 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛诐 讘驻讬转诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讟诇讜 专砖讜转 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讗 讬住驻讜转 讘诪诇讞 讜讬讗讻诇


The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to laborers who were plucking figs, or plucking dates, or harvesting grapes, or harvesting olives, they may eat and they are exempt from separating tithes, as the Torah entitled them to eat. Nevertheless, they may not eat these fruits together with their bread unless they received permission from the homeowner. Similarly, one may not dip [lo yispot] these fruits in salt and eat. This indicates that it is prohibited to sweeten the fruit.


诪诇讞 讜讚讗讬 讻注谞讘讬诐 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讚诪讬


The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Salt is certainly considered like grapes and something else, as one is adding an ingredient, which is undoubtedly prohibited. By contrast, one who singes produce in fire has not added anything, and therefore it is possible that this practice is permitted. Consequently, the Gemara鈥檚 question is left unresolved.


讜诇讗 讬住驻讜转 讘诪诇讞 讜讬讗讻诇 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注讚专 讜诇拽砖拽砖 转讞转 讛讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 砖讻专讜 诇讘爪讜专 砖讻专讜 诇诪住讜拽 砖讻专讜 诇诇拽讟 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讜驻讟讜专 砖讛转讜专讛 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛谉 拽爪抓 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讬讗讻诇 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜住讜驻转 讘诪诇讞 讜讬讗讻诇


搂 The baraita mentioned earlier taught: And he may not dip these fruits in salt and eat. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita: In the case of one who hires a laborer to till and dig a circle under olives, this one may not eat from the olives. But if he hired him to harvest grapes, or hired him to harvest olives, or hired him to gather any other fruit, this one may eat and he is exempt from separating tithes, as the Torah entitled these laborers to eat. In a case where he stipulated with the owner beforehand that he may eat even when he is not entitled to do so by Torah law, if he eats the fruit one by one, he may eat without separating tithes, but if he consumes two by two he may not eat without separating tithes. And he may dip these fruits in salt and eat.


讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽爪抓 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚讘注讬 诇讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗专讬砖讗


The Gemara analyzes this last statement: To which section of the baraita is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause, in which the laborer had an agreement with the owner, it is superfluous: Since the laborer stipulated that he may eat in any manner he wishes, he may certainly eat with salt. Rather, is it not referring to the first clause of the baraita, concerning a laborer who eats by Torah law? This would prove that a laborer may dip fruit in salt without separating tithes.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗专抓 讻讗谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘讗专抓 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘讗专抓 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 讜诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Abaye said: This is not difficult, as here it is prohibited because he is in Eretz Yisrael, whereas there he is outside of Eretz Yisrael. The reason for the difference is as follows: In Eretz Yisrael, dipping fruit in salt establishes his consumption as a fixed meal, which renders the fruit subject to tithes. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, dipping fruit in salt does not establish his consumption as a meal, as the mitzva of tithes does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law. Rava said: Is there any produce with regard to which the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael dipping establishes it as a meal by Torah law, and yet outside Eretz Yisrael dipping does not establish it as a meal and it is even permitted ab initio? It cannot be that there is such a great difference between these places, as the enactments of the Sages are modeled on Torah law.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讞讚讗 诇讗 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 转专转讬 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 拽爪抓 讘讬谉 住驻转 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 住驻转 讗讞转 讗讞转 讗讜讻诇 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 拽爪抓 讜诇讗 住驻转 讗讜讻诇 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 住驻转 讗讞转 讗讞转 讗讜讻诇 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞讟诇 专砖讜转 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讗讬讟讘讬诇 诇讛讜 诇诪注砖专 讜拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗


Rather, Rava rejected Abaye鈥檚 answer and stated a different resolution: Whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael, if he ate one fruit, its dipping in salt does not establish it as anything more than a casual meal, but if he ate two, dipping in salt does establish it as a meal. Therefore, in a case where he stipulated that he may eat, whether he dipped in salt or did not dip in salt, he may eat one by one, but he may not eat two by two. If he did not stipulate and did not dip in salt, he may eat two by two. If he dips in salt he may eat one by one, but he may not eat two by two, even though he received permission to eat two at a time from the homeowner. The reason is that they have already been rendered untithed produce with regard to tithes, because the dipping established them as ready for tithing. Consequently, the laborer may not partake of them until he has separated tithes.


