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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 25, 2016 | 讻状讛 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 90

Details regarding the halacha forbidding one to muzzle one’s animal while threshing are discussed.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讛讚砖讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 讗讘诇 诪驻谞讬 诪专讗讬转 讛注讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讜诇 诪讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉 讜转讜诇讛 诇讛 讘讟专住拽诇讬谉 砖讘驻讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗 讻专砖讬谞讬诐 讜转讜诇讛 诇讛 砖讛讻专砖讬谞讬诐 讬驻讜转 诇讛 诪谉 讛讻诇

or that thresh teruma and tithe, which one may not allow his cows to eat, if he muzzles them he does not violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle, but due to the appearance of prohibition, as observers are unaware that he is acting in a permitted manner, he should bring a piece of that species of produce and hang it in the basket [bateraskalin] that is by the animal鈥檚 mouth. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: He does not have to use the same food that the animal is threshing, as he may bring vetches and hang them for it, as vetches are better for it than anything.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 驻专讜转 讛诪专讻住讜转 讘转讘讜讗讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 讜讛讚砖讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 讜谞讻专讬 讛讚砖 讘驻专转讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 讜讬砖专讗诇 讛讚砖 讘驻专转讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 拽砖讬讗 转专讜诪讛 讗转专讜诪讛 拽砖讬讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专

And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this from a baraita: In the case of cows that tread on produce, one does not violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle, but with regard to those which thresh teruma and tithes, he does violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle. And in the case of a gentile who threshes with the cow of a Jew, he does not violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle, but a Jew who threshes with the cow of a gentile does violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle, as it depends on the person who performs the action, not the identity of the animal鈥檚 owner. This presents a difficulty with regard to the ruling concerning teruma in one baraita and the ruling concerning teruma in the other baraita, and there is similarly a difficulty with regard to the ruling concerning tithe in one baraita and the ruling concerning tithe in the other baraita.

讘砖诇诪讗 转专讜诪讛 讗转专讜诪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讻讗谉 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara comments: Granted, the contradiction between the ruling concerning teruma in one baraita and the ruling concerning teruma in the other baraita is not difficult, as here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to actual teruma, which may not be fed to a cow, and there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to growths of teruma, which have the status of teruma by rabbinic law, and therefore it is permitted to feed them to one鈥檚 animal so as not to violate the prohibition against muzzling. But as for the contradiction between the ruling concerning tithe in one baraita and the ruling concerning tithe in the other baraita, this is difficult.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 讻讗谉 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬 诪注砖专 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 转专讜诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 诪注砖专 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚转谞谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讟讘诇 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讞讜诇讬谉

And if you would say that the contradiction between the ruling concerning tithe in one baraita and the ruling concerning tithe in the other baraita is also not difficult, as here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to actual tithe, which may not be fed to a cow, and there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to growths of tithe, which have the status of tithe by rabbinic law, and therefore it is permitted to feed them to one鈥檚 animal in order not to violate the prohibition against muzzling, this answer cannot be accepted. The reason is that granted, the growths of teruma are considered like teruma by rabbinic law, but the growths of tithe are non-sacred foods. As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 9:4): The growths of untithed produce and the growths of second tithe are non-sacred.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests a different answer: Rather, this is not difficult. The ruling of this baraita is stated with regard to first tithe, which is considered the owner鈥檚 property, whereas the ruling of that baraita is stated with regard to second tithe, which is property of the Temple treasury. And if you wish, say that both this ruling and that ruling are stated with regard to second tithe, and it is not difficult, as the ruling of this baraita, according to which it is prohibited to feed it to the animal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while the ruling of that baraita, which says that one may feed it to the animal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪诪讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗

The Gemara elaborates: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that second tithe is property belonging to the Most High, i.e., the owner has only the right to eat the food, and therefore he may not let his cow consume it, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that second tithe is non-sacred property.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a cow that threshes tithes? Tithes are usually separated only after the produce has been threshed and collected into a pile. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the separation of tithes performed by the owner preceded the separation of teruma at the stage when the produce was still on the stalks.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬 讞讜诪讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讚砖 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜诪转 讘讬转 驻讗讙讬

