Bava Metzia 89aבבא מציעא פ״ט א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Metzia 89a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
89aפ״ט א
1 א

מכדי כל מילי איתנהו בחסימה דילפינן שור שור משבת א"כ לכתוב רחמנא לא תדוש בחסימה שור דכתב רחמנא למה לי

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?

2 ב

לאקושי חוסם לנחסם ונחסם לחוסם מה חוסם אוכל במחובר אף נחסם אוכל במחובר ומה נחסם אוכל בתלוש אף חוסם אוכל בתלוש

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.

3 ג

ת"ר דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שגידולי קרקע (ובשעת גמר מלאכה) ופועל אוכל בו אף כל שגידולי קרקע פועל אוכל בו יצא החולב והמחבץ והמגבן שאין גידולי קרקע ואין פועל אוכל בו

§ 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.

4 ד

למה לי (דברים כג, כה) מכי תבא בכרם רעך נפקא איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב קמה לרבות כל בעלי קמה לרבות נמי מידי דלאו גדולי קרקע נינהו קמ"ל

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.

5 ה

תניא אידך דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שבשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו אף כל שהוא בשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו יצא המנכש בשומים ובבצלים הואיל ואין גמר מלאכה אין פועל אוכל בהם

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.

6 ו

למה לי (דברים כג, כה) מואל כליך לא תתן נפקא לא צריכא אע"ג דקא משליף קטיני מביני אלימי

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.

7 ז

תניא אידך דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו למעשר פועל אוכל בו אף כל שלא נגמרה מלאכתו למעשר פועל אוכל בו יצא הבודל בתמרים ובגרוגרות הואיל ונגמרה מלאכתו למעשר אין פועל אוכל בו

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.

8 ח

והתניא הבודל בתמרים ובגרוגרות פועל אוכל בו אמר רב פפא כי תניא ההיא בתוחלני

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.

9 ט

תניא אידך דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו לחלה ופועל אוכל בו אף כל דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו לחלה פועל אוכל בו יצא הלש והמקטף והאופה שנגמרה מלאכתו לחלה דאין פועל אוכל בו והלא נגמרה מלאכתו למעשר

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.

10 י

לא קשיא בחוצה לארץ עסקינן דליכא מעשר אי הכי חלה נמי ליכא אלא לעולם בארץ ולא קשיא בשבע שכיבשו ובשבע שחילקו דאמר מר שבע שכיבשו ושבע שחילקו נתחייבו בחלה ולא נתחייבו במעשר

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.

11 יא

מידי מעשר קא גרים גמר מלאכה קא גרים

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.

12 יב

אלא אמר רבינא כרוך ותני דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שלא נגמר מלאכתו למעשר ולחלה ופועל אוכל בו אף כל שלא נגמר מלאכתו למעשר ולחלה פועל אוכל בו

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.

13 יג

איבעיא להו פועל מהו שיהבהב באור ויאכל מי הוי כענבים ודבר אחר או לא תא שמע רשאי בעה"ב להשקות פועלים יין כדי שלא יאכלו ענבים הרבה רשאין פועלין לטבל פיתם בציר כדי שיאכלו ענבים הרבה

§ 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.