Bava Metzia 88a (פח.) — the Talmud in English

Until he sees the face of the house,

meaning that he brings them into his house in the manner in which people ordinarily bring produce in through the “face of the house” [the front of the house].

As it is stated:

In the passage concerning the confession of tithes, after the owner has properly dealt with all the untithed produce and tithes in his possession as commanded, the owner confesses and says: “

I have removed

[taken out and given]

the sacred things

[the terumot and tithes]

from the house.”

And since the Torah states that the removal and giving of the tithes are performed “from the house,” we learn that the place that establishes the obligation to separate terumot and tithes is the house.

These are the words of Rabbi Yannai.

But

if

Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is not only bringing the produce into the house that obligates it to be tithed;

even a courtyard establishes the obligation.

Already when the produce is brought into the courtyard in front of the house, the produce becomes obligated in tithes.

As it is stated

with regard to the tithes given to the poor: “And you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow, and they shall eat

within your gates

[within the gates of your courtyards]

and be satisfied.”

This implies that as soon as the produce enters “your gates,” the courtyard in front of the house, you are obligated to separate the tithe and give it to the Levite.

Rabbi Yohanan proves from here that as soon as the produce enters the courtyard, it becomes tevel and is obligated in the tithe.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Yohanan, too,

who maintains that the obligation of tevel to be tithed takes effect as soon as it enters the courtyard,

is it not written: “

I have removed the sacred things

from the house,”

which demonstrates from the verse that the place where the obligation to separate the tithes takes effect is the house, as stated above, and not the courtyard!?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you:

The expression “from

the house”

stated here means from the courtyard; the Torah called the courtyard a “house” in order to teach us which courtyard establishes the obligation of tithes:

A courtyard analogous to a house,

namely, specifically a courtyard resembling a house.

Just as a house

is a place

that is guarded, so too a courtyard

that establishes the obligation of the tithe is specifically a courtyard

that is guarded.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Yannai, too,

who maintains that tevel becomes obligated to be tithed only after it is brought into the house,

is it not written: “And you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, and they shall eat

within your gates.”

Within your gates.”

But they eat at the gate of the courtyard, since the separation of the tithes takes effect when the produce enters the gate of the courtyard, as the courtyard in front of the house is situated between the gate and the house!?

The Gemara answers:

That

verse, “And you shall give it to the Levite within your gates,”

is needed

to teach us that the tevel becomes obligated in the tithe only in a case

where he brings it

[when he brings it]

through the gate

of the courtyard.

To exclude bringing it through roofs or enclosed areas behind courtyards, which does not count!

If he brought the produce through the roofs or through the rear areas of the courtyards, not in the usual manner of bringing produce in, such bringing does not obligate him to tithe the produce.

Rav Ḥanina of Ḥuzai raised an objection

to Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yannai from a beraita:

As it was taught: The Torah stated with regard to a laborer working with produce that he may eat from it,

“according to your soul,”

as though this were the eating of the owner. That is, just as the owner eats,

so the soul of the laborer

eats!

And the verse teaches:

Whatever your soul desires,

just as the owner

eats

according to his soul

and is exempt

from separating terumot and tithes before eating, since he eats in the midst of gathering, while all the produce has not yet been collected from the field and the work has not yet been completed,

so too the soul of the laborer,

who eats from the owner’s produce by virtue of the right granted to him by the Torah,

eats

according to his soul

and is exempt

from separating terumot and tithes before eating.

And the Torah comes to teach something new: Do not say that a laborer who eats by virtue of his labor has the status of a “purchaser,” who acquires untithed produce and is obligated to separate terumot and tithes from it before eating, even in the field.

And we learn from this:

A purchaser

in general, who is not a laborer, if he purchases produce that has not been tithed from the owner,

is obligated

to tithe it before eating, because the purchase establishes the obligation of the tithe like completion of the work, thereby creating the obligation to tithe it.

Rav Ḥanina of Ḥuzai proves from this beraita:

Is it not

that this verse, which comes to exempt a laborer from tithing [in contrast to a purchaser], is stated with regard to a laborer who eats at the time of his work

in the field?

And since the verse had to teach us that a laborer is not obligated to tithe like a purchaser, it is evident that an ordinary purchaser, in a situation analogous to that of a laborer, who eats in the field, becomes obligated to tithe.

This is difficult for Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan, since according to both of them the produce becomes obligated to be tithed only after the produce has been gathered into the house or courtyard.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: Here,

the verse that exempts a laborer from tithing applies

to a fig tree

standing in a garden,

outside the courtyard of the house,

whose foliage,

its branches laden with figs,

leans toward the courtyard. This is the case under discussion.

It follows that when this laborer picks the fig and wishes to eat it, he eats it only after he has already brought the fig into the courtyard.

And according to the one who says that the obligation takes effect upon entering the house, it is into the house.

And according to Rabbi Yannai, who requires bringing the produce into the house, we establish the case as one in which the foliage of the fig tree leans into the house, and the laborer is standing inside the house, picking the figs and bringing them into the house.

And because of the entry into the courtyard [according to Rabbi Yohanan] or into the house [according to Rabbi Yannai], there would have been reason to obligate the laborer to tithe, and the Torah therefore had to exempt him, as follows:

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

if because of bringing it into the house there would have been reason to obligate the laborer to tithe the fig, then

the owner, too, should be obligated!

But how did we learn from the fact that the Torah equated the eating of a laborer with the eating of the owner that the laborer’s status is that of the owner [and not that of a purchaser], and that he is exempt from tithing? After all, upon entering the house, the owner is also obligated to tithe!

The Gemara answers:

The owner,

who picked a fig from the foliage of a fig tree leaning into his house and ate it,

has his eyes on his fig tree;

his intention is to continue picking the other figs remaining on the tree. Therefore, bringing this one fig into his house is not considered completion of the work.

But

if it is a purchaser,

his eyes

[his desire and intention to bring produce into the house are focused only]

on his purchase.

On the one fig that he took for himself. Thus, he has finished bringing all his produce into the house, and therefore he is obligated to tithe.

And for this reason the Torah had to teach something new concerning a laborer who picks figs into the house: He should not be treated as a purchaser, with the argument: The produce that he eats by virtue of his right as a laborer has already been completely gathered inside, and he should therefore become obligated to tithe it from that point onward. Therefore, the Torah teaches us that a laborer is considered as though he is dependent on the owner’s table. Accordingly, the law governing the laborer’s eating is the same as that governing the owner’s eating, and he eats produce whose gathering has not yet been completed.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And is a purchaser obligated by Torah law

to tithe the produce that he purchased!? After all, even if he completes the work on it and brings it into his house, in every case he is exempt from tithing by Torah law, as the Gemara will prove from the beraita, for this is the law of a purchaser. If so, a laborer is exempt from tithing by Torah law, and there is no need for a special verse to exempt him !?

But it was taught:

For we learned:

Why did the shops of Beit Hino lie in ruins for three years before Jerusalem? Because they based their practices

[their conduct]

on the words of the Torah,

exempting themselves from what the Sages had obligated, since they found a way to interpret and expound the verses.