Bava Metzia 89b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara rejects: to cause increased eating in order to

make the person fit,

to bring his body to a state in which he eats a great deal,

we have no question

that it is permitted. Therefore, eating bread dipped in brine is permitted, because it makes the worker’s body fit for eating many grapes, since after he eats bread with brine, his appetite increases.

But

when we do have a question

[our doubt is], whether it is permitted

to make the fruit fit.

And roasting causes excessive eating because it changes the fruit from its natural state,

what

is the ruling? Is it specifically forbidden to cause increased eating together with the eating of an actual other substance, or perhaps the improvement of the fruit itself is also forbidden, since it is a rectification of the fruit, and it is not in its natural state, and therefore it is forbidden?

Come and hear,

the Gemara proves in order to resolve the doubt, from what we learned:

Workers

are permitted to refrain from eating at the beginning of the gathering of the fruit, so that they will be

eating grapes at the tops of their rows

[the tops of the rows of trees]

belonging to them.

For the fruit there is exposed to the sun, and it is sweeter than the other fruit. And it is permitted to do this, even though they starve themselves so that they will eat more of the superior fruit,

provided that they do not roast them by the fire,

it is forbidden for them to sweeten the fruit by fire.

And it is explicit in this beraita that sweetening the fruit by means of fire is forbidden.

And the Gemara rejects:

There,

the reason the beraita forbade sweetening by fire is

because of interruption of work,

for the worker is bound to the work of the employer, and he has no permission to turn aside to roast by fire.

And

when we do have a question

[the doubt that we raised is]

where he has a wife and children,

for he does not turn aside from his work, but gives the fruit to his wife and children who are with him, so that they will sweeten it for him by fire,

what

come and hear,

the Gemara proves in order to resolve the doubt, from what we learned:

He may not roast

the worker may not roast fruit

by fire and eat.

And he may not bury,

the worker may not bury fruit

in the ground

to sweeten it through the heat of the earth,

and eat.

And he may not crush,

he may not crush the fruit

upon a rock

so that it will be crushed and easy to eat

and eat.

But he may crush

[crush] a small amount

little by little,

from hand to hand,

and eat.

And if so, we learned explicitly that it is forbidden to sweeten the fruit by means of fire.

And the Gemara rejects:

There, because of interruption of work,

for it is forbidden for him to interrupt it in order to sweeten the fruit.

And the Gemara proves:

This too is logically evident,

that the beraita forbade sweetening because of interruption of work:

For if it enters your mind

that the beraita forbade this

because of sweetening the fruit,

since through this he increases his eating, then when he crushes the fruit upon a

rock, what sweetening of the fruit is there?

And why is it forbidden, when it is not sweetened by this? Necessarily, the prohibition is on account of interruption of work.

And the Gemara rejects: Even when he crushes fruit upon a rock,

it is impossible that it does not sweeten a little,

and this sweetening too is forbidden, since through it he increases his eating.

Come and hear,

the Gemara brings a proof in order to resolve the doubt from a beraita in which we learned:

Workers who were hoeing

gathering

figs, and pruning

gathering

dates, and harvesting grapes,

and picking olives—these may eat, and are exempt

from tithing what they eat, and their status is not that of one who purchases fruit, who is obligated to tithe, because

the Torah granted them the right.

Their eating is by virtue of a worker’s right, which is by law of the Torah, and the workers did not acquire the fruit from the employer so that we should obligate them to tithe by the law of a purchaser.

But to eat grapes

with their bread, they may not eat,

because of the prohibition of grapes and another thing, since through the bread he increases his eating,

unless they received permission from the employer.

And he may not salt

the fruit may not be soaked

in salt and eaten.

For through the salt he increases his eating of the grapes.

And the Gemara reasoned that rectifying the fruit through salt is considered like roasting, which improves the fruit itself.

And it is proven that it is forbidden for a worker to rectify the fruit in a manner through which he increases his eating.

