Bava Metzia 89b (פט:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara rejects this: causing him to eat a great deal in order

to prepare the person,

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

is not a question for us

that it is permitted. Therefore, eating bread dipped in brine is permitted, because it prepares the laborer’s body to eat a great deal of grapes, as after he eats bread with brine, his appetite increases.

But

when it is a question for us

[our question is whether it is permitted]

to prepare the fruit.

Roasting causes him to eat excessively because it changes the fruit from its natural state.

What

is the halakha? Is it specifically causing one to eat more together with actually eating another food that is prohibited, or is even improving the fruit itself prohibited, since this constitutes repairing the fruit and it is no longer in its natural state, and is therefore prohibited?

Come and hear,

the Gemara brings a proof in order to resolve the uncertainty, from what we learned:

Laborers

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

eating grapes at the tops of their rows

[the tops of the rows of trees]

belonging to them.

The fruit there is exposed to the sun and is sweeter than the other fruit. 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 in fire;

they are prohibited from sweetening the fruit with fire.

It is explicit in this beraita that sweetening fruit by means of fire is prohibited.

And the Gemara rejects this:

There,

the reason that the beraita prohibited sweetening with fire is

because of neglecting their work,

as the laborer is bound to the work of the employer and is not permitted to take time away from it in order to roast the fruit over a fire.

And

when it is a question for us

[the uncertainty we raised is]

where he has a wife and sons,

so that he does not take time away from his work, but gives the fruit to his wife and sons who are with him, and they sweeten it for him over a fire,

what

is the halakha?

The Gemara brings a proof in order to resolve the uncertainty, from what we learned:

He may not roast

fruit

over a fire and eat it.

And he may not bury it,

the laborer may not hide fruit

in the ground

in order to sweeten it through the heat of the earth,

and eat it.

And he may not crush it,

he may not crush the fruit

on a rock

so that it will be crushed and easy to eat

and eat it.

But he may crush it

[crush it] a small amount

little by little,

from one hand to the other,

and eat it.

If so, we have learned explicitly that it is prohibited to sweeten fruit by means of fire.

And the Gemara rejects this:

There, because of neglecting their work,

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

And the Gemara proves:

This too is reasonable,

that the beraita prohibited sweetening because of neglecting their work:

For if it enters your mind

that the beraita prohibited this

because of sweetening the fruit,

since through this he eats more, then when he crushes the fruit on a

rock, what sweetening of the fruit is there?

Why should it be prohibited, when the fruit is not sweetened by this? Necessarily, the prohibition is due to neglecting their work.

The Gemara rejects this: Even when one crushes fruit on a rock,

it is impossible that it does not become somewhat sweeter,

and this sweetening too is prohibited, since through it he eats more.

Come and hear,

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

Laborers who were hoeing

—picking

figs, and pruning

—picking

dates, and harvesting grapes,

and picking olives: these may eat, and are exempt

from tithing what they eat. Their status is not that of one who purchases produce and is obligated to tithe it, because

the Torah granted them this right.

Their eating derives from the right of a laborer, which is established by Torah law, and the laborers did not acquire the fruit from the employer in a manner that would obligate them to tithe it as purchasers.

But to eat grapes

with their bread, they may not eat,

because of the prohibition against grapes and another food, since through the bread he eats more,

unless they received permission from the employer.

And he may not dip

the fruit

in salt and eat it.

Through the salt he eats more grapes.

And the Gemara thought that repairing the fruit with salt is considered like roasting, which improves the fruit itself.

This demonstrates that it is prohibited for a laborer to repair the fruit in a manner that causes him to eat more.

The Gemara rejects this: Not as you thought; rather,

salt is certainly comparable to grapes and another food.

Dipping 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. This is certainly prohibited. But it is still possible that roasting, which improves the fruit itself, is permitted.

We learned in a beraita:

And he may not dip

[dip] the fruit

in salt and eat it.

And he raises a contradiction

to this law from what we learned:

One who hires a laborer to hoe and to cultivate

[to cover exposed roots]

beneath the olive trees may not eat,

because the fruit is still in a state requiring further growth, and a laborer eats only fruit whose growth is already complete.

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

he may eat, and is exempt

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

the Torah granted them this right,

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

If he stipulated

[made an agreement] with the owner of the field that his wages would also permit him to eat from the fruit, even though the Torah did not grant him the right to eat—for example, a laborer who is hoeing fruit—

then he may eat only if he picked the fruit

one at a time.

But if he picked

two at a time

simultaneously,

he may not eat.

And he may dip it in salt,

the laborer is permitted to dip the fruit in salt,

and eat it.

The Gemara asks:

With regard to what

type of laborer did the beraita need to teach us that he is permitted to dip the fruit in salt?

If you say

that it refers

to the latter clause,

to the laborer who eats by virtue of his agreement, as stated in the latter clause—

that cannot be correct. For

since he stipulated,

agreeing to eat from the fruit, and the fruit is his as part of his wages,

he may eat it however he wants!

