Bava Metzia 87a (פז.) — the Talmud in English

And we raised this objection:

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

that the angels said to him

“So shall you do, as you have spoken”.

And what is different with regard to Lot, as it is written

“

And he urged them exceedingly,”

that the angels did not accept his invitation immediately?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said: From here it is derived that one may refuse a lesser person, but one does not refuse a prominent person!

And we raised this objection:

It is written “

And I will take a morsel of bread,”

which indicates that he offered them only bread,

and it is written

afterward, “

And Abraham ran to the cattle,”

indicating that he also gave them meat?

Rabbi Elazar said: From here it is derived that the righteous say little and do much.

But

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

From where do we derive this?

From Ephron!

Initially it is written,

with regard to Ephron, who said to Abraham: “

A land worth four hundred shekels of silver,

what is that between me and you?”—indicating that he did not want to take any money from him at all for the cave.

But ultimately it is written: “

And Abraham listened to Ephron, and Abraham weighed out to Ephron the money that he had spoken of in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current with the merchant,”

as he took from him only kantarei.

Ephron agreed to accept only large shekels, whose weight was substantial, as implied by “current with the merchant”—shekels accepted everywhere as shekels—

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

and there are places where the shekels are large.

It is stated: “Hasten three se’a of fine flour.”

And the Gemara asks:

It is written “

flour,”

and it is written “

fine flour,”

which is superior to ordinary flour. Thus, the verse apparently contradicts itself?

And the Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: From here it is derived that a woman is more sparing with regard to guests than a man.

Sarah said “flour,” whereas Abraham said “fine flour.” Thus, the contradiction in the verse is resolved.

And we raised this objection:

It is written “

Knead and make cakes.”

And it is written “

And he took butter and milk and the calf

that he had prepared, and placed them before them.”

But he did not bring bread before them,

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

Ephraim the Mekashea, the student of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Abraham our forefather would eat non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity;

even non-sacred food he would eat only when it was pure,

and

Sarah our foremother, on that day, experienced a menstrual flow,

her menstrual cycle having returned and menstrual blood having appeared,

and the dough consequently became impure. Therefore, Abraham did not bring bread. “

And they said to him, ‘Where is Sarah your wife?’ And he said, ‘Here, in the tent.’”—

The verse

comes to inform

us

that Sarah our foremother was modest,

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said.

And some say that Rav Yitzchak said: The ministering angels knew that Sarah our foremother was in the tent.

Rather, what is the meaning of “

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 could not be seen and one had to ask after her.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

They asked after her

in order to send

her

the cup of blessing

from Birkat HaMazon.

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

the letters

“ayo” in “elav,”

as dots appear over every letter in the word “elav” in this passage in the Torah except for the letter lamed?

For the dots come to remove the verse from its plain meaning. That is, the angels did not need to ask “ayo” concerning Sarah our foremother, because they knew that she was in the tent. Rather, the entire matter is intended for an exposition—

The Torah taught proper conduct: A person should ask about the wife of his host when staying at an inn,

that is, he should ask about the wife of the host.

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

for didn’t Shmuel say: One may not ask about a woman’s welfare at all?

And we answer:

When it is through her husband, it is different.

Through her husband, it is permitted to ask him how his wife is. “

After I have withered, shall I have pleasure?”—

Rav Ḥisda said: After the flesh had withered and the wrinkles had multiplied, the flesh became rejuvenated, the wrinkles spread out, and the beauty returned to its place.

And we raised this objection:

It is written

that Sarah said: “

And my master is old.”

And it is written

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

And I am old.”

It follows

that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not repeat it as she had said it,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, did not relate Sarah’s words to Abraham exactly as she had spoken them!?

And we answer:

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

the

value of peace, for even the Holy One, blessed be He, altered the truth for its sake.

As it is stated: “

And Sarah laughed within herself,

saying, ‘After I have withered, shall I have pleasure?’

And my master is old.’”

And it is written: “

And the Lord said to Abraham,

‘Why did Sarah laugh, saying, “Shall I truly bear a child,

when I am old?”’”

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

It is written: “

And she said, ‘Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children?’”

And we raised this objection:

How many children did Sarah nurse?

She nursed only her son; why did the verse 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 gossiping and saying: ‘Have you seen an old man and an old woman who brought a foundling a child collected from the street, whose parentage was unknown]

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

in order to

substantiate their claim,

that he was indeed their son.

What did Abraham our forefather do?

He went and invited

all

the prominent people of the generation.

And Sarah our foremother invited their wives.

Each and every one brought her son with her, but

she did not bring

the wet nurse

of her son

with her.

And

a miracle occurred for Sarah our foremother, and her breasts opened like two fountains, and she nursed them all!