And the Gemara rejects: Not as entered your mind, but

salt certainly is comparable to grapes and another thing.

For soaking in salt is not an improvement of the fruit itself, but an addition to the fruit that enables one to eat a great deal of it. And this is certainly forbidden. But it is still possible that roasting, which is an improvement of the fruit itself, is permitted.

We learned in a beraita:

And he may not salt

[soak] the worker the fruit

in salt and eat.

And we raise a contradiction

to this law from what we learned:

One who hires a worker to hoe and to cover

[to cover exposed roots]

beneath the olive trees may not eat,

since the fruit is still in a state requiring further growth, and a worker eats only fruit whose growth has already been completed.

If he hired him to harvest, hired him to pick olives, hired him to gather,

he may eat, and is exempt

from tithing. And his status is not that of one who purchases fruit, who is obligated to tithe the fruit he purchased, because

the Torah granted them the right,

and they eat by virtue of the right that the Torah granted them, and they do not purchase the fruit from the employer.

If he stipulated

[made an agreement] with the owner of the field that as part of his wage he would also be permitted to eat from the fruit, even though the Torah did not grant him the right to eat, such as a worker hoeing among the fruit—

then only if he gathered from the fruit

one by one may he eat.

But if he gathered

two by two

at one time,

he may not eat.

And he may salt,

the worker is permitted to soak the fruit in salt,

and eat.

And the Gemara asks:

With regard to what?

With regard to which type of worker did the beraita need to teach us that he is permitted to salt?

If you say

that

with regard to the latter clause,

with regard to the worker who eats by virtue of his stipulation, mentioned in the latter clause—

that is not correct. For

since he stipulated,

that he would eat from the fruit, and the fruit is his as part of his wage,

he may eat in whatever manner he wishes!

Certainly he is permitted to sweeten the fruit and eat as much as he wishes.

Rather, is it not

necessarily the permission to eat through sweetening with salt mentioned in the beraita is

with regard to the first clause,

with regard to the worker mentioned in the first clause, who eats by virtue of the right granted to him by the Torah?

You have learned that it is permitted for a worker to sweeten the fruit with salt and eat.

And this contradicts the earlier beraita, which forbade the worker to salt and eat.

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

In truth, the permission to salt was said only with regard to a worker who eats by virtue of having stipulated with the employer that he may eat, and the contradiction between the beraitot

is not difficult:

Here,

the beraita that forbade a worker to salt speaks

in the Land of Israel,

Here,

the beraita that permitted a worker to salt speaks

outside the Land of Israel,

in places near the Land of Israel, whose fruit is obligated in tithing.

And the difference between the Land and outside the Land is:

In the Land,

whose fruit is obligated to be tithed by law of the Torah,

salting establishes.

Salting the fruit establishes completion of its work for the obligation of tithing, and a worker who salted the fruit is forbidden to eat it because of the prohibition of tevel.

But

outside the Land,

whose fruit is obligated to be tithed only by rabbinic law,

salting does not establish,

the Sages did not impose stringency there to obligate it in tithing because of salting the fruit; therefore, there the worker is permitted to salt and eat without separating tithes.

And concerning Abaye’s law, who says that salting fruit in the Land obligates one to tithe it, while outside the Land it does not—

he said

Rava challenged:

Is there such a thing

[where do we find]

that in the Land,

whose fruit is obligated to be tithed by law of the Torah,

salting establishes,

salting the fruit establishes an obligation to tithe

by Torah law, whereas outside the Land,

in places whose fruit is obligated to be tithed only by rabbinic law [in places near the Land of Israel]

salting does not establish

it to obligate tithing,

and it is permitted from the outset

to eat from the fruit even after salting it without tithing?!

But surely the laws that are rabbinic, the Sages instituted them in the manner of Torah law. And if salting establishes in Torah law, it should also establish in rabbinic law.

