Bava Metzia 87b — the Talmud in English

a. One who works on that which is attached to the ground -

at a time when the work is not completed.

For example, one who weeds unwanted weeds from a field of onions is not permitted to eat from the onions, since the onions are still at the stage of growth and have not reached the stage of completion of the work of growing the onions.

b.

And

likewise, a worker who performs work

on something detached from the ground,

is not permitted to eat

since its work has been completed

with regard to the obligation of tithe [or the stage of the work of flour has been completed, with regard to the obligation of separating ḥalla from the dough], as the Mishna will explain below [93b].

c. And every worker who performs work

with something whose growth is not from the ground,

is not permitted to eat from the thing with which he is occupied.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words?

From where do we have, from Torah law, that a worker eats from that with which he is occupied, in the case of something attached to the ground?

As it is written

with regard to the right of a worker to eat from the produce of the owner of the house while he is engaged in his work [Deuteronomy 23]:

“When you come into the vineyard of your fellow, and you shall eat.

But you shall not place it into your vessel.” And the language of the verse implies that Scripture speaks at a time when the produce is fit to be placed into a vessel, that is, after it has been detached from that which is attached, and the Torah said that the worker is permitted to eat at his place of work, but he does not have the right to place the produce into his vessel in order to take it to his home.

And the Gemara continues to discuss:

We have found

a source for the right of a worker who works in a vineyard to eat, since the verse speaks of a vineyard, but

all matters,

other work with produce -

from where do we know

that a worker has the right to eat from them?

We derive it,

we learn this,

from a vineyard:

Just as a vineyard,

just as regarding the work of harvesting the vineyard, the Torah granted the worker the right to eat from it.

And the harvesting in a vineyard

is distinguished

by this: it is work with a

“thing”

that is

“the growth of the ground, and at the time of completion of the work,”

of the growth of the vineyard, when they complete the work of attaching the produce to the ground; then the Torah granted

the worker

permission to be

eating from it,

from the grapes of the vineyard.

So too, everything that is the growth of the ground, at the time of completion of the work -

a worker eats from it.

But the Gemara rejects: It is impossible to learn from a vineyard to other species!

Because

what is there to say about a vineyard, for

it contains a novelty that does not apply to other produce, in that it is

obligated in olelot,

to leave the olelot of the vineyard for the poor , and this law applies only to a vineyard.

Rather,

we derive

the law of a worker’s eating during the work

from a standing crop [

of grain ].

Just as at the time of cutting the standing crop, a worker eats from it, so too is the law with regard to all other kinds of food.

And the standing crop itself, from where do we know

that a worker eats from it at the time of cutting?

As it is written [

there ]:

“When you come into the standing crop of your fellow, and you shall pluck ears with your hand.”

But the Gemara rejects: We cannot learn from a standing crop to other species!

Because

what is there to say about a standing crop, for

its laws are more stringent than those of other kinds of food, since it is

obligated in ḥalla,

because one who makes dough from grain renders the dough obligated in the separation of ḥalla, and this obligation does not apply to other things.

Perhaps you would wish to answer and say that one can challenge the rejection:

And from where [

do you know ]

that this “standing crop”

mentioned with regard to a worker is

a standing crop

of grain produce

that is obligated in ḥalla,

so that you should reject it and say that therefore it is impossible to learn from it to another place?

Perhaps with

a

“whole standing crop,”

even with a standing crop of legumes, which also is gathered into a “standing crop,”

the Merciful One says

that a worker eats from it. And if so, since species that are not obligated in ḥalla [such as legumes] are also included in the category of “standing crop,” it is possible to learn from a standing crop to everything.

Your answer: This is not a question against the rejection, and therefore it does not resolve it, because:

It comes,

the teaching that Scripture speaks of a standing crop of grain produce that is obligated in ḥalla, through a gezeira shava,

“standing crop, standing crop.”

It is written here,

with regard to a worker’s eating,

“When you come into the standing crop of your fellow.” And

it is written there,

with regard to the counting of fifty days beginning from the cutting of the produce for the omer offering [the night of the sixteenth of Nisan], when the mitzva of “the counting of the omer” is fifty days [Deuteronomy 16]:

“From the beginning of the sickle [ from when they begin to cut ]

into the standing crop,”

in the barley produce brought for the omer.

