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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 26, 2016 | 讻状讜 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讝

  • 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 91

Can one be obligated for muzzling one’s animal or crossbreeding animals if he caused it to happen by speaking to the animal and not by doing any action? 聽Details regarding a worker eating on the job are further discussed. 聽Does one聽need to be working with both one’s聽hands and 聽legs (like the ox who can’t be muzzled)? 聽If one is working with one type, can one聽eat a different type in the field? 聽Can one聽eat from the same type in a different area? 聽Can one聽eat while one聽is walking from one place to another?

诇讗 砖讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛诪讬专 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛诪讬专 诪讜诪专 讜住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

It is taught at the beginning of tractate Temura that the Torah prohibits the substitution of a non-consecrated animal for a consecrated one. The mishna teaches (Temura 2a): That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather it means that if one substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect. The non-sacred animal becomes consecrated, the consecrated animal remains sacred, and the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs the forty lashes. This indicates that one is held liable for mere speech, even without any accompanying action. Reish Lakish said to him: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one is flogged for violating a prohibition that does not involve an action. By contrast, the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that one is punished only for a transgression that includes a full-fledged action.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讛讻诇 诪诪讬专讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讛讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬讜专砖 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But can you establish and explain that mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? After all, it teaches in the first clause: Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, both men and women. And we discussed this statement by asking the following question: This term: Everyone, serves to add what? What is the tanna including by this phrase? We answered that it serves to add an heir, who can substitute an animal for an animal he inherited that was designated as an offering. And this clause is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪诪讬专 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara elaborates: As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn鈥檛 he say that an heir cannot effect substitution, and an heir cannot place his hands on the head of an offering? The Gemara refutes this difficulty: This is not a conclusive proof, as it is possible say that this tanna of the mishna in Temura holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one matter and disagrees with him with regard to one other matter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞讜住诐 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜讚砖 讘讛 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗专讘注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇驻专讛 讜砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讞诪讜专 讜讛讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪转 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐

The Sages taught: One who muzzles a cow and threshes with it is flogged, and in addition he must pay the owner of the cow four kav for a cow, the usual amount it consumes while threshing, and three kav for a donkey. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there a principle that an offender is not flogged and also punished by death, and likewise he is not flogged and rendered liable to pay? One who transgresses a prohibition is liable to receive only one punishment for a single offense. Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is that of Rabbi Meir, who says in general that one can be flogged and be liable to pay.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗转谞谉 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗 注诇 讗诪讜

Rava said that there is a difference between the transgression itself, which is between the offender and God, for which he is liable to be flogged, and the loss he caused the owner of the cow, for which he must pay restitution. The Torah prohibits one from bringing as an offering an animal given as the payment to a prostitute for services rendered (Deuteronomy 23:19); and this prohibition applies even if the man in question engaged in intercourse with his own mother, which is a capital offence. Although this man would certainly not be rendered liable to pay compensation by a court, as he is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, nevertheless, since he is technically liable to pay compensation, the money is subject to the prohibition as well. In this case too, despite the fact that the court cannot compel one to pay for the produce his cow ate, he does owe this sum. Furthermore, if the owner of the produce were to seize this sum from him, the court would not force him to return the money.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖注转 诪砖讬讻讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讛 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讜诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 注讚 砖注转 讞住讬诪讛

Rav Pappa stated a different answer: From the time of his pulling of the cow to rent it for threshing he was rendered obligated to provide its sustenance when it threshes, but as for flogging, he is not liable to be flogged until the actual time of muzzling. In other words, he was liable to pay the monetary payment before he incurred liability to receive lashes, which means that they are two separate liabilities.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 讚讘讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜驻砖讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讞讚讗 讻讛诇讻转讗 讜讞讚讗 讚诇讗讜 讻讛诇讻转讗

In relation to the above discussion, Rav Pappa said: These matters, stated below, were raised as a dilemma to me by the members of the house of Rav Pappa bar Abba, and I resolved these matters for them by saying that there is a prohibition in both cases. One of my decisions was in accordance with the halakha, and the other one was not in accordance with the halakha.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讛讜 诇诇讜砖 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘讞诇讘 讜驻砖讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讻讛诇讻转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘讞诇讘 讜讗诐 诇砖 讻诇 讛驻转 讻讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗讬谉 讟砖讬谉 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讘讗诇讬讛 讜讗诐 讟砖 讻诇 讛驻转 讻讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖讬住讬拽 讗转 讛转谞讜专

They first raised this dilemma before me: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility of kneading dough with milk? And I resolved it for them by saying that there is a prohibition, in accordance with the halakha. As it is taught in a baraita: One may not knead dough with milk, lest one eat this bread with meat, and if he kneaded dough in this manner the entire loaf is forbidden, because he will become accustomed to sin. Similarly, one may not smear over an oven with the fat of an animal鈥檚 tail, and if he did smear the oven in this manner then the entire loaf baked in that oven is forbidden, lest he eat it with milk, until he heats the oven without bread for long enough to burn off the fat.

讜讗讬讚讱 讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讛讜 诇讛讻谞讬住 诪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讚讬专 讜驻砖讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇讗讜 讻讛诇讻转讗

And the other question they asked of me was as follows: What is the halakha with regard to bringing in a male animal and a female animal of different species together into a single pen? Is there a concern that they might mate, which would violate the prohibition against crossbreeding animals? And I resolved it for them by saying that there is a prohibition, but this was not in accordance with the halakha.

讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讘诪谞讗驻讬诐 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 讻讚专讱 讛诪谞讗驻讬诐 讜讘讻诇讗讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻谞讬住 讻诪讻讞讜诇 讘砖驻讜驻专转

As Shmuel says: With regard to adulterers, the witnesses must observe from when they appear as behaving in the manner of adulterers, and they do not need to directly observe the actual moment of the act of intercourse. But with regard to one who crossbreeds two animals of diverse kinds, he is liable only if witnesses attest that he inserted the male organ into the female like a brush into a tube. This clearly shows that crossbreeding is punishable only if performed manually, not if the animals were merely enclosed together.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 讘讛诪转讱 诇讗 转专讘讬注 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讞讜讝 讗讚诐 讛讘讛诪讛 讘砖注讛 砖注讜诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raises an objection against this opinion, from a baraita: Had the Torah stated merely: 鈥淵ou shall not let your cattle copulate,鈥 I would have said that it is prohibited to assist animals in their mating at all, and consequently a person may not hold the female animal when a male mounts it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not let your cattle copulate with a diverse kind鈥 (Leviticus 19:19), which indicates that it is prohibited to mate only different species, but not animals of the same type.

诇讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讻诇讗讬诐 讗讞讬讝讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讞讬讝讛 讛讻谞住讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讗讞讬讝讛 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗

Can one not derive from here by inference that with regard to diverse kinds, holding the animal is also not allowed? This indicates that not only is the act of crossbreeding itself prohibited, but any type of assistance is also prohibited, e.g., restraining the female animal. But if this is the case, placing two animals in the same pen should also be considered a violation. The Gemara refutes this argument: What is the meaning of the term: Holding? It means the insertion of the sexual organ, and why does the tanna call it holding? This is a euphemism.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诪讜转专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讻诪讻讞讜诇 讘砖驻讜驻专转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬爪讜转讗 诇讬讻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讘讬讚转讬讛 讟专讬讚 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬

Rav Yehuda says: If one desires to mate an animal of one species with an animal of its own species, it is permitted to insert the male organ into the female like a brush into a tube, and there is not even a concern due to licentiousness and immoral thoughts here. What is the reason for this lenient ruling? It is because he is occupied with his work, and therefore his mind will not entertain sinful thoughts. Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raises an objection against this:

讗诇讜 谞讗诪专 讘讛诪转讱 诇讗 转专讘讬注 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讞讜讝 讗讚诐 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讻讚讬 砖讬注诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 砖专讬

Had the Torah merely stated: 鈥淵ou shall not let your cattle copulate,鈥 I would have said that a person may not hold the female animal when a male mounts it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲ith a diverse kind鈥 (Leviticus 19:19). This shows that it is a crossbreed of diverse kinds that is prohibited, from which it may be inferred that mating an animal of one species with an animal of its own species is permitted.