The Gemara further asks: And according to the explanation that the baraita that permits feeding this produce to one鈥檚 animal is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, i.e., that this is referring to second tithe, how is the consumption of this tithe permitted before it enters Jerusalem? But one is required to bring second tithe within the city wall. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where he threshed inside the wall of Beit Pagei, the outer wall of Jerusalem, which enclosed a semi-rural suburb.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 讜讚讗讬 讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 讚诪讗讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 讗转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 讜讚讗讬 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 讚诪讗讬

If you wish, say a different answer to the original contradiction between the baraitot: This is not difficult; here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to definite tithe, which may not be fed to a cow, whereas there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai], from which one is required to separate tithes by rabbinic law. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this answer, i.e., that this baraita is referring to demai, the contradiction between the ruling of this baraita concerning teruma and the ruling of that baraita concerning teruma is also not difficult, as one can likewise say that here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to definite teruma, and there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to teruma of demai.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪注砖专 讚诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 转专讜诪转 讚诪讗讬 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗祝 讛讜讗 讘讬讟诇 讗转 讛讜讬讚讜讬 讜讙讝专 注诇 讛讚诪讗讬 诇驻讬 砖砖诇讞 讘讻诇 讙讘讜诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to demai of tithe, there is such a concept, as the Sages decreed that one must separate tithe from doubtfully tithed produce. But with regard to demai of teruma, is there teruma of this kind? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: He, Yo岣nan the High Priest, also annulled the declaration of tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12鈥19), due to fear that the agricultural halakhot were not being properly observed and the declaration that one has separated his tithe in accordance with Torah law would therefore be false, and he decreed that one must separate demai of tithe from the produce of one who is unreliable with regard to tithes. He issued this decree because he sent messengers throughout all the borders of Eretz Yisrael and saw that they would separate only the great teruma alone, not tithes. It is clear from here that Jews were not suspected of neglecting the mitzva of teruma, and therefore was no need to separate teruma from demai.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讚讗讬 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讚诪讗讬

Rather, the Gemara offers a slightly different answer: It is not difficult; here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to definite teruma of the tithe, separated by a Levite from his tithe and given to a priest; there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe from demai.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 讛讬转讛 讗讜讻诇转 讜诪转专讝转 诪讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注诇讬 诇讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪注诇讬 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚讞讝讬讗 讜诪爪讟注专讗 讜讛讗 讞讝讬讗 讜诪爪讟注专讗

搂 The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If the animal was eating from the produce it was threshing, and it was excreting diarrhea [matrezet], what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Is the reason that one must let the animal eat because the food is good for it, and this produce is evidently not good for it, and therefore the animal should be muzzled to prevent it from harm? Or perhaps the reason for the prohibition against muzzling is that it sees food and suffers when it cannot eat, and this one also sees food and suffers when it cannot eat.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗 讻专砖讬谞讬诐 讜转讜诇讛 诇讛 砖讛讻专砖讬谞讬诐 讬驻讜转 诇讛 诪谉 讛讻诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注诇讬 诇讛 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned a baraita that provides the answer to your question. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: One can bring vetches and hang them for it, as vetches are better for it than anything. One can learn from the baraita that the reason is because the food is good for it. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the baraita that it is so.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇谞讻专讬 讞住讜诐 驻专转讬 讜讚讜砖 讘讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪讬专讛 诇谞讻专讬 砖讘讜转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讚讗讬住讜专 住拽讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讞住讬诪讛 讚讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility that a person can say to a gentile: Muzzle my cow and thresh with it? Do we say that when we state the principle that speaking to a gentile and requesting of him to perform for oneself a task forbidden to a Jew is prohibited by a rabbinic decree, this matter applies only to Shabbat, when the performance of labor is a prohibition that entails stoning, but with regard to muzzling, which is merely a regular prohibition, giving an instruction of this kind to a gentile is not prohibited; or perhaps there is no difference between the prohibitions of Shabbat and other prohibitions in this regard?

