Bava Metzia 88a — the Talmud in English

until it sees the face of the house,

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

As it is stated

in the section of the confession of tithes, after the owner has fulfilled with all the untithed produce and tithes in his possession what is required as a mitzva, the owner confesses and says: “

I have removed

[I took out and gave]

the sacred thing

[terumot and tithes]

from the house.”

And since the Torah said that the removal and giving of the tithes are done “from the house,” we learn that the place where the obligation of separating terumot and tithes takes effect is in the house.

These are the words of Rabbi Yannai.

And

if

Rabbi Yohanan said:

it is not only bringing into the house that obligates the produce to be tithed, but

even a courtyard determines.

And already at the time of bringing the grain into the courtyard before the house, the produce becomes obligated in tithes.

As it is stated

concerning the tithes given to the poor: “And you shall give 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 they shall be satisfied.”

And it implies that immediately upon entering “your gates,” the courtyard before the house, you are obligated to separate the tithe and to give it to the Levite.

And Rabbi Yohanan proves from here that immediately upon entering the courtyard, the grain becomes untithed produce and becomes obligated in the tithe.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Yohanan also,

who holds that the obligation of untithed produce to be tithed takes effect upon entering the courtyard,

is it not written “

I have removed the sacred thing

from the house,”

and it is proven from the words of the verse that that is the place where the obligation of separating the tithes takes effect, as above, and not in the courtyard!?

And the Gemara answers:

He can say to you,

Rabbi Yohanan, who obligates untithed produce to be tithed immediately upon entering the courtyard: “From

the house”

stated here means from the courtyard; rather, the Torah called the courtyard “house” in order to teach us which courtyard is the one that obligates in tithes:

A courtyard analogous to a house,

which is specifically a courtyard resembling a house.

Just as a house

is a place

that is guarded, so too a courtyard

that determines the obligation of the tithe is specifically a courtyard

that is guarded.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Yannai also,

who obligates one to tithe the untithed produce only after bringing it inside the house,

is it not written “

And you shall give to the Levite, to the stranger, and they shall eat

within your gates.”

But their eating is at the gate of the courtyard, since the separation of the tithes takes effect upon entering the gate of the courtyard, because the courtyard before the house is located between the gate and the house!?

And the Gemara answers:

That

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

was needed to teach him,

the verse “within your gates” comes to teach us that untithed produce becomes obligated in the tithe only in the manner

that he brings it

[when he brings it]

through the gate

of the courtyard.

To exclude through roofs and enclosures, which does not.

For if he brought the produce through the roofs or through the rear of the courtyards, not in the ordinary manner of bringing in produce, such bringing does not obligate one to tithe the produce.

Rav Hanina of Huzal objected

to Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yannai from a beraita:

For it was taught: The Torah said concerning a laborer working with produce, that he is permitted to eat from it

“according to your appetite,”

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

so the soul of a laborer

eats!

And the verse teaches:

Just as your appetite,

just as the owner of the house

eats

according to his appetite

and is exempt

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

so too the soul of a laborer,

who eats from the produce of the owner of the house by virtue of the right that the Torah granted him,

eats

according to his appetite

and is exempt

from separating terumot and tithes before his eating.

And the Torah came to innovate that you should not say: A laborer who eats by virtue of his labor has the status of a “purchaser,” who purchases 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

merely, who is not a laborer, if he purchases produce that has not been tithed from the owner of the house,

is obligated

to tithe before his eating, because the purchase determines the obligation of the tithe like the completion of the work, and through this the obligation to tithe it takes effect.

And Rav Hanina of Huzal proves from this beraita:

Is it not that

this verse, which comes to exempt a laborer from tithing [in contrast to a purchaser], is speaking of a laborer eating at the time of his work

in the field.

And since the verse needed to teach us that a laborer is not obligated to tithe like a purchaser, it is proven that an ordinary purchaser, in a case resembling the laborer, eating in the field, becomes obligated to tithe.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan, for according to both of them the obligation of the produce to be tithed takes effect only after gathering the produce into the house or the courtyard.

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: Here,

the verse that exempts a laborer from tithing is speaking

of a fig tree

standing in a garden,

outside the courtyard of the house,

and its foliage,

its branches laden with figs,

inclined toward the courtyard, is the case under discussion.

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

And according to the one who says “into the house,” into the house.

And for Rabbi Yannai, who required bringing into the house, we will establish the case as one in which the foliage of the fig tree was inclined into the house, and the laborer was standing inside the house, picking the figs and bringing them into the house.

And with regard to the entering the courtyard [according to Rabbi Yohanan] or into the house [according to Rabbi Yannai], there was room to obligate the laborer to tithe, and the Torah needed to exempt him, as follows,

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

that because of bringing it into the house there would be room to obligate the laborer to tithe the fig, then

the owner of the house should also be obligated!

And how did we learn from the fact that the Torah compared the eating of a laborer to the eating of the owner of the house, to say that the law of the laborer is like the law of the owner of the house [and not like the law of a purchaser], who is exempt from tithing? But upon entering the house, even the owner of the house is obligated to tithe!

And the Gemara answers:

The owner of the house,

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

his eyes are on his fig,

his intention is to continue picking the other figs remaining on the tree; therefore, bringing the single fig into his house is not considered the completion of the work.

But

a purchaser,

his eyes

[his desire and intention to bring it into the house is only]

upon his purchase.

Upon the single fig that he took for himself. And thereby he has finished bringing all his produce into the house, and therefore he is obligated to tithe.

And for this reason the Torah needed to innovate concerning a laborer who picks figs into the house, that you should not judge him as a purchaser and say: The produce that he eats by virtue of his right as a laborer he has already finished gathering inward, and from now on he should become obligated to tithe it. Therefore it teaches us this: A laborer is considered as though he is reliant on the table of the owner of the house. Consequently, the law of the laborer’s eating is like the law of the owner of the house’s eating, and he eats produce whose gathering has not yet been completed.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But as a matter of Torah law, is a purchaser obligated

to tithe the produce that he purchased!? But even if he performs the completion of the work with 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. And if so, a laborer is exempt by Torah law from tithing, and a special verse is not needed to exempt him !?

And it was taught,

for we learned:

“For what reason did the shops of Beit Hino lie in ruins three years before Jerusalem? Because they established their words

[their conduct]

upon words of Torah,”

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