They then knew that Sarah had indeed given birth to Isaac.

But they still were

the people

gossiping and saying: ‘If

Sarah, at ninety years of age, can give birth,

meaning, even if this is possible,

can Abraham, at one hundred years of age, father a child?!’

They certainly claimed that Sarah had conceived from another man.

Immediately, Isaac’s facial features were transformed, and he appeared

and became similar

to Abraham.

And then

they all began saying: ‘Abraham fathered Isaac.’

Until Abraham, there had been no old age

in the world; rather, people always appeared young.

Whoever wished to speak with Abraham would speak with Isaac.

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

With Isaac, he would speak with Abraham.

And whoever wanted to speak with Isaac would mistakenly speak with Abraham, since the two looked alike despite the difference in their ages.

Abraham came and prayed for mercy,

so that people would be able to 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 had been no illness,

people did not become ill.

Jacob came and prayed for mercy,

that a person should become ill before his death, so that he could instruct 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 who became ill recovered.

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

Elisha came, prayed for 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 inference

we learn

that he had suffered another illness,

from which he had previously recovered.

The Sages taught: Elisha suffered three illnesses.

One

was

because he drove Gehazi away with both hands.

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

And one

was

because he incited 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

was the

illness from which he died.

As it is stated: “

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

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

We learned in the Mishna:

But before they begin the work, go out and tell them: ‘On the condition that you have no claim against me except for bread and legumes’

alone.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ḥisda:

Does the Mishna teach

“bread-legume”

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

or does it teach “bread and legumes,”

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

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda:

“By God!”

[an expression of oath]

It requires a conjunction.

The Mishna must be read as “bread and legumes,” with a conjunction, and the conjunction must be written prominently,

like the rudder of a ship, [

“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, a long vav must be written in the Mishna, so that people will not err.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not [specify it]; everything follows the custom of the region.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: “

Everything”

comes to include what?

What did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel intend to include by the word “everything”? And we answered:

It comes to include that which was taught in a beraita: If one hires a worker and says to him:

your wage will be

like that of one or two of the townspeople,

that is, according to the wages earned by one or two of the town’s workers,

he gives him the lesser wage,

that is, the wage of the lowest-paid worker in the town, because the worker, who is seeking to extract payment from his fellow, bears the burden of proof to establish that he intended a wage higher than the lowest wage in the town,

the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

But the Sages say: They apportion it between them.

He gives him the wage of an average worker, namely, the customary wage in that region for ordinary work.

Mishna:

The Torah states in two separate verses [Deuteronomy 23:25–26] that a worker laboring in a field is entitled to eat freely from the produce on which he is working: “

When you enter your fellow’s vineyard, you may eat grapes to your fill, as much as you desire. But you may not put any into your vessel.” “

When you enter your fellow’s standing grain, you may pluck ears with your hand. But you may not wield a sickle over your fellow’s standing grain.”

The Gemara will explain why two separate verses are necessary for this law, and what each verse teaches that is not taught by the other.

The Torah also states [Deuteronomy 25] “

You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.”

This prohibition was indeed stated with regard to a person who threshes grain with an animal, and not with regard to one who employs a worker in his field, as there is no prohibition of “You shall not muzzle” in that case, as will be explained in the Gemara. Nevertheless, several laws are derived from the prohibition against muzzling an ox, and the same law applies to a worker as well, as will be explained in the Gemara.

And these

are the workers who

may eat

from the produce with which they are engaged,

by Torah law,

even without an agreement to that effect between the employer and the worker, and even where this is not the local custom:

a. A worker

performing

labor

with produce attached to the ground -

He may eat from the produce

at the time of completion

of the labor,

that is, when he detaches it from its connection to the ground, for that is the “completion of the process by which it is connected to the ground,” but not when he is performing his labor while the produce remains attached. For example, if a worker’s task is to weed a field planted with onions, he may not remove onions from the field and eat them, since weeding the field is not the completion of the onions’ growth.

b.

And

a worker performing the employer’s labor

with

produce that is

detached from the ground,

may eat from the item on which he is laboring only

before its processing has been completed

so that the food is prepared and fit to become subject to tithing; this is the stage at which the produce is already prepared for eating.

The Gemara will explain at what stage its “processing has been completed for purposes of tithing.”

Similarly, if he is making dough from flour, and the dough becomes subject to the separation of ḥalla, he may eat from the flour before its processing has been completed with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla.

c.

And

a worker may eat during his labor only

from an item whose growth is from the ground.

This excludes a worker engaged in milking a cow, or the like, whose produce does not grow from the ground.

And these

are the workers

who may not eat

during their labor: