Bava Metzia 89a — the Talmud in English

Ravina said: Neither a person with detached produce nor an ox with attached produce requires verses. Although concerning a person it was specified explicitly only with attached produce, and concerning an ox it was specified explicitly only with detached produce, for no special derivation is needed to include a person with detached produce and an ox with attached produce, since it is written: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.” And apparently this is difficult: For even after the emphasis of “You shall not muzzle an ox” [unclear: the source fragment ends here]. Since

all

things—

all types of animals—

are

included

in the prohibition against muzzling, which we derive

[through a gezera shava] “

ox, ox”—

the ox stated in connection with the prohibition against muzzling, and

“ox”

stated in connection with cessation 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 “ox” stated concerning Shabbat includes every animal, so too “ox” stated concerning the prohibition against muzzling includes every working animal, which it is forbidden to muzzle from eating.

If so, let the Merciful One write: “You shall not thresh with a muzzle,”

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

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

Necessarily, the emphasis on the word “ox” comes to teach:

to juxtapose

the laws of the eating of

the muzzler,

a person,

to the muzzled,

the ox that is muzzled.

And

likewise to juxtapose the ox that is

muzzled to

the person who

muzzles: What does the muzzler do?

The person

eats while attached,

when he is working.

So too the muzzled,

an ox during the time of labor,

eats while attached.

And what does the muzzled do?

An ox during threshing

eats detached produce.

So too the muzzler,

a worker,

eats detached produce.

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the verse, “You shall not muzzle an ox during its threshing,” to teach that there is a prohibition against muzzling only with regard to things similar to

threshing.

Just as threshing is distinctive

in that it is done with

something that

is

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

So too everything

that is

that

is

produce of the ground, a worker eats from it.

Excluded

is a worker

who milks, and one who makes cheese

[who sours the milk and curdles it],

and one who makes curds

[turning it into cheese],

since

the activity is not performed with

produce of the ground, and

therefore

a worker does not eat from it.

And the Gemara raises an objection against the words of the beraita:

Why do I need

a special derivation from threshing? After all,

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

we learn that a worker eats in a vineyard, and in everything similar to a vineyard, which means specifically produce of the ground!?

And 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 all owners of standing grain,

all types of produce that grow above the ground to a height, it might enter your mind

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

Therefore,

it teaches us

the derivation from “threshing,” that only with things similar to threshing, which grow in 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 during its threshing”: “

Threshing”—

just as threshing

is

distinctive

in that it is

something at the time of the completion of labor,

since threshing is performed on grain at a time when its labor is already being completed and it is being prepared for eating,

a worker eats from it. So too anything that is at the time of the completion of labor, a worker eats from it.

Excluded is one who weeds

the ground

in

a garlic field and

in

an onion field,

[removing] onions,

[and the Gemara now assumes that the beraita means that when weeding he removes the defective onions and garlic],

since there is no completion of labor,

for the weeding is not done in the onion field at the time of completing their preparation for eating, but while they still need to continue growing,

a worker does not eat from them.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Why do I need

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

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

For the meaning of the verse concerns a worker at the time of reaping, which is the time of completing the preparation of the fruit for eating, and not the completion of its growth.

And the Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary.

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

And the novelty is:

Even though he is pulling out the small ones,

although now he is pulling out the small onions

from among the large ones,

from among the large and strong onions—and with regard to the small onions this is the time of completion of labor, and seemingly it should also be the time of “putting into the vessel of the owner,” at which time the worker is permitted to eat.

Therefore, the verse “threshing” teaches that only in a manner similar to threshing, which is done with produce whose growth has already been completed, does he eat. But this is not so when harvesting small onions: since the main labor is for the large onions, so that they can grow further, this is not considered completion of labor 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, from the comparison to

“threshing”: Just as threshing is distinctive, being something whose labor has not been completed for tithing,

its preparation for eating has not yet been completed at the time of threshing to the extent that the produce becomes obligated in tithing—in this state

a worker eats from it. So too everything

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

whose labor has not been completed for tithing, a worker eats from it.

Excluded is one who separates dates and dried figs

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

since its labor has been completed for tithing,

and it has been prepared and made fit for eating to the extent of such completion as obligates one to tithe,

a worker does not eat from it.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught

after all, we learned the opposite:

One who separates dates and dried figs

[separating the figs and dates that are stuck to one another]

a worker eats from it,

even though it is labor performed after the fruit has already reached completion of its labor for tithing.