讜诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 谞诪讬 讗讞讬讝讛 讗讬谉 讛讻谞住讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讞讬讝讛 讛讻谞住讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讞讬讝讛 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami infers from the baraita: And even concerning mating an animal of one species with an animal of its own species, with regard to holding, yes, this is permitted, but with regard to inserting, no, this is not allowed. The fact that the tanna specifies the act of holding indicates that inserting is prohibited even in the case of two animals of the same species. The Gemara again rejects this claim: What is the meaning of holding in this context? It means inserting. And why does the tanna call it holding? It is a euphemism.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 讚讘讬 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诪讛讜 诇讛讻谞讬住 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讚讬专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘转专 诪讬谞讬讛 讙专讬专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讜驻砖讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇讗 讻讛诇讻转讗 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬爪讜转讗 讚注讘讚讬

Rav Ashi said: This matter was asked of me by the members of the house of Rav Ne岣mya, the Exilarch: What is the halakha with regard to bringing into the same pen an animal of one species with two other animals, one of its own species and the other of a species different from it? Is the halakha that since there is another animal of its own species, it will be drawn after its species, and therefore there is no concern whatsoever with regard to diverse kinds, or perhaps one should not act even in this manner, in case it leads to crossbreeding? And I resolved it for them by saying that there is a prohibition, but this was not in accordance with the halakha. The reason for my decision was due to the immorality of the slaves. I reasoned that if they are permitted to engage in this practice, they will intentionally crossbreed and claim that it occurred without their intervention.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬讚讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻转讬驻讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜

MISHNA: If a laborer was performing labor with his hands but not with his feet, or with his feet but not with his hands, e.g., pressing grapes, or even if he was performing labor only with his shoulder, this one may eat the produce of the field. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A laborer may not eat unless he performs labor with his hands and with his feet.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬 转讘讗 讘讻专诐 专注讱 讘讻诇 诪讗讬 讚注讘讬讚

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis stated in the first clause of the mishna? The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淲hen you come into your neighbor鈥檚 vineyard鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:25). Since the Torah does not specify a particular kind of task, it is understood as referring to any labor he performs.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 砖讜专 诪讛 砖讜专 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜 讗祝 驻讜注诇 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A laborer may not eat unless he performs labor with his hands and with his feet. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: This halakha is like that of a threshing ox; just as one is not required to let an ox feed unless it is performing labor with its hands and with its feet, as it uses all four of its legs to thresh, so too a laborer is not entitled to eat unless he is performing labor with his hands and with his feet.

讘注讬 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚砖 讘讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 讘讻诇 讻讞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

搂 With regard to a similar issue, Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a dilemma: If one threshed with geese and chickens, rather than four-legged animals, what is the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Do we require threshing with all its force, as it is for this reason that an ox must thresh with all four of its legs, and that condition is fulfilled here, as these birds perform labor with all their strength, or perhaps we require that the animal must actually perform labor with its hands and with its feet, i.e., with all four legs, and this is not the case here? No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 驻讜注诇讬诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讬诇讻讜 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讘讙转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖讜转讬谉 讬讬谉 诪砖讛讬诇讻讜 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讘讙转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜砖讜转讬谉 讬讬谉

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to laborers in a vineyard, until they have walked lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress, the first stage of the making of wine, they may eat grapes, as they are performing labor with grapes, but they may not yet drink wine, since their labor has not produced wine. Once they have walked lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress, they are now performing labor with wine as well, and therefore they may eat grapes and drink wine.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讘转讗谞讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘注谞讘讬诐 讘注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘转讗谞讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讜谞注 讗转 注爪诪讜 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇诪拽讜诐 讬驻讜转 讜讗讜讻诇

MISHNA: If a laborer was performing labor with figs he may not eat grapes; if he was performing labor with grapes he may not eat figs, as he may eat only the type of food with which he is working. This is the halakha even if he was employed to perform labor with both types of produce but is currently performing labor with only one of them. But he may hold himself back from eating until he reaches a place of good-quality grapes or figs and eat from these, as they are the same type of food.

讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 诪砖讜诐 讛砖讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 驻讜注诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转谉 诪讗讜诪谉 诇讗讜诪谉 讜讘讞讝讬专转谉 诪谉 讛讙转 讜讘讞诪讜专 讻砖讛讬讗 驻讜专拽转

And with regard to all of these cases the Sages said that he may eat only at the time of work. But due to the obligation to restore lost property to its owners, i.e., so that workers would not neglect their task, they said that laborers may eat as they walk from one row of a vineyard or plantation to another row, and upon their return from the winepress. And with regard to a donkey, it is permitted to eat when it is being unloaded. This statement will be explained in the Gemara.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讗讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 诪诪讬谉 砖讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讻诇讬讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪诪讛 砖讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讻诇讬讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the ruling of the mishna: If a laborer was performing labor on this vine, what is the halakha concerning the possibility that he may eat from another vine? Do we require only that the food must be from the type that you are placing into the homeowner鈥檚 vessels, and this condition is fulfilled here, or perhaps we require that it must be from that very food which you are placing into the homeowner鈥檚 vessels, and this is not the case here?

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 砖讜专 讘诪讞讜讘专 讛讬讻讬 讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘砖专讻讗

And if you say that one who was performing labor on this vine may not in fact eat from another vine, a further question arises: With regard to an ox performing labor with produce attached to the ground, how can one enable it to eat? The ox is tied to the front of the wagon, while the laborers are working on a vine adjacent to the wagon. Consequently, it is impossible for the ox to eat from the vine on which labor is being performed. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: In the case of long branches it is possible for the animal to perform labor at one end of the branch while eating from the other.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讘转讗谞讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘注谞讘讬诐 讛讗 转讗谞讬诐 讜转讗谞讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘诪讜讚诇讬转

This difficulty has been resolved, but the original dilemma remains. The Gemara therefore suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: If a laborer was performing labor with figs he may not eat grapes. This indicates that if the two types of produce are figs and other figs, similar to the figs and grapes mentioned in the mishna, he may eat. Now, if you say that one who was performing labor on this vine may not eat from another vine, how can you find these circumstances? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a hanging vine, and he eats from one edge of the branch while working on the other side.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讘诇 诪讜谞注 讗转 注爪诪讜 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讬驻讜转 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 谞讬讝讬诇 讜谞讬转讬 讜谞讬讻讜诇 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 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 offers another suggestion: Come and hear another resolution from the mishna: But he may hold himself back from eating until he reaches a place of good-quality fruit and eat. And if you say that one who was performing labor on this vine may eat from another vine, let him go and bring and eat. Why must he wait until he reaches that particular vine? The Gemara answers: There, the reason is due to the neglect of work caused by the laborer walking to the other vine. We do not raise the dilemma with regard to that case, as he may certainly not stop performing labor to go and eat elsewhere. When the dilemma was raised before us, it was with regard to a case where his wife and children are present. What is the halakha as to whether his family members, who are not performing labor, may bring him fruit?

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻讜诇诐 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 诪驻谞讬 讛砖讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讛诇讬讻转谉 诪讗讜诪谉 诇讗讜诪谉 讜讘讞讝讬专转谉 诪谉 讛讙转

Once again the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: And with regard to all of these cases they said that he may eat only at the time of work. But due to the mitzva to restore lost property to its owners, the Sages said that laborers may eat as they walk from one row to another row, and upon their return from the winepress.

住讘专讜讛 诪讛诇讱 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讛砖讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讻讬诇 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗诇诪讗 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专

The Gemara explains the attempted resolution: The Sages assumed that the basic principle of this halakha is that a laborer who was walking is considered like one who was performing his labor, and it is therefore permitted for him to eat. And yet, it is due to the mitzva to restore lost property to its owner that he may eat, whereas by Torah law he may not eat. But if he is performing labor, why is he not allowed to eat? Apparently, this indicates that one who was performing labor on this vine may not eat from another vine, and therefore once he starts walking and is no longer alongside the vine he may not partake of it by Torah law.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 讜诪讛诇讱 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara refutes this argument: No; actually, I could say to you that one who was performing labor on this vine may even eat from another vine, but a laborer who was walking is not considered like one who was performing his labor. The reason that he is not permitted to eat by Torah law is not because he is performing labor on a different vine, but because he is walking at the time.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讘专讜讛 诪讛诇讱 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讛讗 注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讗讻讬诇 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇诪讗 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专

The Gemara cites an alternative version of this discussion. There are those who say as follows: The Sages assumed that a worker who was walking is not considered like one who was performing his labor, and this is the reason that the baraita says that he may not eat by Torah law: Because he is not considered like one who was performing his labor. This indicates that if he is performing his labor, he may eat by Torah law. Apparently, it may be inferred that one who was performing labor on this vine may eat from another vine.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专

The Gemara rejects this claim: No; this is not a proof, as actually I could say to you that one who was performing labor on this vine may not eat from another vine,

  • 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 91

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 91

诇讗 砖讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛诪讬专 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛诪讬专 诪讜诪专 讜住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

It is taught at the beginning of tractate Temura that the Torah prohibits the substitution of a non-consecrated animal for a consecrated one. The mishna teaches (Temura 2a): That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather it means that if one substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect. The non-sacred animal becomes consecrated, the consecrated animal remains sacred, and the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs the forty lashes. This indicates that one is held liable for mere speech, even without any accompanying action. Reish Lakish said to him: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one is flogged for violating a prohibition that does not involve an action. By contrast, the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that one is punished only for a transgression that includes a full-fledged action.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讛讻诇 诪诪讬专讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讛讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬讜专砖 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But can you establish and explain that mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? After all, it teaches in the first clause: Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, both men and women. And we discussed this statement by asking the following question: This term: Everyone, serves to add what? What is the tanna including by this phrase? We answered that it serves to add an heir, who can substitute an animal for an animal he inherited that was designated as an offering. And this clause is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪诪讬专 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara elaborates: As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn鈥檛 he say that an heir cannot effect substitution, and an heir cannot place his hands on the head of an offering? The Gemara refutes this difficulty: This is not a conclusive proof, as it is possible say that this tanna of the mishna in Temura holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one matter and disagrees with him with regard to one other matter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞讜住诐 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜讚砖 讘讛 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗专讘注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇驻专讛 讜砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讞诪讜专 讜讛讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪转 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐

The Sages taught: One who muzzles a cow and threshes with it is flogged, and in addition he must pay the owner of the cow four kav for a cow, the usual amount it consumes while threshing, and three kav for a donkey. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there a principle that an offender is not flogged and also punished by death, and likewise he is not flogged and rendered liable to pay? One who transgresses a prohibition is liable to receive only one punishment for a single offense. Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is that of Rabbi Meir, who says in general that one can be flogged and be liable to pay.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗转谞谉 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗 注诇 讗诪讜

Rava said that there is a difference between the transgression itself, which is between the offender and God, for which he is liable to be flogged, and the loss he caused the owner of the cow, for which he must pay restitution. The Torah prohibits one from bringing as an offering an animal given as the payment to a prostitute for services rendered (Deuteronomy 23:19); and this prohibition applies even if the man in question engaged in intercourse with his own mother, which is a capital offence. Although this man would certainly not be rendered liable to pay compensation by a court, as he is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, nevertheless, since he is technically liable to pay compensation, the money is subject to the prohibition as well. In this case too, despite the fact that the court cannot compel one to pay for the produce his cow ate, he does owe this sum. Furthermore, if the owner of the produce were to seize this sum from him, the court would not force him to return the money.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖注转 诪砖讬讻讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讛 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讜诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 注讚 砖注转 讞住讬诪讛

Rav Pappa stated a different answer: From the time of his pulling of the cow to rent it for threshing he was rendered obligated to provide its sustenance when it threshes, but as for flogging, he is not liable to be flogged until the actual time of muzzling. In other words, he was liable to pay the monetary payment before he incurred liability to receive lashes, which means that they are two separate liabilities.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 讚讘讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜驻砖讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讞讚讗 讻讛诇讻转讗 讜讞讚讗 讚诇讗讜 讻讛诇讻转讗

In relation to the above discussion, Rav Pappa said: These matters, stated below, were raised as a dilemma to me by the members of the house of Rav Pappa bar Abba, and I resolved these matters for them by saying that there is a prohibition in both cases. One of my decisions was in accordance with the halakha, and the other one was not in accordance with the halakha.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讛讜 诇诇讜砖 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘讞诇讘 讜驻砖讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讻讛诇讻转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘讞诇讘 讜讗诐 诇砖 讻诇 讛驻转 讻讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗讬谉 讟砖讬谉 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讘讗诇讬讛 讜讗诐 讟砖 讻诇 讛驻转 讻讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖讬住讬拽 讗转 讛转谞讜专

They first raised this dilemma before me: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility of kneading dough with milk? And I resolved it for them by saying that there is a prohibition, in accordance with the halakha. As it is taught in a baraita: One may not knead dough with milk, lest one eat this bread with meat, and if he kneaded dough in this manner the entire loaf is forbidden, because he will become accustomed to sin. Similarly, one may not smear over an oven with the fat of an animal鈥檚 tail, and if he did smear the oven in this manner then the entire loaf baked in that oven is forbidden, lest he eat it with milk, until he heats the oven without bread for long enough to burn off the fat.