Just as there,

with regard to the cutting of the omer, Scripture speaks of

a standing crop obligated in ḥalla,

for barley flour is obligated in ḥalla,

so too here,

with regard to a worker’s eating, Scripture speaks of

a standing crop obligated in ḥalla.

And if so, the question returns and stands: How shall we learn from a standing crop, from which a worker eats, to other things? For one can reject and say: What is there to say about a standing crop, whose obligations are stringent, since it is obligated in ḥalla; therefore a worker eats from it. But as for other species, which are not subject to ḥalla, from where do we know that a worker eats from them?

Rather,

a vineyard proves

that there is no obligation of ḥalla in it, and a worker eats from it.

And from here we learn to every place, including something in which there is no obligation of ḥalla.

And if you reject as before,

what is there to say about a vineyard, for

its obligations are more stringent than those of other kinds of food, since it is

obligated in olelot,

then

a standing crop proves,

for there is no obligation of olelot in it, and nevertheless a worker eats from it. You have learned that the stringency of the obligation of olelot is not what causes an obligation also in the eating of a worker.

And the matter returns

to learning from both of them [from a vineyard and a standing crop] to other things:

For

this one cannot be seen as this one,

the stringency of a vineyard is not equal to the stringency of a standing crop, and it is proven from this that their stringency is not the reason for a worker’s eating.

Therefore, the eating of a worker should be learned through the teaching of

“the common aspect between them,” for

both of them are

a thing that

is

the growth of the ground, and

the Torah said regarding them,

at the time of completion of the work,

when they have already completed it for eating [that is, the vineyard and the standing crop in the verse speak of the time of cutting or harvesting],

a worker eats from it.

So too, everything that

is

the growth of the ground, at the time of completion of the work -

a worker eats from it.

But it is still possible to reject:

What is there to say about the common aspect between them,

in a vineyard and a standing crop,

for they contain

the stringency of a

“side of the altar,”

for they ascend to the altar [a standing crop ascends for meal-offerings, and grapes ascend as wine for libations], and perhaps by virtue of this distinction the worker is entitled to eat them.

And

according to this common aspect,

also comes

a worker who harvests the wood of an

olive tree, in which there is

something in the olive tree,

a side of the altar,

for the oil that comes from the olive is given for meal-offerings.

But as for the other kinds of trees and seeds, from where do we know that a worker eats from them?

And the Gemara is astonished at the language of the rejection:

And

because

an olive tree,

only from the teaching of

“by what aspect”

from a standing crop and a vineyard

does it come,

is it learned!?

But is not the olive tree

itself called “a vineyard”!

As it is written [Judges 15]

“And he burned from the stacked grain to the standing crop, and to the olive vineyard,”

and it follows that the olive itself is included in the words of the verse: “When you come into the ‘vineyard’ of your fellow, and you shall eat grapes.” And why did you say that it is learned from “by what aspect”!?

Rav Pappa said:

The olive tree is called only

“an olive vineyard,”

that is what it is called, but

“a vineyard” without qualification is not called [that].

But in the verse concerning a worker’s eating it says “a vineyard” without qualification, and therefore the olive tree is not included.

But

in any event, it is difficult:

from where do we know the other trees and seeds, that a worker eats from them?

Rather,

Shmuel said: The verse says:

“When you come into the standing crop of your fellow, and you shall pluck ears with your hand.

And a sickle

you shall not wield over the standing crop of your fellow.” Rather, pluck with your hand, and eat.

And that which Scripture said “sickle” plainly teaches that there is a worker’s right to eat

from every thing of a sickle.

That is, everything that is cut with a sickle is included in the verse.

And the Gemara asks:

But this,

and behold

“sickle”

this

is needed by him,

it is needed to teach that only

at the time of the sickle,

at the time of cutting,

eat,

but

not at the time of the sickle,

if the worker’s work was before the cutting, such as weeding harmful weeds from the field, which is not the time of completion of the work of the produce,

you shall not eat.

