Bava Metzia 89a (פט.) — the Talmud in English

Since

after all,

all kinds of animals

all types of domesticated animals

are included

belong

in the prohibition against muzzling, as we derive

by means of a gezerah shavah

“ox, ox,”

the ox mentioned concerning the prohibition against muzzling, and

“ox”

mentioned concerning resting on Shabbat,

from Shabbat,

as it is stated concerning it: “You shall not perform any labor, neither you nor your ox nor your donkey, nor any of your animals.”

Just as the “ox” mentioned with regard to Shabbat includes every animal, so too the “ox” mentioned with regard to the prohibition against muzzling includes every animal that is working, which one is prohibited from muzzling so that it cannot eat.

If so, let the Merciful One write: “You shall not thresh while muzzled,”

without stating “ox,” since all animals are included. “

Why do I need the “ox” that the Merciful One wrote?”

It must be that the emphasis on the word “ox” comes to teach:

to juxtapose

the laws of eating of

the muzzler,

a person,

to the muzzled one,

the ox that is muzzled.

And

likewise, to juxtapose the ox that is

muzzled to

the person who is

muzzling: Just as the muzzler,

the person,

eats while attached,

when he is working,

so too the muzzled one,

an ox while working,

eats while attached.

And just as the muzzled one,

an ox while threshing,

eats from what is detached,

so too the muzzler,

a worker,

eats from what is detached.

The Sages taught:

The verse states: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,” teaching that there is no prohibition against muzzling except with regard to things similar to

threshing.

Just as threshing is distinctive

in that it is performed with

something that

is

produce of the ground, and a worker eats from it,

so too every

thing

that

is

produce of the ground, a worker eats from it.

Excluded

is a worker

who milks, and who makes cheese

coagulates the milk and strains it,

and who sets cheese

turns it into cheese,

since

the activity is not performed with

produce of the ground, and

therefore

a worker does not eat from it.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of the beraita:

Why do I need

a special derivation from threshing? After all,

it follows from “When you enter your fellow’s vineyard,”

where we learn that a worker eats in a vineyard, and in anything similar to a vineyard, namely, specifically produce of the ground!?

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary

to derive it from threshing. For

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written

“when you enter the standing grain of your fellow,” and we learned

“standing grain” to include everything that grows as standing grain,

all types of produce that grow upward from the ground, one might have thought

to include also something that is not produce of the ground.

Therefore,

it teaches us

the derivation from “threshing” that specifically in things similar to threshing, which grow from the ground, does a worker eat.

Another beraita was taught:

We learned in another beraita an additional derivation from what is stated: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing”: “

Threshing” —

just as threshing

is

distinctive

in that it is

something performed at the completion of work,

as threshing is performed on grain when its processing has already been completed and it is prepared for eating,

a worker eats from it; so too anything that is at the completion of work, a worker eats from it.

Excluded is one who weeds

the ground

in

a plot of

garlic and in

a plot of

onions,

and the Gemara now assumes that the beraita means that while weeding he removes the defective onions and garlic bulbs,

since there is no completion of work,

as weeding the onion plot is not performed at the time when their preparation for eating is completed; rather, it is performed while they still need to grow,

a worker does not eat from them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Why do I need

a special derivation from threshing to say that a worker does not eat things whose processing has not yet been completed? After all, this law follows from the verse stated concerning a worker’s eating,

from “and you shall not put it into your vessel”!

The meaning of the verse concerns a worker at the time of harvesting, which is the time of completing the preparation of the fruit for eating, but not the completion of its growth.

The Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary.

The additional derivation from threshing was necessary for a case in which the worker weeds small onions that will not grow further, removing them from the ground so that there will be sufficient room for the large onions, which will continue to grow.

And the novelty is that

even though he is pulling out the small ones,

even though he is now pulling out the small onions

from among the large ones,

from among the large and strong onions, and for the small onions this is the time of completion of work, and seemingly it should also be the time of “putting it into the vessel of the בעל הבית,” at which point the worker is permitted to eat,

therefore the verse “threshing” teaches that he eats only in a case similar to threshing, which is performed on produce whose growth has already been completed. By contrast, when harvesting small onions, since the primary purpose of the work is to enable the large onions to grow further, this is not considered completion of work even with regard to the small onions; therefore, the worker is not permitted to eat from them.

Another beraita was taught:

We learned further in another beraita, based on the comparison to

“threshing”: Just as threshing is distinctive in being something whose work has not been completed with regard to tithes,

as the preparation of the grain for eating has not yet been completed at the time of threshing to the extent that the produce becomes obligated in tithes, in this state

a worker eats from it. So too, any

worker, with regard to other types of food, only from something

whose work has not been completed with regard to tithes, a worker eats from it.

Excluded is one who sorts dates and dried figs

separating the figs and dates that are stuck to one another,

since its work has been completed with regard to tithes,

and it has been prepared and made fit for eating to the degree that obligates one to tithe,

a worker does not eat from it.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But wasn’t it taught

that we learned the opposite:

one who sorts dates and dried figs

separating the figs and dates that are stuck to one another

a worker eats from it,

even though this is work performed after the produce has already reached completion of its preparation with regard to tithes?