讜讗讬讚讱 讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讛讜 诇讛讻谞讬住 诪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讚讬专 讜驻砖讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇讗讜 讻讛诇讻转讗

And the other question they asked of me was as follows: What is the halakha with regard to bringing in a male animal and a female animal of different species together into a single pen? Is there a concern that they might mate, which would violate the prohibition against crossbreeding animals? And I resolved it for them by saying that there is a prohibition, but this was not in accordance with the halakha.

讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讘诪谞讗驻讬诐 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 讻讚专讱 讛诪谞讗驻讬诐 讜讘讻诇讗讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻谞讬住 讻诪讻讞讜诇 讘砖驻讜驻专转

As Shmuel says: With regard to adulterers, the witnesses must observe from when they appear as behaving in the manner of adulterers, and they do not need to directly observe the actual moment of the act of intercourse. But with regard to one who crossbreeds two animals of diverse kinds, he is liable only if witnesses attest that he inserted the male organ into the female like a brush into a tube. This clearly shows that crossbreeding is punishable only if performed manually, not if the animals were merely enclosed together.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 讘讛诪转讱 诇讗 转专讘讬注 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讞讜讝 讗讚诐 讛讘讛诪讛 讘砖注讛 砖注讜诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raises an objection against this opinion, from a baraita: Had the Torah stated merely: 鈥淵ou shall not let your cattle copulate,鈥 I would have said that it is prohibited to assist animals in their mating at all, and consequently a person may not hold the female animal when a male mounts it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not let your cattle copulate with a diverse kind鈥 (Leviticus 19:19), which indicates that it is prohibited to mate only different species, but not animals of the same type.

诇讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讻诇讗讬诐 讗讞讬讝讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讞讬讝讛 讛讻谞住讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讗讞讬讝讛 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗

Can one not derive from here by inference that with regard to diverse kinds, holding the animal is also not allowed? This indicates that not only is the act of crossbreeding itself prohibited, but any type of assistance is also prohibited, e.g., restraining the female animal. But if this is the case, placing two animals in the same pen should also be considered a violation. The Gemara refutes this argument: What is the meaning of the term: Holding? It means the insertion of the sexual organ, and why does the tanna call it holding? This is a euphemism.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诪讜转专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讻诪讻讞讜诇 讘砖驻讜驻专转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬爪讜转讗 诇讬讻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讘讬讚转讬讛 讟专讬讚 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬

Rav Yehuda says: If one desires to mate an animal of one species with an animal of its own species, it is permitted to insert the male organ into the female like a brush into a tube, and there is not even a concern due to licentiousness and immoral thoughts here. What is the reason for this lenient ruling? It is because he is occupied with his work, and therefore his mind will not entertain sinful thoughts. Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raises an objection against this:

讗诇讜 谞讗诪专 讘讛诪转讱 诇讗 转专讘讬注 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讞讜讝 讗讚诐 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讻讚讬 砖讬注诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 砖专讬

Had the Torah merely stated: 鈥淵ou shall not let your cattle copulate,鈥 I would have said that a person may not hold the female animal when a male mounts it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲ith a diverse kind鈥 (Leviticus 19:19). This shows that it is a crossbreed of diverse kinds that is prohibited, from which it may be inferred that mating an animal of one species with an animal of its own species is permitted.