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

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that the permission mentioned in the beraita to eat by sweetening with salt refers

to the first clause,

to the laborer mentioned in the first clause, namely, a laborer who eats by virtue of the right granted to him by the Torah?

You learn from this that it is permitted for a laborer to sweeten fruit with salt and eat it.

This contradicts the earlier beraita, which prohibited a laborer from dipping fruit in salt and eating it.

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

In truth, the permission to dip the fruit in salt applies only to a laborer who eats by virtue of an agreement with the employer to eat, and the contradiction between the beraitot

is not difficult:

Here,

the beraita that prohibited a laborer from dipping fruit in salt speaks

in the Land of Israel,

here,

the beraita that permitted a laborer to dip fruit in salt speaks

outside the Land of Israel,

in places near the Land of Israel, whose produce is subject to tithing.

The difference between the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel is as follows:

In the Land of Israel,

whose produce is obligated in tithes by Torah law,

salting establishes the produce.

Salting the fruit establishes the completion of its preparation for the obligation of tithing, and a laborer who salts the fruit is prohibited from eating it because of the prohibition of tevel.

But

outside the Land of Israel,

whose produce is obligated in tithes only by rabbinic law,

salting does not establish the produce.

The Sages did not impose the stringency of making it subject to tithing because of salting the fruit. Therefore, there it is permitted for a laborer to salt and eat it without separating tithes.

Regarding Abaye’s ruling—that salting produce in the Land of Israel obligates one to tithe it, whereas outside the Land of Israel it does not—

he said,

Rava raised the following objection:

Is there any such matter

[where do we find]

that in the Land of Israel,

whose produce is obligated in tithes by Torah law,

salting establishes the produce,

salting the fruit establishes the obligation to tithe

by Torah law, whereas outside the Land of Israel,

in places where the produce is obligated in tithes only by rabbinic law [in places near the Land of Israel],

salting does not establish the produce

as obligated in tithing,

and it is permitted ab initio

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

After all, the Sages formulated rabbinic laws in a manner analogous to Torah law. If salting establishes the produce under Torah law, it should also establish it under rabbinic law.

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

If one of these two actions is performed with the fruit, it becomes obligated in tithing.

Neither of them establishes produce as subject to tithing unless the action is performed on a collection of fruit [at least two fruits], and not on a single fruit.

Purchase

A laborer who eats by virtue of Torah law is not obligated to tithe.

A laborer who eats because of an agreement he made with the employer has the status of a purchaser, and the purchase establishes the fruit he eats as subject to tithing, so he is obligated to tithe it.

Therefore, a laborer who eats by virtue of Torah law may pick two fruits at once and eat them.

But a laborer who eats by virtue of an agreement he made with the employer: if he picks two fruits at once, the purchase establishes them as subject to tithing, and he becomes obligated to tithe them. Therefore, he may pick and eat only one at a time.

Salt

A laborer who eats by virtue of an agreement, and who may eat only one fruit at a time, may also salt it.

But a laborer who eats by virtue of Torah law, who is permitted to pick and eat two fruits together, if he salts them, the salting establishes them as subject to tithing, because salting establishes two fruits.

Therefore, if he wishes to salt the fruit, he must pick and eat only one at a time.

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

With regard to salt:

One,

if one takes only a single fruit and salts it,

salting does not establish the produce

[salting] as subject to tithing.

Two,

if one takes two fruits and salts them,

salting establishes the produce.

The salting establishes the completion of their preparation, making them subject to tithing.

But with regard to a laborer who does not eat by virtue of Torah law—

if

he stipulated

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

whether he dipped

the fruit in salt

or did not dip it,

if he picked from the tree only

one at a time, he may eat.

But if he picked

two at a time

simultaneously,

he may not eat.

Since he eats by virtue of a special agreement and not by virtue of Torah law, he acquires the fruit as part of his wages, and one who purchases tevel is obligated to tithe it, because at the time the purchase takes effect, the fruit becomes established as subject to tithing.

And if

he did not stipulate

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

and he did not dip it

[and did not dip it in salt],

he may eat

even when picking from the tree

two at a time,

simultaneously, since he is not like one who purchases fruit, who may not eat it without tithing it.

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

dipped it,

dipped it in salt, if he dipped only

one at a time

separately,

he may eat.

Salting a single fruit does not establish it as subject to tithing.

But if he salted

two at a time

simultaneously,

he may not eat,

because salting the fruit when there are two together establishes them as obligated in tithing before they may be eaten.

And concerning the laborer who eats by virtue of the right granted to him by the Torah, who is able to eat two fruits together, the beraita prohibited salting them, because salting establishes the fruit as tevel, making it prohibited to eat.

And even though he received permission from the employer

to eat with salt, although by doing so he eats more than usual, nevertheless, he is prohibited from salting two fruits together, because

it renders them tevel with regard to tithing,

and they are prohibited as tevel,

and salting establishes the produce,

as salting establishes the fruit as subject to the 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].