转讗 砖诪注 谞讻专讬 讛讚砖 讘驻专转讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 诪注讘专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘专 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讚砖 讘驻专转讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 注讜讘专 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the aforementioned baraita. A gentile who threshes with the cow of a Jew does not violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle. One can infer as follows: It is a transgression by Torah law that he does not transgress, but there is a prohibition here by rabbinic law. The Gemara refutes this argument: This is no proof, as by right the baraita should have stated that there is no prohibition here either, but since the tanna of the baraita taught in the latter clause that a Jew who threshes with the cow of a gentile does violate the prohibition, he taught the first clause in a similar style, with the phrase: He does not violate the prohibition. If so, one cannot reach any conclusions from the wording of the baraita.

转讗 砖诪注 讚砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讬谉 转讜专讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as they sent to Shmuel鈥檚 father a halakhic inquiry with regard to these oxen

讚讙谞讘讬谉 讗专诪讗讬 讜诪讙谞讞讬谉 讬转讛讜谉 诪讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讛注专诪讛 讗转注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 讗注专讬诪讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讬讝讚讘谞讜谉

which gentiles steal and castrate. Since it is prohibited for Jews to castrate animals, they would sometimes arrange for a gentile to pretend to steal the animal and subsequently return it after castrating it, as it is easier to handle a castrated animal. What is the halakha with regard to a case of this kind? Shmuel鈥檚 father sent to him: They used artifice; therefore, you should use artifice with them and make them sell it as a punishment. This shows that it is prohibited to instruct a gentile to perform a prohibition on one鈥檚 behalf.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘谞讬 诪注专讘讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 讚讗诪专 讘谞讬 谞讞 诪爪讜讜讬谉 注诇 讛住讬专讜住 讜拽讗 注讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇

Rav Pappa said: This provides no conclusive proof, as the inhabitants of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who are the ones who raised this question, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣deka, who says: The descendants of Noah are commanded with regard to castration. They too are prohibited from performing this practice. And consequently, those Jews who cause them to do it transgress the prohibition of: 鈥淣or put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14).

住讘专 专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬诪讻专讜 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讬 讚讬讬谉 砖拽谞住转 注诇讬讛诐 诪讻讬专讛

Rava thought to say that it is not enough that the owners may not use these animals castrated for them by gentiles, but they must even sell the animals for slaughter, but not for plowing, so that they would derive no benefit at all from the increase in the value of their property that resulted from a transgression. A castrated animal is worth more if it is sold for plowing, but not if it is sold for slaughter. Abaye said to him: It is enough for them that you penalized them by requiring them to sell the animals.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讻讬 讗讞专 讚诪讬 讘谞讜 拽讟谉 诪讗讬 专讘 讗讞讬 讗住专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讛谞讛讜 转专讬 讞住讬讚讬 诪讞诇驻讬 讗讛讚讚讬

With regard to the same issue, the Gemara comments: It is obvious that if one sold the castrated animal to his adult son, the son is considered like another person, i.e., there is no need to sell to a complete stranger. If the buyer was his minor son, what is the halakha? Rav A岣i prohibited this, and Rav Ashi permitted it. Mareimar and Mar Zutra, and some say it was a certain pair of unknown pious men, would exchange such oxen with each other.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讜砖讬讘 诇讛 拽讜抓 讘驻讬讛 诪讛讜 讛讜砖讬讘 诇讛 讞住讬诪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讬砖讘 诇讛 拽讜抓 讘驻讬讛 诪讛讜

Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: If one placed a thorn in the mouth of a threshing animal, what is the halakha? The Gemara is puzzled by this question: If he placed the thorn in its mouth, this is certainly considered proper muzzling. Rather, the dilemma should be formulated as follows: If a thorn settled in its mouth and one did not remove it, what is the halakha?

讛专讘讬抓 诇讛 讗专讬 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讛专讘讬抓 诇讛 讞住讬诪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 专讘抓 诇讛 讗专讬 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讛注诪讬讚 讘谞讛 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讛讬转讛 爪诪讗讛 诇诪讬诐 诪讛讜 驻专住 诇讛 拽讟讘诇讬讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讬砖讛 诪讛讜

The Gemara poses a similar question: If one made a lion crouch over it from outside, to frighten the animal and stop it from eating, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds as it did before: If he made the lion crouch over it, this is considered proper muzzling. Rather, if a lion was crouching over it and he did not get rid of it, what is the halakha? Similarly, if he placed its young on the outside, so that the animal looks toward its young and does not eat, what is the halakha? Or, if it was thirsty for water, what is the halakha? If he spread a leather blanket [katavliya] for it over the produce it was threshing, so that the animal cannot see the food, what is the halakha?

驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 专砖讗讬 讘注诇 驻专讛 诇讛专注讬讘 驻专转讜 讻讚讬 砖转讗讻诇 诪谉 讛讚讬砖讛 讛专讘讛 讜专砖讗讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛转讬专 驻拽讬注 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪谉 讛讚讬砖讛 讛专讘讛

The Gemara comments: Resolve at least one of the abovementioned dilemmas, as it is taught in a baraita: The owner of a cow who lent his animal to thresh the field of another is permitted to starve his cow so that it will eat plenty of the crop it is threshing, and a homeowner is permitted to untie a bundle of straw before an animal so that it will not eat plenty of the produce it is threshing. This is similar to spreading a blanket over the produce.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讗 讗讻诇讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专砖讗讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛转讬专 驻拽讬注 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 讛专讘讛 诪谉 讛讚讬砖讛

The Gemara refutes this comparison: No proof can be brought from here, because there it is different, as it at least gets to eat the produce. If you wish, say instead that the baraita should be explained as follows: A homeowner is permitted to untie a bundle of straw before an animal at the outset, before the threshing begins, so that it will fill itself with straw beforehand and will not eat plenty of the crop it is threshing.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讞住诪讛 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 砖讜专 讘讚讬砖讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘讚讬砖讜 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 转讚讜砖 讘讞住讬诪讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Rabbi Yonatan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Simai: If one muzzled the animal from the outside, i.e., before it began to thresh, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: One can argue that the Merciful One states: 鈥淎n ox in its threshing鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:4), and this animal is not in its threshing, as it was muzzled before it was taken to thresh. Or perhaps the Merciful One states that one may not have the animal thresh while it is muzzled.

讗诪专 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 讗转讛 诇诪讚 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 讗转讱 讘讘讗讻诐 讘讘讜讗讻诐 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 诪讬砖转讗 讜诪讬注诇 砖专讬

Rabbi Simai said to him: You can learn from your father鈥檚 house, i.e., you can derive this halakha from the case of priests, being a priest yourself. As the Torah states: 鈥淒rink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you come into the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 10:9). Doesn鈥檛 a straightforward reading of this verse lead to the conclusion that it is only when you come into the Sanctuary that it is prohibited, whereas to drink wine and then enter is permitted?

讜诇讛讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讛讞诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诪讛 讛转诐 讘砖注转 讘讬讗讛 诇讗 转讛讗 砖讻专讜转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注转 讚讬砖讛 诇讗 转讛讗 讞住讬诪讛

This interpretation is not tenable, as with regard to the same matter the Merciful One states: 鈥淭hat you may make a difference between the sacred and the non-sacred鈥 (Leviticus 10:10), which indicates that the priest must be capable of making these distinctions when he enters the Temple. Rather, just as there, with regard to the prohibition against drinking wine in the Sanctuary, the Torah means that at the time of entry there must be no drunkenness, whether the wine was drunk inside or outside the Sanctuary, here too it means that at the time of threshing there must be no muzzling.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞讜住诐 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜讛诪讝讜讜讙 讘讻诇讗讬诐 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诇讗 讚砖 讜诪谞讛讬讙 讘诇讘讚

The Sages taught: With regard to one who muzzles a cow that someone else is using for threshing, and similarly, one who plows with animals of diverse kinds together, e.g., with an ox and a donkey on the same plow, he is exempt, as only one who threshes a muzzled animal and one who leads diverse kinds of animals together are flogged.

讗讬转诪专 讞住诪讛 讘拽讜诇 讜讛谞讛讬讙讛 讘拽讜诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 注拽讬诪转 驻讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪注砖讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 拽诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪注砖讛

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following case: If one muzzled an animal with his voice, by berating it whenever it tried to eat, and similarly, if he led diverse kinds of animals together by means of his voice, without performing any action, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan says he is liable; Reish Lakish says he is exempt. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their opinions: Rabbi Yo岣nan says he is liable, as he maintains that the twisting of one鈥檚 mouth to speak is considered an action, albeit a slight one, whereas Reish Lakish says he is exempt, because a mere voice is not considered an action.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 90

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 90

讜讛讚砖讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 讗讘诇 诪驻谞讬 诪专讗讬转 讛注讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讜诇 诪讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉 讜转讜诇讛 诇讛 讘讟专住拽诇讬谉 砖讘驻讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗 讻专砖讬谞讬诐 讜转讜诇讛 诇讛 砖讛讻专砖讬谞讬诐 讬驻讜转 诇讛 诪谉 讛讻诇

or that thresh teruma and tithe, which one may not allow his cows to eat, if he muzzles them he does not violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle, but due to the appearance of prohibition, as observers are unaware that he is acting in a permitted manner, he should bring a piece of that species of produce and hang it in the basket [bateraskalin] that is by the animal鈥檚 mouth. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: He does not have to use the same food that the animal is threshing, as he may bring vetches and hang them for it, as vetches are better for it than anything.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 驻专讜转 讛诪专讻住讜转 讘转讘讜讗讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 讜讛讚砖讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 讜谞讻专讬 讛讚砖 讘驻专转讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 讜讬砖专讗诇 讛讚砖 讘驻专转讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 拽砖讬讗 转专讜诪讛 讗转专讜诪讛 拽砖讬讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专

And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this from a baraita: In the case of cows that tread on produce, one does not violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle, but with regard to those which thresh teruma and tithes, he does violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle. And in the case of a gentile who threshes with the cow of a Jew, he does not violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle, but a Jew who threshes with the cow of a gentile does violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle, as it depends on the person who performs the action, not the identity of the animal鈥檚 owner. This presents a difficulty with regard to the ruling concerning teruma in one baraita and the ruling concerning teruma in the other baraita, and there is similarly a difficulty with regard to the ruling concerning tithe in one baraita and the ruling concerning tithe in the other baraita.

讘砖诇诪讗 转专讜诪讛 讗转专讜诪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讻讗谉 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara comments: Granted, the contradiction between the ruling concerning teruma in one baraita and the ruling concerning teruma in the other baraita is not difficult, as here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to actual teruma, which may not be fed to a cow, and there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to growths of teruma, which have the status of teruma by rabbinic law, and therefore it is permitted to feed them to one鈥檚 animal so as not to violate the prohibition against muzzling. But as for the contradiction between the ruling concerning tithe in one baraita and the ruling concerning tithe in the other baraita, this is difficult.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 讻讗谉 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬 诪注砖专 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 转专讜诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 诪注砖专 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚转谞谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讟讘诇 讜讙讬讚讜诇讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讞讜诇讬谉

And if you would say that the contradiction between the ruling concerning tithe in one baraita and the ruling concerning tithe in the other baraita is also not difficult, as here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to actual tithe, which may not be fed to a cow, and there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to growths of tithe, which have the status of tithe by rabbinic law, and therefore it is permitted to feed them to one鈥檚 animal in order not to violate the prohibition against muzzling, this answer cannot be accepted. The reason is that granted, the growths of teruma are considered like teruma by rabbinic law, but the growths of tithe are non-sacred foods. As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 9:4): The growths of untithed produce and the growths of second tithe are non-sacred.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests a different answer: Rather, this is not difficult. The ruling of this baraita is stated with regard to first tithe, which is considered the owner鈥檚 property, whereas the ruling of that baraita is stated with regard to second tithe, which is property of the Temple treasury. And if you wish, say that both this ruling and that ruling are stated with regard to second tithe, and it is not difficult, as the ruling of this baraita, according to which it is prohibited to feed it to the animal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while the ruling of that baraita, which says that one may feed it to the animal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪诪讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗

The Gemara elaborates: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that second tithe is property belonging to the Most High, i.e., the owner has only the right to eat the food, and therefore he may not let his cow consume it, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that second tithe is non-sacred property.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a cow that threshes tithes? Tithes are usually separated only after the produce has been threshed and collected into a pile. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the separation of tithes performed by the owner preceded the separation of teruma at the stage when the produce was still on the stalks.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬 讞讜诪讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讚砖 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜诪转 讘讬转 驻讗讙讬