And if so, “sickle” is not superfluous, so that we should derive from it an inclusion of every thing of a sickle!

And the Gemara answers:

That matter,

the law that a worker eats only at the time of completion of the work,

is derived from “but you shall not place it into your vessel”!

For the Torah warned the worker not to place the produce of the owner of the house into his vessels at the time of completion of the work in order to take it to his home; rather, he should place it only into the vessels of the owner of the house. And from here it is proven that the time of a worker’s eating is at the completion of the work.

And it follows that the verse “sickle” is superfluous, in order to teach us that the verse speaks of all produce cut with a sickle.

And the Gemara asks: Indeed, from here we have learned to include all species cut with a sickle.

But

that works

for fruit

that is

“fit for a sickle,”

that is, even legumes, which are also cut with a sickle; properly, they too are learned from here.

But fruit

that is not “fit for a sickle,”

such as other tree fruits, which are not cut with a sickle,

from where do we know

that a worker eats from them?

Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

The verse used a superfluous expression,

“standing crop,”

in order

to include all “owners of standing crop,”

those that grow and stand upright upon the ground, and all produce is included.

And the Gemara asks:

But you said

that the word “standing crop” was stated in order to teach through a gezeira shava

“standing crop, standing crop, which is obligated in ḥalla,”

that is, this standing crop is like the standing crop stated with regard to the counting of the omer, which is obligated in ḥalla, and not legumes, which are exempt from ḥalla!?

And the Gemara answers:

These words

that we learned a gezeira shava, “standing crop, standing crop,” to say that Scripture speaks only of a standing crop obligated in ḥalla, thereby excluding legumes, apply

before we taught,

before we brought the teaching of

“sickle”

to include all species cut with a sickle.

But

now,

at present,

since “sickle” has come -

every thing of a sickle has been included for him,

so that a worker eats from all species cut with a sickle,

even though it is not obligated in ḥalla,

such as legumes, which are cut with a sickle; and we do not apply that gezeira shava.

And perhaps you will say, if so,

“Why do I need ‘standing crop’?”

Why did Scripture need to say “standing crop” at all? For you can no longer say as you said above, that it came to teach through a gezeira shava that a worker eats only from produce subject to the obligation of ḥalla, since now we have said that once “sickle” is stated, even legumes are included!?

Your answer: The verse “standing crop” came

to include all owners of standing crop,

whose height stands upright upon the earth, like trees, from which a worker eats.

But it is still difficult:

And now, since it is derived for us from “sickle”

to include all that are cut with a sickle,

and from “standing crop”

to include all owners of height, that is, trees, if so,

“When you come into the vineyard of your fellow” - why do I need it?

For all the species are included in “sickle” and “standing crop,” and the verse did not need to say “When you come into the vineyard of your fellow”!

He said,

Rava:

This verse was needed

for its laws,

the laws of a worker’s eating that are learned from it, as follows:

As it was taught:

It is written with regard to a worker’s eating:

“When you come

into the vineyard of your fellow.”

“Coming” is stated here, and below,

with regard to the prohibition against delaying a worker’s wages,

“The sun shall not come upon him.”

And we learn through a gezeira shava of the expression “coming”:

Just as below, Scripture speaks of a worker,

not to delay his wages,

so too here, Scripture speaks of a worker,

and not of everyone who comes into his fellow’s vineyard.

And the verse says

“in the vineyard of your fellow”:

You may not place [produce] into your vessels to eat after the work,

but not in the vineyard of a gentile.

Rather, there, a worker who works for him is permitted even to place [produce] into his vessels.

but not into the vineyard of a gentile.

Rather, there, a worker employed by him is permitted even to place the produce into his own vessels.

But the Gemara asks:

That works for the one who says that robbing a gentile [

a non-Jew ]

is prohibited; this is why the verse was needed to permit the worker,

to permit a Jewish worker who works for a gentile to place [produce] into his vessels, and not to prohibit him on account of robbery.