讜转专转讬 讚拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 拽讘爪诐 讻注诪讬专 讙专谞讛


The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha that with regard to eating fruit two at a time, dipping in salt establishes that they are subject to tithes? Rav Mattana said that it is as the verse states: 鈥淔or He has gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing-floor鈥 (Micah 4:12). This verse shows that one who gathers items together, an act that involves at least two items, is considered to have brought them into his granary. Consequently, if he also dips them in salt he has established his consumption as a fixed meal, which means that he must separate tithes.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讜转 讛诪专讻住讜转 讘转讘讜讗讛


The Sages taught: In the case of cows that tread on produce for which the work has been completed but which is threshed again in this manner as part of its preparation into food,


  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 89: How Do You Like Your Grapes?

The daf contains a series of baritot expounding the work 鈥淏鈥橠isho鈥 in order to teach a variety of different halachot....
on second thought thumbnail

Two Approaches to Yesurim shel Ahava – On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Sources Bava Metzia 85-89 Listen here: Watch here: https://youtu.be/hwWwzZlKDxo...

Bava Metzia 89

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 89

诪讻讚讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讞住讬诪讛 讚讬诇驻讬谞谉 砖讜专 砖讜专 诪砖讘转 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讚讜砖 讘讞住讬诪讛 砖讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬


Now, consider: All matters, i.e., all animals, are included in the halakha of muzzling, as we derive a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渁n ox鈥 stated here and the term 鈥渁n ox鈥 stated with regard to Shabbat. Just as the prohibition against having one鈥檚 animal perform labor on Shabbat applies not only to oxen but to all animals, as explicitly stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 5:14), so too the halakha of muzzling includes all animals, not merely oxen. If so, and the term 鈥渙x鈥 in this verse does not limit the halakha to that animal alone, let the Merciful One write in general terms: You shall not thresh while muzzling; why do I need the word 鈥渙x鈥 that the Merciful One writes?


诇讗拽讜砖讬 讞讜住诐 诇谞讞住诐 讜谞讞住诐 诇讞讜住诐 诪讛 讞讜住诐 讗讜讻诇 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗祝 谞讞住诐 讗讜讻诇 讘诪讞讜讘专 讜诪讛 谞讞住诐 讗讜讻诇 讘转诇讜砖 讗祝 讞讜住诐 讗讜讻诇 讘转诇讜砖


It serves to juxtapose and compare the one who muzzles to the muzzled animal, and likewise to compare the muzzled animal to the one who muzzles: Just as the one who muzzles, a person, may eat from produce attached to the ground, so too the muzzled animal may eat from attached produce. And just as the muzzled animal may eat from detached produce, so too the one who muzzles may eat from detached produce.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讜讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讜驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讬爪讗 讛讞讜诇讘 讜讛诪讞讘抓 讜讛诪讙讘谉 砖讗讬谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜


The Sages taught another exposition with regard to the wording in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not muzzle the ox in its threshing.鈥 The verse mentions threshing. Just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item grown from the ground, and it is performed at the time of the completion of its work, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is grown from the ground, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who milks a cow, one who makes butter from cream, and one who makes cheese from milk, as these are not grown from the ground, and therefore a laborer may not eat them.


诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讻讬 转讘讗 讘讻专诐 专注讱 谞驻拽讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 拽诪讛 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽诪讛 诇专讘讜转 谞诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗讜 讙讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 谞讬谞讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? This halakha can be derived from the words in the verse: 鈥淲hen you come into your neighbor鈥檚 vineyard鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:25), as these actions are not performed in a vineyard. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes: 鈥淪tanding鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:26), and, as explained earlier, this serves to include all items that stand, i.e., produce of all kinds, one might have thought that it also serves to include items that are not grown from the ground. The tanna therefore teaches us that this halakha applies only to food that grows from the ground.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讬爪讗 讛诪谞讻砖 讘砖讜诪讬诐 讜讘讘爪诇讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讬谉 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讛诐


It is taught in another baraita, with regard to the same term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item that is at the time of the completion of its work and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is at the time of the completion of its work, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who weeds garlic and onions, i.e., one hired to remove the wild growths from among garlic and onions. The reason is that since it is not the completion of their work, a laborer may not eat from them.


诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讜讗诇 讻诇讬讱 诇讗 转转谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪砖诇讬祝 拽讟讬谞讬 诪讘讬谞讬 讗诇讬诪讬


The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? It can be derived from: 鈥淏ut you shall not put any in your vessel鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:25), which indicates that if the laborer does not place the food into the owner鈥檚 vessels, he is not permitted to eat. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the tanna to teach the following halakha: Even though he also plucks and removes the small ones from between the thick ones, and therefore the work of the small garlic and onions has been completed, nevertheless, the laborer may not eat from them, as this is not the completion of the work of the entire field.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讬爪讗 讛讘讜讚诇 讘转诪专讬诐 讜讘讙专讜讙专讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 讗讬谉 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜


It is taught in another baraita concerning the term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for tithes, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithes, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who separates dates and dried figs, which are initially gathered together and stuck to each other before the laborer splits them apart with a rake. The reason is that since its work is completed for tithes when it has been gathered from the field, a laborer may not eat from it.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讘讜讚诇 讘转诪专讬诐 讜讘讙专讜讙专讜转 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘转讜讞诇谞讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who separates dates and dried figs, this laborer may eat from it? Rav Pappa said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to unripe dates, which are plucked before they are ready, and placed on the ground in order to ripen fully. The work of these fruits has not yet been completed even after they have been separated from each other.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讞诇讛 讜驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讞诇讛 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讬爪讗 讛诇砖 讜讛诪拽讟祝 讜讛讗讜驻讛 砖谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讞诇讛 讚讗讬谉 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讜讛诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专


It is taught in another baraita, with regard to the same term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for 岣lla, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for 岣lla, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who kneads dough, and one who smooths it over with water and oil, and one who bakes, as its work is completed for 岣lla, and therefore a laborer may not eat from it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why do I need this halakha; hasn鈥檛 its work already been completed for tithes when the produce is brought inside the house? It was already stated that once the work has been completed for produce which is subject to tithes, a laborer may no longer partake of it.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讬讻讗 诪注砖专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讗专抓 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘砖讘注 砖讻讬讘砖讜 讜讘砖讘注 砖讞讬诇拽讜 讚讗诪专 诪专 砖讘注 砖讻讬讘砖讜 讜砖讘注 砖讞讬诇拽讜 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘讞诇讛 讜诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘诪注砖专


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since in this baraita we are dealing with places outside of Eretz Yisrael, where there is no obligation of tithes. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that this is referring to a place outside of Eretz Yisrael, the obligation to separate 岣lla also does not apply. Rather, the ruling in the baraita is actually stated with regard to Eretz Yisrael, and it is not difficult, as it is referring to those seven years in which they conquered Eretz Yisrael, and to the seven in which they divided it. As the Master said: During the seven years in which the Jewish people conquered Eretz Yisrael and the seven in which they divided Eretz Yisrael, they were obligated in 岣lla but they were not obligated in the separation of tithes.


诪讬讚讬 诪注砖专 拽讗 讙专讬诐 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 拽讗 讙专讬诐


The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this answer: Is the obligation to separate tithes the decisive factor with regard to a laborer? That is not the case, as the completion of the work is the decisive factor, while the obligation to separate tithes is mentioned only because it coincides with the completion of the work. Even if there is no mitzva to separate tithes, nevertheless the work is completed at the same stage.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻专讜讱 讜转谞讬 讚讬砖 诪讛 讚讬砖 诪讬讜讞讚 讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 讜诇讞诇讛 讜驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇诪注砖专 讜诇讞诇讛 驻讜注诇 讗讜讻诇 讘讜


Rather, Ravina said: One should combine the two baraitot and teach them as one, as follows: With regard to the term threshing, just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for tithe, in the case of most produce, and an item which is not completed for 岣lla, in the case of species of grain, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithe or for 岣lla, a laborer may eat it.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讜注诇 诪讛讜 砖讬讛讘讛讘 讘讗讜专 讜讬讗讻诇 诪讬 讛讜讬 讻注谞讘讬诐 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 专砖讗讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛砖拽讜转 驻讜注诇讬诐 讬讬谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 讛专讘讛 专砖讗讬谉 驻讜注诇讬谉 诇讟讘诇 驻讬转诐 讘爪讬专 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讻诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 讛专讘讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a laborer, what is the halakha concerning the possibility that he may singe fruit or grain in fire, to improve its taste, and eat it? The question is whether this is considered like eating grapes and something else, which is prohibited, or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this problem from a baraita: A homeowner is permitted to give his laborers wine to drink, so that they will not eat many grapes from his harvest, and for their part the laborers are permitted to dip their bread in brine, so that they will eat many grapes. This baraita indicates that such a practice is permitted.


诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 驻讬专讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 驻讜注诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注谞讘讬诐 讘专讗砖讬 讗讜诪谞讬讜转 砖诇讛诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讘讛讘讜 讘讗讜专


The Gemara refutes this proof: We did not raise the difficulty with regard to the fitness of the man himself to eat, as it is obvious that one may act in advance so that he will be able to eat a great deal. When this dilemma was raised to us, it was with regard to the fitness of the produce for eating. May they be prepared by singeing? What, then, is the halakha? The Gemara offers another suggestion: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Laborers may eat grapes at the end of their rows of vines, provided that they do not singe the grapes in fire.


讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 诪讗讬


The Gemara rejects this claim: This affords no proof, as the prohibition there is not because of his use of the fire but due to his neglect of his labor, as he has no right to busy himself with other matters during his work time. When the dilemma is raised to us, it is with regard to a case where he does not have to stop his work, e.g., when he has his wife and children with him, who can singe the fruit for him without him having to pause in his labor. What is the halakha in a case of this kind?


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬讛讘讛讘 讘讗讜专 讜讬讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讬讻诪讜专 讘讗讚诪讛 讜讬讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讬驻专讬讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讛住诇注 讜讬讗讻诇 讗讘诇 诪驻专讬讱 注诇 讬讚 注诇 讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讜诐 诪转讜拽讬 驻讬专讗 住诇注 诪讗讬 诪转讜拽讬 驻讬专讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪诪转讬拽 驻讜专转讗


The Gemara again suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: A laborer may not singe produce in fire and eat, and he may not heat produce in the ground and eat, and he may not break produce on rocks and eat, but he may break it little by little and eat. Once again, the Gemara refutes the proof: There too, the reason is due to his neglect of his labor. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the case. As, if it enters your mind that it is prohibited due to his sweetening of the produce, what sweetening of the produce is there in his use of a rock? The Gemara responds: This is not a conclusive argument, as it is impossible that the produce would not be sweetened a little.


转讗 砖诪注 驻讜注诇讬谉 砖讛讬讜 注讜讚专讬诐 讘转讗谞讬诐 讜讙讜讚专讬诐 讘转诪专讬诐 讜讘讜爪专讬诐 讘注谞讘讬诐 讜诪讜住拽讬谉 讘讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜驻讟讜专讬诐 砖讛转讜专讛 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛诐 讘驻讬转诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讟诇讜 专砖讜转 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讗 讬住驻讜转 讘诪诇讞 讜讬讗讻诇


The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to laborers who were plucking figs, or plucking dates, or harvesting grapes, or harvesting olives, they may eat and they are exempt from separating tithes, as the Torah entitled them to eat. Nevertheless, they may not eat these fruits together with their bread unless they received permission from the homeowner. Similarly, one may not dip [lo yispot] these fruits in salt and eat. This indicates that it is prohibited to sweeten the fruit.


诪诇讞 讜讚讗讬 讻注谞讘讬诐 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讚诪讬


The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Salt is certainly considered like grapes and something else, as one is adding an ingredient, which is undoubtedly prohibited. By contrast, one who singes produce in fire has not added anything, and therefore it is possible that this practice is permitted. Consequently, the Gemara鈥檚 question is left unresolved.


讜诇讗 讬住驻讜转 讘诪诇讞 讜讬讗讻诇 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注讚专 讜诇拽砖拽砖 转讞转 讛讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 砖讻专讜 诇讘爪讜专 砖讻专讜 诇诪住讜拽 砖讻专讜 诇诇拽讟 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讜驻讟讜专 砖讛转讜专讛 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛谉 拽爪抓 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讬讗讻诇 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜住讜驻转 讘诪诇讞 讜讬讗讻诇


搂 The baraita mentioned earlier taught: And he may not dip these fruits in salt and eat. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita: In the case of one who hires a laborer to till and dig a circle under olives, this one may not eat from the olives. But if he hired him to harvest grapes, or hired him to harvest olives, or hired him to gather any other fruit, this one may eat and he is exempt from separating tithes, as the Torah entitled these laborers to eat. In a case where he stipulated with the owner beforehand that he may eat even when he is not entitled to do so by Torah law, if he eats the fruit one by one, he may eat without separating tithes, but if he consumes two by two he may not eat without separating tithes. And he may dip these fruits in salt and eat.


讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽爪抓 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚讘注讬 诇讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗专讬砖讗


The Gemara analyzes this last statement: To which section of the baraita is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause, in which the laborer had an agreement with the owner, it is superfluous: Since the laborer stipulated that he may eat in any manner he wishes, he may certainly eat with salt. Rather, is it not referring to the first clause of the baraita, concerning a laborer who eats by Torah law? This would prove that a laborer may dip fruit in salt without separating tithes.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗专抓 讻讗谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘讗专抓 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘讗专抓 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 讜诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Abaye said: This is not difficult, as here it is prohibited because he is in Eretz Yisrael, whereas there he is outside of Eretz Yisrael. The reason for the difference is as follows: In Eretz Yisrael, dipping fruit in salt establishes his consumption as a fixed meal, which renders the fruit subject to tithes. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, dipping fruit in salt does not establish his consumption as a meal, as the mitzva of tithes does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law. Rava said: Is there any produce with regard to which the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael dipping establishes it as a meal by Torah law, and yet outside Eretz Yisrael dipping does not establish it as a meal and it is even permitted ab initio? It cannot be that there is such a great difference between these places, as the enactments of the Sages are modeled on Torah law.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讞讚讗 诇讗 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 转专转讬 拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 拽爪抓 讘讬谉 住驻转 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 住驻转 讗讞转 讗讞转 讗讜讻诇 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 拽爪抓 讜诇讗 住驻转 讗讜讻诇 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 住驻转 讗讞转 讗讞转 讗讜讻诇 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞讟诇 专砖讜转 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讗讬讟讘讬诇 诇讛讜 诇诪注砖专 讜拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗


Rather, Rava rejected Abaye鈥檚 answer and stated a different resolution: Whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael, if he ate one fruit, its dipping in salt does not establish it as anything more than a casual meal, but if he ate two, dipping in salt does establish it as a meal. Therefore, in a case where he stipulated that he may eat, whether he dipped in salt or did not dip in salt, he may eat one by one, but he may not eat two by two. If he did not stipulate and did not dip in salt, he may eat two by two. If he dips in salt he may eat one by one, but he may not eat two by two, even though he received permission to eat two at a time from the homeowner. The reason is that they have already been rendered untithed produce with regard to tithes, because the dipping established them as ready for tithing. Consequently, the laborer may not partake of them until he has separated tithes.


讜转专转讬 讚拽讘注讗 住驻讬转讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 拽讘爪诐 讻注诪讬专 讙专谞讛


The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha that with regard to eating fruit two at a time, dipping in salt establishes that they are subject to tithes? Rav Mattana said that it is as the verse states: 鈥淔or He has gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing-floor鈥 (Micah 4:12). This verse shows that one who gathers items together, an act that involves at least two items, is considered to have brought them into his granary. Consequently, if he also dips them in salt he has established his consumption as a fixed meal, which means that he must separate tithes.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讜转 讛诪专讻住讜转 讘转讘讜讗讛


The Sages taught: In the case of cows that tread on produce for which the work has been completed but which is threshed again in this manner as part of its preparation into food,


Scroll To Top