The Gemara further asks: And according to the explanation that the baraita that permits feeding this produce to one鈥檚 animal is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, i.e., that this is referring to second tithe, how is the consumption of this tithe permitted before it enters Jerusalem? But one is required to bring second tithe within the city wall. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where he threshed inside the wall of Beit Pagei, the outer wall of Jerusalem, which enclosed a semi-rural suburb.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 讜讚讗讬 讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 讚诪讗讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 讗转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 讜讚讗讬 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 讚诪讗讬

If you wish, say a different answer to the original contradiction between the baraitot: This is not difficult; here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to definite tithe, which may not be fed to a cow, whereas there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai], from which one is required to separate tithes by rabbinic law. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this answer, i.e., that this baraita is referring to demai, the contradiction between the ruling of this baraita concerning teruma and the ruling of that baraita concerning teruma is also not difficult, as one can likewise say that here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to definite teruma, and there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to teruma of demai.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪注砖专 讚诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 转专讜诪转 讚诪讗讬 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗祝 讛讜讗 讘讬讟诇 讗转 讛讜讬讚讜讬 讜讙讝专 注诇 讛讚诪讗讬 诇驻讬 砖砖诇讞 讘讻诇 讙讘讜诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to demai of tithe, there is such a concept, as the Sages decreed that one must separate tithe from doubtfully tithed produce. But with regard to demai of teruma, is there teruma of this kind? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: He, Yo岣nan the High Priest, also annulled the declaration of tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12鈥19), due to fear that the agricultural halakhot were not being properly observed and the declaration that one has separated his tithe in accordance with Torah law would therefore be false, and he decreed that one must separate demai of tithe from the produce of one who is unreliable with regard to tithes. He issued this decree because he sent messengers throughout all the borders of Eretz Yisrael and saw that they would separate only the great teruma alone, not tithes. It is clear from here that Jews were not suspected of neglecting the mitzva of teruma, and therefore was no need to separate teruma from demai.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讚讗讬 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讚诪讗讬

Rather, the Gemara offers a slightly different answer: It is not difficult; here, the ruling in this baraita is stated with regard to definite teruma of the tithe, separated by a Levite from his tithe and given to a priest; there, the ruling in that baraita is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe from demai.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 讛讬转讛 讗讜讻诇转 讜诪转专讝转 诪讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注诇讬 诇讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪注诇讬 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚讞讝讬讗 讜诪爪讟注专讗 讜讛讗 讞讝讬讗 讜诪爪讟注专讗

搂 The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If the animal was eating from the produce it was threshing, and it was excreting diarrhea [matrezet], what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Is the reason that one must let the animal eat because the food is good for it, and this produce is evidently not good for it, and therefore the animal should be muzzled to prevent it from harm? Or perhaps the reason for the prohibition against muzzling is that it sees food and suffers when it cannot eat, and this one also sees food and suffers when it cannot eat.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗 讻专砖讬谞讬诐 讜转讜诇讛 诇讛 砖讛讻专砖讬谞讬诐 讬驻讜转 诇讛 诪谉 讛讻诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注诇讬 诇讛 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned a baraita that provides the answer to your question. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: One can bring vetches and hang them for it, as vetches are better for it than anything. One can learn from the baraita that the reason is because the food is good for it. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the baraita that it is so.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇谞讻专讬 讞住讜诐 驻专转讬 讜讚讜砖 讘讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪讬专讛 诇谞讻专讬 砖讘讜转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讚讗讬住讜专 住拽讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讞住讬诪讛 讚讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility that a person can say to a gentile: Muzzle my cow and thresh with it? Do we say that when we state the principle that speaking to a gentile and requesting of him to perform for oneself a task forbidden to a Jew is prohibited by a rabbinic decree, this matter applies only to Shabbat, when the performance of labor is a prohibition that entails stoning, but with regard to muzzling, which is merely a regular prohibition, giving an instruction of this kind to a gentile is not prohibited; or perhaps there is no difference between the prohibitions of Shabbat and other prohibitions in this regard?

转讗 砖诪注 谞讻专讬 讛讚砖 讘驻专转讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讞住讜诐 诪注讘专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘专 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讚砖 讘驻专转讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 注讜讘专 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the aforementioned baraita. A gentile who threshes with the cow of a Jew does not violate the prohibition of: Do not muzzle. One can infer as follows: It is a transgression by Torah law that he does not transgress, but there is a prohibition here by rabbinic law. The Gemara refutes this argument: This is no proof, as by right the baraita should have stated that there is no prohibition here either, but since the tanna of the baraita taught in the latter clause that a Jew who threshes with the cow of a gentile does violate the prohibition, he taught the first clause in a similar style, with the phrase: He does not violate the prohibition. If so, one cannot reach any conclusions from the wording of the baraita.