But according to the one who says that robbing a gentile is permitted,

the need for this permission should be difficult:

now,

every

robbery

of a gentile

is permitted;

if so,

a worker,

who has a right to eat during his work,

need it be stated!?

Is there a need to write and state his permission? Surely it is certainly permitted for him also to place [produce] into his vessels, and why is a special permission needed for a worker who works for a gentile to place [produce] into his vessels?

And the Gemara answers: The one who says that robbing a gentile is permitted

interprets it

to establish

“in the vineyard of your fellow,”

as coming to exclude and say: “In the vineyard of your fellow” alone does a worker eat,

but not

does a worker eat when he works in a vineyard

of consecrated property.

And Scripture needed to introduce the novelty that a worker engaged in a vineyard of consecrated property does not eat from the produce.

And now the Gemara continues to bring several additional laws of a worker in a vineyard, which are learned from the verse “When you come into the vineyard of your fellow”:

And you shall eat -

and not suck

the grapes.

“Grapes,”

it is permitted to eat them by themselves,

but not grapes and something else!

The laborer may not eat them with bread, because by doing so he increases his eating of the grapes; rather, it is permitted for him to eat them only as they are.

“According to your soul,”

that the law of your eating of these fruits should be as though these fruits were yours [“according to your soul,” you]:

what is “your soul” [as though these grapes were yours], you would

eat,

and be exempt from the tithe,

because the work of the fruits has not yet been completed for the tithe, and before the completion of the work, it is permitted to eat without separating tithes.

Even the soul of a laborer: he eats and is exempt

from the tithe.

And below, in the Gemara, it will be explained why there was room to say that a laborer should differ from the householder and be obligated to tithe in a place where the householder is exempt, until the verse had to say that he does not differ from the householder.

“Your satiety,”

only eating that is enough for satiety is permitted,

but not coarse eating,

which a person’s soul finds repulsive.

“And into your vessels you shall not place” -

at the time when you are placing into the vessels of the householder,

at the time of harvesting the fruits, only then

do you eat.

And

if

at the time when you are not placing into the vessels of the householder,

when their work has not yet reached completion, such as one occupied with attached fruits that still need to grow,

you do not eat!

Introduction:

The fruits of a person that grew in his field [in the Land of Israel] are subject to the status of tevel, and he is forbidden to eat them until he separates terumot and tithes from them.

But they do not become forbidden to eat as tevel immediately upon their being picked; rather, only after they come to the stage of “completion of their work,” when all the acts of preparing the fruits have ended and they reach the stage at which they are ready and standing for eating.

Therefore, before the completion of the work, the fruits are permitted for eating by Torah law. However, the Sages restricted the permission to eat before the completion of the work to eating incidentally only.

And in the language of the Sages, we find that the stage at which the fruits become obligated in the tithe is called “determination for the tithe.”

This stage is

after

the preparation of the fruits, when the matter has been “determined,” through certain factors [as will be explained below], that from now on the fruits are standing for eating.

And several things were stated that “determine” the fruits as being prepared and standing for eating, so that from now on he is obligated to separate terumot and tithes from them. Some of them determine them for the tithe by Torah law, and some of them determine them for the tithe only by rabbinic law:

A. When the owner of the fruits brings them [after gathering them in his field] into his house.

B. When he brings them into his courtyard.

C. From the time when he performs in them “the work of completion” [even in the field], when he makes a heap of them in the field and smooths its surface; and this matter is called in the language of the Sages, the establishment of a “goren.”

D. A sale that is made involving the fruits, in which case the fruits that the purchaser bought have already been determined for the obligation of tithes in the field, even before he brings them into his house.

Rather, as stated, all these determinations are not equal. For some of them impose an obligation of tithes by Torah law, and for some of them it is considered, only by rabbinic law, that they have reached their determination for the obligation of tithes.

And our sugya comes to discuss this: which of them determine the obligation of the tithe by Torah law, and which by rabbinic law.

Rabbi Yannai said: Produce subject to the tithe does not become obligated in the tithe,

and it is permitted for the owners to eat from it without separating terumot and tithes, even though he has already completed picking them,