Bava Metzia 87a — the Talmud in English

And we raise it:

What is different with regard to Abraham, as it is written

that the angels said to him, "

So do as you have spoken."

And what is different with regard to Lot, as it is written ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location") "

and he urged them very much,"

that the angels did not respond to him immediately?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said: From here [we learn] that one refuses a minor, but one does not refuse a great person!

And we raise it:

It is written "

and I will take a piece of bread,"

indicating that he offered them only bread,

and it is written

afterward, "

And Abraham ran to the cattle,"

that he also gave them cattle?

Rabbi Elazar said: From here [we learn] that the righteous say little and do much.

But

the wicked say much, and they do not do even a little.

From where do we know this?

From Ephron!

At first it is written,

with regard to Ephron, who said to Abraham, "

A land worth four hundred shekels of silver

between me and you, what is it?"—for he did not wish to take any money from him at all for the cave.

But in the end it is written, "

And Abraham listened to Ephron, and Abraham weighed out to Ephron the silver that he had spoken in the hearing of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, passing with the merchant,"

for he took from him only kantrei.

For Ephron agreed to accept only large shekels, whose weight was considerable, as implied by "passing with the merchant": shekels that are accepted everywhere as shekels,

for there are places where they call a coin a kantira,

and there are places where the shekels are large.

It is said: "Hurry, three seahs of fine flour."

And the Gemara asks:

It is written "

flour,"

and it is written "

fine flour,"

which is more select than flour. Thus, the verse apparently contradicts itself?

And the Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yitzhak said: From here [we learn] that a woman begrudges guests more than a man.

Sarah said "flour," whereas Abraham said "fine flour." And the contradiction in the verse is resolved.

And we raise it:

It is written "

Knead and make cakes."

And it is written "

And he took curds and milk and the calf

that he had made and placed before them."

But he did not bring bread before them,

why did he not bring bread before them, as he had said?

Ephraim the Maksha'a, the disciple of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Abraham our father was one who ate ordinary food in purity,

for he ate even ordinary food only when it was pure,

and Sarah our mother, that day,

experienced menstrual impurity,

for her menstruation returned and she saw menstrual blood,

and the dough became impure. Therefore Abraham did not bring bread. "

And they said to him, Where is Sarah your wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent"—

The verse came

to inform

us

that Sarah our mother was modest,

and she did not enter the place where the guests were, so the angels had to ask where she was.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav.

And some say, Rav Yitzhak: The ministering angels knew that Sarah our mother was in the tent.

Rather, what is "

in the tent,"

why did they ask about her whereabouts?

In order to endear her to her husband,

to inform her husband that she was more modest than her companions, to the extent that she was not seen and it was necessary to ask about her.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said:

For this reason they asked about her,

in order to send

to send

her a cup of blessing

from Grace after Meals.

It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Why are dots placed over

the letters

of “ayo” in “elav,”

for dots are placed over all the letters in the word "elav" stated here, except over the letter lamed?

For the dots come to remove the verse from its plain meaning, namely, that the angels did not need to ask "ayo" about Sarah our mother, because they knew that she was in the tent. Rather, the entire matter is for exposition—

The Torah taught proper conduct: that a person should ask about the wife of his host at his lodging,

about the wife of the host.

And we object: How is it permitted to ask about the welfare of a woman,

for did Samuel not say: One does not ask about the welfare of a woman at all?

And we answer:

Through her husband is different.

For through her husband it is permitted to ask him how his wife is. "

After I have become worn, shall I have pleasure?"—

Rav Hisda said: After the flesh had become worn and the wrinkles had multiplied, the flesh became refreshed, the wrinkles spread out, and the beauty returned to its place.

And we raise it:

It is written

that Sarah said, "

and my lord is old."

And it is written

that the Holy One, blessed be He, told Abraham that Sarah had said, "

and I have become old."

It follows

that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not report what she said as she said it,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, did not tell Abraham Sarah’s words exactly as they were!?

And we answer:

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Great is

the

peace, for even the Holy One, blessed be He, altered [the words] for its sake.

As it is stated: "

And Sarah laughed within herself

saying, 'After I have become worn, shall I have pleasure?'

and my lord is old."

And it is written: "

And the Lord said to Abraham

'Why did Sarah laugh, saying, Will I indeed give birth,

when I have become old?'"

Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, altered it and did not tell Abraham what Sarah had said about him, for the sake of peace.

It is written: "

And she said, Who has declared to Abraham, Sarah nurses children?"

And we raise it:

How many children did Sarah nurse?

Did she not nurse only her son, and why did Scripture say that she nursed "children," in the plural?

And we answer:

Rabbi Levi said: On the day that Abraham weaned his son Isaac

from nursing,

he made a great feast.

And

all the nations of the world were murmuring and saying: Have you seen an old man and an old woman who brought a foundling

[a child gathered from the marketplace whose identity was unknown]

from the marketplace, and they say: He is our son! And not only that, but they are making a great feast

in order to

establish their statement

that he was indeed their son.

What did Abraham our father do?

He went and invited

all the

great men of the generation.

And Sarah our mother invited their wives.

And each and every one brought her son with her, but

the

wet nurse

of her son

she did not bring

with her.

And a miracle occurred for Sarah our mother, and her breasts opened like two springs, and she nursed them all!

Then they knew that Sarah had indeed given birth to Isaac.

And they were still

the people

murmuring and saying: If

Sarah, at ninety years old, gives birth,

that is, even if this is possible, but

will Abraham, at one hundred years old, beget?!

And surely Sarah had conceived from another man.

Immediately, Isaac’s facial features were transformed, and he came to resemble

and became similar

to Abraham.

And then

everyone began and said: Abraham begot Isaac.

Until Abraham, there was no old age

in the world; rather, people always appeared young.

Whoever wished to speak with Abraham spoke with Isaac.

Whoever wished to speak with Abraham would mistakenly speak with Isaac.

With Isaac, he spoke with Abraham.

And whoever wished to speak with Isaac would mistakenly speak with Abraham, for they both resembled one another despite the difference in age.

Abraham came and sought mercy,

Abraham came and prayed for old age, so that people would distinguish between him and his son,

and there was old age.

And old age came into the world.

As it is stated: "

And Abraham was old, advanced in days."

Until Jacob, there was no illness,

people did not become ill.

Jacob came and sought mercy,

Jacob came and prayed that a person should become ill before his death, so that he could command his household,

and there was illness,

and illness came into the world.

As it is stated: "

And he said to Joseph: Behold, your father is ill."

Until Elisha came, no one became ill and recovered.

Until Elisha came, no person was healed of his illness.

Elisha came, sought mercy, and recovered.

Elisha came and prayed for himself when he was ill, and he was healed.

As it is stated

[II Kings 13:14] "

And Elisha became ill with the illness from which he would die."

By implication

we learn this,

that he had been ill with another illness,

for previously he had become ill with another disease, from which he recovered.

The Sages taught: Elisha became ill with three illnesses.

One

was on account of

his having pushed Gehazi away with both his hands.

For he cursed him, and he became a leper [see II Kings, end of chapter 5, and tractate Sanhedrin 107b].

And one

was on account of

his inciting bears against the children

who mocked him, and he cursed them. Bears came out of the forest and killed them [see there, end of chapter 2].

And one,

an illness

from which he died.

As it is stated: "

And Elisha became ill with the illness from which he would die."

And we expound: "became ill"—one. "His illness"—two. "From which he would die"—three.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rather, before they begin the work, go out and say to them: On the condition that you have no claim against me except for bread and legumes

alone.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Hisda:

Is it "

bread-legume" that we learned

in the Mishna, without a conjunction, meaning that he promised them bread made from legumes,

or did we learn “bread and legumes,”

with a conjunction, meaning that he promised them both bread and legumes?

He said to him

Rav Hisda:

By God!

[an expression of an oath]

It requires a conjunction.

The Mishna must be read "bread and legumes," with a conjunction, and the conjunction must be written prominently,

for it is like the rudder of a ship ["Liverot" is the name of a river. And "mordiya" is a piece of wood with which the helmsman steers the ship to distance it from stones and obstacles].

“Levarot” is the name of a river, and a “mordiya” is a piece of wood with which the helmsman steers the ship to keep it away from stones and obstacles].

That is, it is necessary to write an extended vav in the Mishna, so that they not come to err.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is not necessary; everything follows the custom of the state.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: “

Everything”

to include what?

What did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel come to include with the word “everything”? And we answer:

To include that which was taught: One who hires a worker and says to him:

your wage shall be

like that of one and like that of two of the townspeople,

that is, according to what one and two of the town’s workers earn,

he gives him the lesser of the wages,

according to the wage of the least expensive worker in the town, because the worker, who is the one seeking to extract from his fellow, bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that he intended a wage greater than the lowest wage in the town,

the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

And the Sages say: They apportion between them.

He gives him the wage of an average worker, that is, according to the custom of the state concerning an ordinary wage.

Mishna:

In two separate verses it is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 23:25–26] that a worker working in a field is entitled to eat from the produce with which he is working, for free: “

When you come into the vineyard of your fellow, you may eat grapes according to your desire, your fill. But into your vessel you shall not put.” “

When you come into the standing grain of your fellow, you may pluck ears with your hand. But a sickle you shall not raise over the standing grain of your fellow.”

And in the Gemara it will be explained why we require two separate verses for this law, and what each verse teaches that is not [taught] by the other.

It is also stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 25]:

You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.

This prohibition was indeed stated concerning a person who threshes grain by means of an animal, and not concerning one who employs a worker in his field, for there is no prohibition of “You shall not muzzle” in that case, as will be explained in the Gemara. However, several laws are learned from the prohibition of muzzling the ox, for the law is likewise so with a worker, as will be explained in the Gemara.

And these

are the workers, who

eat

from the thing with which they are occupied,

by Torah law,

even without an agreement having been made concerning this between the employer and the worker, and even in a place where this was not the custom:

a. A worker

doing

work

with something attached to the ground -

He is permitted to eat from the produce

at the time of completion of

the work,

that is, when he plucks it from its attachment to the ground, for then it is “the completion of the work of their attachment,” but not when he is occupied with work while the produce is attached. For example, a worker whose work is weeding weeds from a field in which onions have been planted is forbidden to remove onions from the field and eat them, since the work of weeding the field is not the completion of the work of growing the onions.

b.

And

a worker doing the work of the master of the house

with

a fruit that is

detached from the ground,

he is permitted to eat from the thing with which he is occupied in his work only

until its work has not yet been completed

for the food to be prepared and fit to become liable for tithe, which is the stage at which the fruit is already ready for eating.

And in the Gemara it will be explained at what stage “its work has already been completed for tithe

Likewise, if he was making dough from flour, and the dough became liable for the separation of ḥalla, he eats from the flour until its work has not yet been completed with regard to the obligation of separating ḥalla.

c.

And

the worker is not permitted to eat during the time of his work except

from something whose growth is from the ground.

This excludes a worker who was occupied with milking a cow, and the like, whose growth is not from the ground.

And these

are the workers

who do not eat

during the time of their work: