בבא מציעא פט

בבא מציעא פט

מִכְּדֵי כֹּל מִילֵּי אִיתַנְהוּ בַּחֲסִימָה, דְּיָלְפִינַן ״שׁוֹר״ ״שׁוֹר״ מִשַּׁבָּת. אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תָּדוּשׁ בַּחֲסִימָה״, שׁוֹר דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?

Now, consider: All matters, i.e., all animals, are included in the halakha of muzzling, as we derive a verbal analogy between the term “an ox” stated here and the term “an ox” stated with regard to Shabbat. Just as the prohibition against having one’s 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 “ox” 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 “ox” that the Merciful One writes?

לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי חוֹסֵם לְנֶחְסָם וְנֶחְסָם לְחוֹסֵם. מַה חוֹסֵם אוֹכֵל בִּמְחוּבָּר – אַף נֶחְסָם אוֹכֵל בִּמְחוּבָּר. וּמַה נֶחְסָם אוֹכֵל בְּתָלוּשׁ – אַף חוֹסֵם אוֹכֵל בְּתָלוּשׁ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד – דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כֹּל שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַחוֹלֵב וְהַמְחַבֵּץ וְהַמְגַבֵּן, שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע וְאֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.

§ The Sages taught another exposition with regard to the wording in the verse: “You shall not muzzle the ox in its threshing.” 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.

לְמָה לִי? מִ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ נָפְקָא. אִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״קָמָה״, לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה, לְרַבּוֹת נָמֵי מִידֵּי דְּלָאו גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע נִינְהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? This halakha can be derived from the words in the verse: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard” (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: “Standing” (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.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״ – מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַמְנַכֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּמִים וּבִבְצָלִים, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין גְּמַר מְלָאכָה – אֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בָּהֶם.

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.

לְמָה לִי? מִ״וְאֶל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״ נָפְקָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא מְשַׁלֵּיף קַטִּינֵי מִבֵּינֵי אַלִּימֵי.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? It can be derived from: “But you shall not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25), which indicates that if the laborer does not place the food into the owner’s 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.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגְרוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְנִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר – אֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.

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.

וְהָתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגְרוֹת פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּתוּחְלָנֵי.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t 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.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַלָּשׁ וְהַמְקַטֵּף וְהָאוֹפֶה שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה, דְּאֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. וַהֲלֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר!

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 ḥalla, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for ḥalla, 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 ḥalla, and therefore a laborer may not eat from it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why do I need this halakha; hasn’t 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.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ עָסְקִינַן, דְּלֵיכָּא מַעֲשֵׂר. אִי הָכִי, חַלָּה נָמֵי לֵיכָּא! אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם בָּאָרֶץ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: בְּשֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וּבְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ, דְּאָמַר מָר: שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּחַלָּה וְלֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.

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 ḥalla 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 ḥalla but they were not obligated in the separation of tithes.

מִידֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר קָא גָרֵים? גְּמַר מְלָאכָה קָא גָרֵים!

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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּרוֹךְ וּתְנִי. ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד – דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וּלְחַלָּה וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ, אַף כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וּלְחַלָּה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.

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 ḥalla, 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 ḥalla, a laborer may eat it.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פּוֹעֵל, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהַבְהֵב בָּאוּר וְיֹאכַל, מִי הָוֵי כַּעֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: רַשַּׁאי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְהַשְׁקוֹת פּוֹעֲלִים יַיִן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה, רַשָּׁאִין פּוֹעֲלִין לְטַבֵּל פִּיתָּם בְּצִיר כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה!

§ 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.

לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי גַּבְרָא לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי פֵּירָא, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹעֲלִין אוֹכְלִין עֲנָבִים בְּרָאשֵׁי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהַבְהֲבוּ בָּאוּר!

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.

הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו, מַאי?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יְהַבְהֵב בָּאוּר וְיֹאכַל, וְלֹא יִכְמוֹר בַּאֲדָמָה וְיֹאכַל, וְלֹא יַפְרִיךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַסֶּלַע וְיֹאכַל, אֲבָל מְפָרֵיךְ עַל יָד עַל יָד וְאוֹכֵל. הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם מַתּוֹקֵי פֵּירָא – סֶלַע מַאי מַתּוֹקֵי פֵּירָא אִיכָּא? אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא מְמַתֵּיק פּוּרְתָּא.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹעֲלִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹדְרִים בִּתְאֵנִים וְגוֹדְרִים בִּתְמָרִים וּבוֹצְרִים בַּעֲנָבִים וּמוֹסְקִין בְּזֵיתִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִים, וּפְטוּרִים, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה זִיכְּתָה לָהֶם. בְּפִיתָּם לֹא יֹאכְלוּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָטְלוּ רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל!

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.

מֶלַח וַדַּאי כַּעֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר דָּמֵי.

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’s question is left unresolved.

וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְעַדֵּר וּלְקַשְׁקֵשׁ תַּחַת הַזֵּיתִים – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יֹאכַל, שְׂכָרוֹ לִבְצוֹר שְׂכָרוֹ לִמְסוֹק שְׂכָרוֹ לְלַקֵּט – הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה זִיכְּתָה לָהֶן. קָצַץ אַחַת וְאַחַת – יֹאכַל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל, וְסוֹפֵת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל.

§ 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.

אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא – כֵּיוָן דְּקָצַץ, כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּבָעֵי לֵיכוֹל, אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא!

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא. כָּאן – בָּאָרֶץ, כָּאן – בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. בָּאָרֶץ קָבְעָא סְפִיתָא, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָא קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא. אָמַר רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּבָאָרֶץ קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא קִבְעָא סְפֵיתָא, וּמוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה?!

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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, חֲדָא לָא – קִבְעָא סְפֵיתָא, תַּרְתֵּי – קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא. קָצַץ: בֵּין סָפַת וּבֵין לֹא סָפַת, אַחַת אַחַת – אוֹכֵל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל. לֹא קָצַץ וְלֹא סָפַת – אוֹכֵל שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, סָפַת: אַחַת אַחַת – אוֹכֵל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנָטַל רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, דְּאִיטְּבִיל לְהוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְקָבְעָא סְפִיתָא.

Rather, Rava rejected Abaye’s 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.

וְתַרְתֵּי דְּקָבְעָא סְפִיתָא מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי קִבְּצָם כֶּעָמִיר גֹּרְנָה״.

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: “For He has gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing-floor” (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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרוֹת הַמְרַכְּסוֹת בִּתְבוּאָה,

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,