转讗 砖诪注 讚砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讬谉 转讜专讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as they sent to Shmuel鈥檚 father a halakhic inquiry with regard to these oxen

讚讙谞讘讬谉 讗专诪讗讬 讜诪讙谞讞讬谉 讬转讛讜谉 诪讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讛注专诪讛 讗转注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 讗注专讬诪讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讬讝讚讘谞讜谉

which gentiles steal and castrate. Since it is prohibited for Jews to castrate animals, they would sometimes arrange for a gentile to pretend to steal the animal and subsequently return it after castrating it, as it is easier to handle a castrated animal. What is the halakha with regard to a case of this kind? Shmuel鈥檚 father sent to him: They used artifice; therefore, you should use artifice with them and make them sell it as a punishment. This shows that it is prohibited to instruct a gentile to perform a prohibition on one鈥檚 behalf.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘谞讬 诪注专讘讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 讚讗诪专 讘谞讬 谞讞 诪爪讜讜讬谉 注诇 讛住讬专讜住 讜拽讗 注讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇

Rav Pappa said: This provides no conclusive proof, as the inhabitants of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who are the ones who raised this question, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣deka, who says: The descendants of Noah are commanded with regard to castration. They too are prohibited from performing this practice. And consequently, those Jews who cause them to do it transgress the prohibition of: 鈥淣or put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14).

住讘专 专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬诪讻专讜 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讬 讚讬讬谉 砖拽谞住转 注诇讬讛诐 诪讻讬专讛

Rava thought to say that it is not enough that the owners may not use these animals castrated for them by gentiles, but they must even sell the animals for slaughter, but not for plowing, so that they would derive no benefit at all from the increase in the value of their property that resulted from a transgression. A castrated animal is worth more if it is sold for plowing, but not if it is sold for slaughter. Abaye said to him: It is enough for them that you penalized them by requiring them to sell the animals.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讻讬 讗讞专 讚诪讬 讘谞讜 拽讟谉 诪讗讬 专讘 讗讞讬 讗住专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讛谞讛讜 转专讬 讞住讬讚讬 诪讞诇驻讬 讗讛讚讚讬

With regard to the same issue, the Gemara comments: It is obvious that if one sold the castrated animal to his adult son, the son is considered like another person, i.e., there is no need to sell to a complete stranger. If the buyer was his minor son, what is the halakha? Rav A岣i prohibited this, and Rav Ashi permitted it. Mareimar and Mar Zutra, and some say it was a certain pair of unknown pious men, would exchange such oxen with each other.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讜砖讬讘 诇讛 拽讜抓 讘驻讬讛 诪讛讜 讛讜砖讬讘 诇讛 讞住讬诪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讬砖讘 诇讛 拽讜抓 讘驻讬讛 诪讛讜

Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: If one placed a thorn in the mouth of a threshing animal, what is the halakha? The Gemara is puzzled by this question: If he placed the thorn in its mouth, this is certainly considered proper muzzling. Rather, the dilemma should be formulated as follows: If a thorn settled in its mouth and one did not remove it, what is the halakha?

讛专讘讬抓 诇讛 讗专讬 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讛专讘讬抓 诇讛 讞住讬诪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 专讘抓 诇讛 讗专讬 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讛注诪讬讚 讘谞讛 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讛讬转讛 爪诪讗讛 诇诪讬诐 诪讛讜 驻专住 诇讛 拽讟讘诇讬讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讬砖讛 诪讛讜

The Gemara poses a similar question: If one made a lion crouch over it from outside, to frighten the animal and stop it from eating, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds as it did before: If he made the lion crouch over it, this is considered proper muzzling. Rather, if a lion was crouching over it and he did not get rid of it, what is the halakha? Similarly, if he placed its young on the outside, so that the animal looks toward its young and does not eat, what is the halakha? Or, if it was thirsty for water, what is the halakha? If he spread a leather blanket [katavliya] for it over the produce it was threshing, so that the animal cannot see the food, what is the halakha?

驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 专砖讗讬 讘注诇 驻专讛 诇讛专注讬讘 驻专转讜 讻讚讬 砖转讗讻诇 诪谉 讛讚讬砖讛 讛专讘讛 讜专砖讗讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛转讬专 驻拽讬注 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪谉 讛讚讬砖讛 讛专讘讛

The Gemara comments: Resolve at least one of the abovementioned dilemmas, as it is taught in a baraita: The owner of a cow who lent his animal to thresh the field of another is permitted to starve his cow so that it will eat plenty of the crop it is threshing, and a homeowner is permitted to untie a bundle of straw before an animal so that it will not eat plenty of the produce it is threshing. This is similar to spreading a blanket over the produce.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讗 讗讻诇讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专砖讗讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛转讬专 驻拽讬注 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 讛专讘讛 诪谉 讛讚讬砖讛

The Gemara refutes this comparison: No proof can be brought from here, because there it is different, as it at least gets to eat the produce. If you wish, say instead that the baraita should be explained as follows: A homeowner is permitted to untie a bundle of straw before an animal at the outset, before the threshing begins, so that it will fill itself with straw beforehand and will not eat plenty of the crop it is threshing.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讞住诪讛 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 砖讜专 讘讚讬砖讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘讚讬砖讜 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 转讚讜砖 讘讞住讬诪讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Rabbi Yonatan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Simai: If one muzzled the animal from the outside, i.e., before it began to thresh, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: One can argue that the Merciful One states: 鈥淎n ox in its threshing鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:4), and this animal is not in its threshing, as it was muzzled before it was taken to thresh. Or perhaps the Merciful One states that one may not have the animal thresh while it is muzzled.

讗诪专 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 讗转讛 诇诪讚 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 讗转讱 讘讘讗讻诐 讘讘讜讗讻诐 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 诪讬砖转讗 讜诪讬注诇 砖专讬

Rabbi Simai said to him: You can learn from your father鈥檚 house, i.e., you can derive this halakha from the case of priests, being a priest yourself. As the Torah states: 鈥淒rink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you come into the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 10:9). Doesn鈥檛 a straightforward reading of this verse lead to the conclusion that it is only when you come into the Sanctuary that it is prohibited, whereas to drink wine and then enter is permitted?

讜诇讛讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讛讞诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诪讛 讛转诐 讘砖注转 讘讬讗讛 诇讗 转讛讗 砖讻专讜转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注转 讚讬砖讛 诇讗 转讛讗 讞住讬诪讛

This interpretation is not tenable, as with regard to the same matter the Merciful One states: 鈥淭hat you may make a difference between the sacred and the non-sacred鈥 (Leviticus 10:10), which indicates that the priest must be capable of making these distinctions when he enters the Temple. Rather, just as there, with regard to the prohibition against drinking wine in the Sanctuary, the Torah means that at the time of entry there must be no drunkenness, whether the wine was drunk inside or outside the Sanctuary, here too it means that at the time of threshing there must be no muzzling.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞讜住诐 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜讛诪讝讜讜讙 讘讻诇讗讬诐 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诇讗 讚砖 讜诪谞讛讬讙 讘诇讘讚

The Sages taught: With regard to one who muzzles a cow that someone else is using for threshing, and similarly, one who plows with animals of diverse kinds together, e.g., with an ox and a donkey on the same plow, he is exempt, as only one who threshes a muzzled animal and one who leads diverse kinds of animals together are flogged.

讗讬转诪专 讞住诪讛 讘拽讜诇 讜讛谞讛讬讙讛 讘拽讜诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 注拽讬诪转 驻讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪注砖讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 拽诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪注砖讛

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following case: If one muzzled an animal with his voice, by berating it whenever it tried to eat, and similarly, if he led diverse kinds of animals together by means of his voice, without performing any action, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan says he is liable; Reish Lakish says he is exempt. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their opinions: Rabbi Yo岣nan says he is liable, as he maintains that the twisting of one鈥檚 mouth to speak is considered an action, albeit a slight one, whereas Reish Lakish says he is exempt, because a mere voice is not considered an action.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish:

Scroll To Top