Among the things that establish produce for tithing, there are two forms of establishment for tithing, purchase and salt, which resemble one another.

If one of the two was performed on the fruit, it is obligated in tithing.

And neither of them establishes produce for tithing unless the act was performed on a collection of fruit [which is at least two fruits], and not on a single fruit.

Purchase

A worker who eats by law of the Torah is not obligated to tithe.

A worker who eats because of a condition he stipulated with the employer has the status of a purchaser, and the establishment of purchase takes effect on the fruit he eats, and he is obligated to tithe it.

Therefore, a worker who eats by law of the Torah may gather two fruits at one time and eat.

But a worker who eats under a condition he stipulated with the employer—if he gathers two fruits together, the establishment of purchase takes effect upon them, and he becomes obligated to tithe. Therefore, he may gather and eat only one at a time.

Salt

A worker who eats because of a condition, and therefore eats only one at a time, may also salt.

But a worker who eats by law of the Torah, who is permitted to gather and eat even two together—if he salts them, the salting establishes them for tithing, since with two fruits salting establishes them.

Therefore, if he wishes to salt, he should gather and eat only one at a time.

Rather, Rava said: Both in the Land and outside the Land:

With regard to salt:

One,

one who takes only a single fruit and salts it,

salting does not establish

[the salting] to obligate it in tithing.

Two,

one who takes two fruits and salts them,

salting establishes.

Its salting establishes completion of work in the fruit, to obligate it in tithing.

But with regard to a worker who does not eat by law of the Torah—

if

he stipulated

[made an agreement] with the employer to eat as part of his wage, then

whether he salted,

that he soaked it in salt,

or whether he did not salt,

that he did not soak it in salt, only if he gathered from the tree

one by one may he eat.

But if he gathered

two by two

at one time,

he may not eat.

For one who eats by virtue of a special stipulation and not by law of the Torah acquires the fruit as his wage, and one who purchases tevel fruit is obligated to tithe, since at the time the purchase takes effect, the fruit becomes established for tithing.

And if

he did not stipulate

[did not make an agreement] that the worker would eat, and his eating is by law of the Torah, which granted a worker the right to eat,

and he did not salt

[and did not soak it in salt],

he may eat

even when gathering from the tree

two by two,

at one time, since he is not like one who purchases fruit, who is forbidden to eat without tithing.

But if a worker who eats by virtue of the right granted to him by the Torah

salted

soaked it in salt, if he soaked only

one by one

separately,

he may eat.

For salting a single fruit does not establish an obligation of tithing upon it.

But if he salted

two by two

at one time,

he may not eat,

since salting the fruit when there are two together establishes an obligation upon them to be tithed before eating.

And concerning the worker who eats by virtue of the right granted to him by the Torah, who is able to eat even two together, the beraita forbade salting, since salting establishes the fruit and renders it forbidden as tevel.

And even though he received permission from the employer

to eat with salt, even though through this he eats more than usual, nevertheless, he is forbidden to salt two together, because

it has become tevel for tithing,

and they are forbidden as tevel,

and salting establishes,

for salting establishes the fruit with an obligation of tithing.

And the Gemara asks:

And two?

That what we learned is specifically with two fruits together,

that the brining establishes [them],

that the salting in them establishes completion of work, to obligate [them] in tithe,

from where do we know

that every establishment of completion of work is not with fewer than two fruits?

Rav Mattana said: For Scripture says

Micah 4]

“For he gathered them like a sheaf to the threshing floor.”

A threshing floor, which is completion of work, is made through gathering. And the same applies to salting, which effects completion of work in fruits: it is not considered completion of work unless it is done through the gathering of fruits, which is at least two fruits.

The Sages taught: The threshing animals,

the ones threshing

in grain

the second time [because after they had threshed the grain once, and had separated the kernels of the grain from the husks, they would soak the kernels of the grain in water, and dry them in an oven, and thresh the kernels a second time, in order to remove their shells].