And if so, we learned in this beraita the opposite: that even with fruits whose labor has already been completed for tithing, such as one who separates stuck figs, whose figs have already completed their labor for tithing, a worker eats?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: When that was taught

the beraita that grants the worker who separates dates the right to eat from them, it was taught

with regard to toḥalnei,

figs that do not ripen on the tree, and whose manner of ripening is by gathering them together in a vessel, where they become warm and ripen. And the worker who is occupied with separating them has the right to eat from them, because the fruits are not yet prepared for tithing; and as long as the fruit is not completely ready for eating, its labor has not reached completion for tithing.

Another beraita was taught,

we learned in an additional beraita: Thus we learn from the comparison to

“threshing”: Just as threshing is distinctive

in that it is

something whose labor has not been completed for ḥalla,

for the obligation to separate ḥalla applies only after threshing, at the time of making dough from the flour, whereas threshing is performed while the grain is still in kernels,

and a worker eats from it; so too anything whose labor has not been completed for 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 shapes,

who arranges the dough,

and the baker, whose labor has been completed for ḥalla, for a worker does not eat from it.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But surely

before it becomes dough, once he has made a threshing floor and brought it into his house,

its labor has been completed for tithing.

And we learned above that a worker does not eat produce whose preparation has already reached completion and which obligates it in tithing.

And the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

This beraita, which grants the worker permission to eat grain until it becomes dough obligated in ḥalla,

we are dealing with outside the Land of Israel, where there is no tithing.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

if the beraita was speaking of outside the Land of Israel,

there is no ḥalla either!

After all, there is also no obligation of ḥalla there, since the obligation of ḥalla applies only to dough in the Land of Israel.

Rather, actually it is in the Land, and it is not difficult.

The beraita that permitted the worker to eat until he became obligated in ḥalla is speaking

during the seven

years

that they conquered, and during the seven

years after the conquest

that they apportioned

the Land.

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

As it is stated, “When you come into the Land, you shall raise up ḥalla,” meaning that from the beginning of entering the Land they became obligated in ḥalla,

but they did not become obligated in tithing

until they had apportioned the Land and settled in it.

And during that period a worker ate until they became obligated in ḥalla, since there was no obligation of tithing upon them.

And the Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to say that with fruits outside the Land of Israel, even though they have reached completion of their labor, since they are still not obligated in tithing, a worker eats from them.

For

does tithing cause it!?

Is it the obligation of the fruits in tithing or ḥalla that causes the worker’s right to eat to be excluded? But surely

completion of labor,

the fact that the fruits are complete and prepared for eating,

causes it!

It is what causes the worker’s right to eat to be prevented, since a worker does not eat prepared fruit.

And if so, what difference is there whether they are fruits outside the Land of Israel or fruits from before the completion of the conquest and apportionment of the Land!? After all, once they have reached completion of their preparation, a worker no longer eats from them.

And the objection returns: How did we learn that a worker eats grain until it becomes dough and becomes obligated in ḥalla? After all, it is already grain whose labor has been completed so as to obligate it in tithing?

Rather, Ravina said: Combine and teach,

the two baraitot must be joined and taught together, and they should be taught as follows:

The Torah states, “You shall not muzzle an ox during its threshing,” and the Sages expounded: “

Threshing”—

just as threshing is distinctive, being something whose labor has not been completed for tithing and for ḥalla,

and it is the final stage of their preparation,

and a worker eats from it. So too everything whose labor has not been completed for tithing and for ḥalla, a worker eats from it.

Until the fruits reach the final stage of their preparation.

And with fruits, when they are prepared for eating in a manner that obligates them in tithing, they have already reached the final stage of their preparation.

But with grain, even after its labor has been completed for tithing, it still has another stage to undergo: making dough from the flour.

They raised a dilemma before them: A worker, what is

whether it is permitted for him

to singe in fire

[by fire] the fruits

and eat,

even though by doing so he eats much of the fruit.

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Is it

whether singeing in fire is like

grapes

and something else,

which the Torah granted the worker permission to eat only grapes, and not with bread, since in that way he increases his eating more than if he ate them alone.

Or not,

and only when he eats the fruit with an actual other thing is it forbidden. But a worker who sweetens the fruit for himself by singeing it is benefiting from 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 from a beraita in which we learned:

The owner 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 they eat bread dipped in brine, they eat many grapes.

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