If so, in this beraita we learned the opposite: even with regard to produce whose work has already been completed with regard to tithes, such as one who separates stuck-together figs, whose preparation for tithes has already been completed, a worker eats from it?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: When that

beraita, which grants a worker who sorts dates the right to eat from them,

was taught, it was with regard to toḥalnei,

figs that do not ripen on the tree, whose manner of ripening is by gathering them together in a vessel, where they warm and ripen. A worker engaged in separating them has the right to eat from them, because the produce is not yet prepared for tithing; and as long as the fruit is not fully ready for eating, its work has not reached completion with regard to tithes.

Another beraita was taught:

We learned in an additional beraita: This is what we derive from the comparison to

“threshing”: Just as threshing is distinctive

in that it is

something whose work has not been completed with regard to ḥalla,

as the obligation to separate ḥalla applies only after threshing, when dough is made from the flour, whereas threshing takes place while the grain is still in kernels,

and a worker eats from it, so too anything whose work has not been completed with regard to ḥalla,

which is not yet dough,

a worker eats from it.

Excluded is one who kneads,

after he has already mixed the flour with water,

and one who portions the dough,

shapes the dough,

and one who bakes, whose work has been completed with regard to ḥalla, for a worker does not eat from it.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But surely

before it becomes dough, once he has made a grain heap and brought it into his home,

its work has been completed with regard to tithes.

And we learned above that a worker does not eat produce whose preparation has reached the stage that obligates it in tithes.

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

This beraita, which grants a worker the right to eat grain until it becomes dough that is obligated in ḥalla,

is speaking of outside Eretz Yisrael, where there are no tithes.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

if the beraita was speaking of outside Eretz Yisrael,

there is no ḥalla either!

After all, there is no obligation of ḥalla there, since the obligation of ḥalla applies only to dough from Eretz Yisrael.

Rather, actually it is in Eretz Yisrael, and it is not difficult.

The beraita that permitted a worker to eat until the produce becomes obligated in ḥalla is speaking

during the seven

years

that they conquered and during the seven

years after the conquest

that they divided

the land.

For the Master said: During the seven years that they conquered and the seven years that they divided, they became obligated in ḥalla.

As it is stated: “When you come into the land, you shall set aside ḥalla,” meaning that they became obligated in ḥalla immediately upon beginning to enter the land,

but they did not become obligated in tithes

until after they had divided the land and settled in it.

And during that period a worker ate until the produce became obligated in ḥalla, since there was no obligation of tithes.

The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to say that with regard to produce outside Eretz Yisrael, even though it has reached completion of its preparation, since it is not obligated in tithes a worker may still eat from it.

For

is it the matter of tithes that causes this!?

Does the produce’s obligation in tithes or ḥalla cause the worker to lose his right to eat? Surely

the completion of work,

the fact that the produce is fully prepared and fit for eating,

is what causes it!

It is what prevents the worker from eating, because a worker does not eat produce that has been fully prepared.

If so, what difference is there whether it is produce from outside Eretz Yisrael or produce from before the completion of the conquest and division of the land? Once it has reached completion of its preparation, a worker no longer eats from it.

The question therefore returns: How can we have learned that a worker eats grain until it becomes dough and becomes obligated in ḥalla? It is already grain whose work has been completed to the point of obligating it in tithes?

Rather, Ravina said: Combine them and teach them

as a single teaching; this is how they should be taught:

The Torah states: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,” and the Sages expounded: “

Threshing” —

just as threshing is distinctive in being something whose work has not been completed with regard to tithes or ḥalla,

and it is the final stage of its preparation,

and a worker eats from it; so too, anything whose work has not been completed with regard to tithes or ḥalla, a worker eats from it.

Until the produce reaches the final stage of its preparation.

With regard to produce, once it has been prepared for eating in a manner that obligates it in tithes, it has already reached the final stage of its preparation.

With regard to grain, even after its work has been completed with regard to tithes, it must still undergo an additional stage: flour must be made into dough.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the law concerning a worker

whether he is permitted

to singe by fire

over a fire

and eat,

even though by doing so he eats a great deal of the produce?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Is it

whether singeing over a fire is like

grapes

and another substance,

which the Torah granted a worker permission to eat only grapes, but not grapes with bread, since in that manner he increases his eating more than if he ate them alone?

Or not,

and it is prohibited only when he eats the fruit together with an actual additional substance. But a worker who sweetens the fruit for himself by singeing it is enjoying the fruit’s own sweetness, and perhaps he has the right to extract everything that can be obtained from the fruit itself, even though by doing so he increases his eating.

Come and hear:

The Gemara proves the matter from a beraita in which we learned:

The בעל הבית is permitted to give the workers wine to drink so that they will not eat many grapes,

and this is not considered as though he is preventing them from eating.

Workers are permitted to dip their bread in brine so that they will eat many grapes.

After eating bread dipped in brine, they eat many grapes.

If so, we learn from here that a worker is permitted to cause himself to eat more than the usual amount, and the same law applies: singeing should also be permitted.