讜诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 谞诪讬 讗讞讬讝讛 讗讬谉 讛讻谞住讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讞讬讝讛 讛讻谞住讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讞讬讝讛 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami infers from the baraita: And even concerning mating an animal of one species with an animal of its own species, with regard to holding, yes, this is permitted, but with regard to inserting, no, this is not allowed. The fact that the tanna specifies the act of holding indicates that inserting is prohibited even in the case of two animals of the same species. The Gemara again rejects this claim: What is the meaning of holding in this context? It means inserting. And why does the tanna call it holding? It is a euphemism.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 讚讘讬 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诪讛讜 诇讛讻谞讬住 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讚讬专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘转专 诪讬谞讬讛 讙专讬专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讜驻砖讟讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇讗 讻讛诇讻转讗 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬爪讜转讗 讚注讘讚讬

Rav Ashi said: This matter was asked of me by the members of the house of Rav Ne岣mya, the Exilarch: What is the halakha with regard to bringing into the same pen an animal of one species with two other animals, one of its own species and the other of a species different from it? Is the halakha that since there is another animal of its own species, it will be drawn after its species, and therefore there is no concern whatsoever with regard to diverse kinds, or perhaps one should not act even in this manner, in case it leads to crossbreeding? And I resolved it for them by saying that there is a prohibition, but this was not in accordance with the halakha. The reason for my decision was due to the immorality of the slaves. I reasoned that if they are permitted to engage in this practice, they will intentionally crossbreed and claim that it occurred without their intervention.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬讚讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻转讬驻讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜

MISHNA: If a laborer was performing labor with his hands but not with his feet, or with his feet but not with his hands, e.g., pressing grapes, or even if he was performing labor only with his shoulder, this one may eat the produce of the field. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A laborer may not eat unless he performs labor with his hands and with his feet.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬 转讘讗 讘讻专诐 专注讱 讘讻诇 诪讗讬 讚注讘讬讚

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis stated in the first clause of the mishna? The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淲hen you come into your neighbor鈥檚 vineyard鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:25). Since the Torah does not specify a particular kind of task, it is understood as referring to any labor he performs.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 砖讜专 诪讛 砖讜专 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜 讗祝 驻讜注诇 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A laborer may not eat unless he performs labor with his hands and with his feet. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: This halakha is like that of a threshing ox; just as one is not required to let an ox feed unless it is performing labor with its hands and with its feet, as it uses all four of its legs to thresh, so too a laborer is not entitled to eat unless he is performing labor with his hands and with his feet.

讘注讬 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚砖 讘讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 讘讻诇 讻讞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讚讬讜 讜讘专讙诇讬讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

搂 With regard to a similar issue, Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a dilemma: If one threshed with geese and chickens, rather than four-legged animals, what is the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Do we require threshing with all its force, as it is for this reason that an ox must thresh with all four of its legs, and that condition is fulfilled here, as these birds perform labor with all their strength, or perhaps we require that the animal must actually perform labor with its hands and with its feet, i.e., with all four legs, and this is not the case here? No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 驻讜注诇讬诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讬诇讻讜 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讘讙转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖讜转讬谉 讬讬谉 诪砖讛讬诇讻讜 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讘讙转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜砖讜转讬谉 讬讬谉

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to laborers in a vineyard, until they have walked lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress, the first stage of the making of wine, they may eat grapes, as they are performing labor with grapes, but they may not yet drink wine, since their labor has not produced wine. Once they have walked lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress, they are now performing labor with wine as well, and therefore they may eat grapes and drink wine.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讘转讗谞讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘注谞讘讬诐 讘注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘转讗谞讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讜谞注 讗转 注爪诪讜 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇诪拽讜诐 讬驻讜转 讜讗讜讻诇

MISHNA: If a laborer was performing labor with figs he may not eat grapes; if he was performing labor with grapes he may not eat figs, as he may eat only the type of food with which he is working. This is the halakha even if he was employed to perform labor with both types of produce but is currently performing labor with only one of them. But he may hold himself back from eating until he reaches a place of good-quality grapes or figs and eat from these, as they are the same type of food.

讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 诪砖讜诐 讛砖讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 驻讜注诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转谉 诪讗讜诪谉 诇讗讜诪谉 讜讘讞讝讬专转谉 诪谉 讛讙转 讜讘讞诪讜专 讻砖讛讬讗 驻讜专拽转

And with regard to all of these cases the Sages said that he may eat only at the time of work. But due to the obligation to restore lost property to its owners, i.e., so that workers would not neglect their task, they said that laborers may eat as they walk from one row of a vineyard or plantation to another row, and upon their return from the winepress. And with regard to a donkey, it is permitted to eat when it is being unloaded. This statement will be explained in the Gemara.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讗讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 诪诪讬谉 砖讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讻诇讬讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪诪讛 砖讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讻诇讬讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the ruling of the mishna: If a laborer was performing labor on this vine, what is the halakha concerning the possibility that he may eat from another vine? Do we require only that the food must be from the type that you are placing into the homeowner鈥檚 vessels, and this condition is fulfilled here, or perhaps we require that it must be from that very food which you are placing into the homeowner鈥檚 vessels, and this is not the case here?

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 砖讜专 讘诪讞讜讘专 讛讬讻讬 讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘砖专讻讗

And if you say that one who was performing labor on this vine may not in fact eat from another vine, a further question arises: With regard to an ox performing labor with produce attached to the ground, how can one enable it to eat? The ox is tied to the front of the wagon, while the laborers are working on a vine adjacent to the wagon. Consequently, it is impossible for the ox to eat from the vine on which labor is being performed. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: In the case of long branches it is possible for the animal to perform labor at one end of the branch while eating from the other.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讘转讗谞讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘注谞讘讬诐 讛讗 转讗谞讬诐 讜转讗谞讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘诪讜讚诇讬转

This difficulty has been resolved, but the original dilemma remains. The Gemara therefore suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: If a laborer was performing labor with figs he may not eat grapes. This indicates that if the two types of produce are figs and other figs, similar to the figs and grapes mentioned in the mishna, he may eat. Now, if you say that one who was performing labor on this vine may not eat from another vine, how can you find these circumstances? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a hanging vine, and he eats from one edge of the branch while working on the other side.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讘诇 诪讜谞注 讗转 注爪诪讜 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讬驻讜转 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 谞讬讝讬诇 讜谞讬转讬 讜谞讬讻讜诇 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 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 offers another suggestion: Come and hear another resolution from the mishna: But he may hold himself back from eating until he reaches a place of good-quality fruit and eat. And if you say that one who was performing labor on this vine may eat from another vine, let him go and bring and eat. Why must he wait until he reaches that particular vine? The Gemara answers: There, the reason is due to the neglect of work caused by the laborer walking to the other vine. We do not raise the dilemma with regard to that case, as he may certainly not stop performing labor to go and eat elsewhere. When the dilemma was raised before us, it was with regard to a case where his wife and children are present. What is the halakha as to whether his family members, who are not performing labor, may bring him fruit?

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻讜诇诐 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 诪驻谞讬 讛砖讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讛诇讬讻转谉 诪讗讜诪谉 诇讗讜诪谉 讜讘讞讝讬专转谉 诪谉 讛讙转

Once again the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: And with regard to all of these cases they said that he may eat only at the time of work. But due to the mitzva to restore lost property to its owners, the Sages said that laborers may eat as they walk from one row to another row, and upon their return from the winepress.

住讘专讜讛 诪讛诇讱 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讛砖讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讻讬诇 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗诇诪讗 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专

The Gemara explains the attempted resolution: The Sages assumed that the basic principle of this halakha is that a laborer who was walking is considered like one who was performing his labor, and it is therefore permitted for him to eat. And yet, it is due to the mitzva to restore lost property to its owner that he may eat, whereas by Torah law he may not eat. But if he is performing labor, why is he not allowed to eat? Apparently, this indicates that one who was performing labor on this vine may not eat from another vine, and therefore once he starts walking and is no longer alongside the vine he may not partake of it by Torah law.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专 讜诪讛诇讱 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara refutes this argument: No; actually, I could say to you that one who was performing labor on this vine may even eat from another vine, but a laborer who was walking is not considered like one who was performing his labor. The reason that he is not permitted to eat by Torah law is not because he is performing labor on a different vine, but because he is walking at the time.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讘专讜讛 诪讛诇讱 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讛讗 注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讗讻讬诇 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇诪讗 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专

The Gemara cites an alternative version of this discussion. There are those who say as follows: The Sages assumed that a worker who was walking is not considered like one who was performing his labor, and this is the reason that the baraita says that he may not eat by Torah law: Because he is not considered like one who was performing his labor. This indicates that if he is performing his labor, he may eat by Torah law. Apparently, it may be inferred that one who was performing labor on this vine may eat from another vine.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 注讜砖讛 讘讙驻谉 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘讙驻谉 讗讞专

The Gemara rejects this claim: No; this is not a proof, as actually I could say to you that one who was performing labor on this vine may not eat from another vine,

Scroll To Top