Bava Metzia 90a — the Talmud in English

And

so, with regard to fruits

that are freshly threshed

—grain that is

teruma and maaser,

he does not violate

the prohibition against muzzling them

because of “You shall not muzzle.”

With regard to fruits that are being threshed—because the grain has already reached the completion of its preparation for maaser, and the prohibition against muzzling applies only to grain that has not yet reached the stage of completion of its preparation.

With fruits being threshed that are teruma and maaser—for the reasons that will be explained below.

But because of the appearance of the matter,

so that people should not say that he is muzzling it at the time of threshing,

he brings a bol,

a quantity the size of a full fist,

of the same species

as that with which it is threshing,

and hangs it for it in the baskets at its mouth,

in the basket hanging on its neck, and it can eat from it while it is working, in order to show everyone that he is not muzzling it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says:

There is no need that he bring and place in the basket at its mouth specifically from the species with which it is threshing.

Rather,

he brings vetches and hangs them for it

in the basket on its neck, because

the vetches are better for it than everything,

and the vetches are more beneficial to it than it would have been had it eaten even from the same species.

And he raises a contradiction

to this beraita from what we learned in another beraita:

“Fruits that are threshing” grain, he does not violate

because of “You shall not muzzle,”

because the preparation of the grain for maaser has already been completed.

And

if “fruits

that are threshing” teruma and maaser, he violates because of “You shall not muzzle.”

And a gentile threshing with the ox of a Jew

the gentile’s produce,

he does not violate

the Jew, who lent him his ox,

because of “You shall not muzzle,”

even if the Jew told him to muzzle it at the time of threshing.

And a Jew threshing with the ox of a gentile violates because of “You shall not muzzle.”

The contradiction between teruma and teruma is difficult. The contradiction between maaser and maaser?!

For the first beraita permits muzzling when threshing teruma and maaser, whereas the second beraita prohibits it?!

Granted, the contradiction between teruma and teruma is not difficult;

here,

the beraita that permitted muzzling speaks

of teruma,

and it is permitted to muzzle it, since it is forbidden to feed teruma to an animal.

Here,

the beraita that prohibited muzzling spoke

of produce of teruma,

that was planted as teruma. And its produce has the status of teruma, by rabbinic law. And since by Torah law the produce is not teruma, it is forbidden to muzzle it.

But the contradiction between maaser and maaser is difficult.

And if you would say

[perhaps you will say and answer],

the contradiction between maaser and maaser is also not difficult.

Here,

the beraita that permitted muzzling spoke

of maaser

by Torah law, which is forbidden to an animal.

Here,

the beraita that prohibited muzzling spoke

of produce of maaser,

which does not have the status of maaser, and is completely non-sacred produce.

This is not an answer, because

granted, the produce of teruma,

which is

teruma

by rabbinic law, it is properly possible to say that the beraita needed to teach us this: Since by Torah law it is not teruma, it is forbidden to muzzle the animal threshing it.

But the produce of maaser is non-sacred

even by rabbinic law, and it is like all other produce; there is no need to teach us that it is forbidden to muzzle the animal threshing it.

As we learned: The produce of tevel and the produce of second maaser—

are non-sacred.

Since the produce grows only after the seed has rotted in the earth, and it is not part of the seed, there is no prohibition in it.

And if so, we must explain the beraitot as referring to actual maaser, and not to produce of maaser. According to this, the contradiction between them is difficult, regarding whether it is permitted to muzzle when threshing maaser or not!

Rather,

the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

This

—the beraita that prohibited muzzling the cow threshing maaser—spoke

of first maaser

that is given to a Levite, and in which there is no sanctity, and they are like all other produce.

This

—the beraita that permitted muzzling—spoke

of second maaser,

which is the property of the Most High and does not belong to the owners [except that he is commanded to eat it in Jerusalem]. And the Torah commanded not to muzzle only the owner threshing his own grain, that he should give some of it also to the animal, as it is stated: “You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing”—in its own threshing, and not when threshing that of others. And second maaser is the property of the Most High, and it is not his.

And if you wish, say: This and that,

both the beraita that permits and the one that prohibits speak

of second maaser. And it is not difficult.

This

—the beraita that permits muzzling—

is Rabbi Meir.

This

—the beraita that prohibits muzzling—

is Rabbi Judah.

And the Gemara explains on what dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah this matter depends:

This is Rabbi Meir, who says: Maaser is the property of the Most High,

and the prohibition against muzzling applies only when threshing his own produce, and not when threshing the produce of others or of the property of the Most High.

This is Rabbi Judah, who says: Second maaser is the property of an ordinary person.

And a cow threshing second maaser—since the produce is his, it is forbidden for him to muzzle it.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances,

in which an animal would thresh second maaser, while the grain would still require threshing? But before threshing, the preparation of the produce has not been completed, and maaser is not separated from it.

For example, when they hastened

to separate the second maaser

while it was in stalks

[when the grain was still in its straw], although the grain was not yet liable for separation at that time.

And we challenge:

And according to Rabbi Judah,

although he held that second maaser is the property of an ordinary person, and it is permitted to feed it to an animal, it is still difficult:

But it needs

to eat the maaser within the

wall

of Jerusalem, and outside the wall it is forbidden to eat from second maaser; and he must muzzle his animal so that it will not eat and he violate the prohibition of eating second maaser outside the wall.

And we answer:

For example, he threshes inside the wall of Beit Pagi,

within the walls of Jerusalem, where it is permitted to eat second maaser.

If you wish, say

[if you wish, let us say]:

It is not difficult.

And we will resolve the contradiction as follows:

Here,

the beraita that permits muzzling speaks of threshing

maaser

that was separated from definite tevel,

certain,

whose tithes are by Torah law.

Here,

the beraita that prohibits muzzling speaks

of dmai maaser,

which is produce purchased from an am ha-aretz, concerning which the Sages required the separation of maaser, lest the am ha-aretz had not separated it. And since by Torah law there is no requirement to be concerned about an am ha-aretz’s produce, lest he did not separate from it, it follows that the maaser separated from it is non-sacred by Torah law, and it is forbidden to muzzle the animal threshing it.

Now

[and now],

since you have come to this

[that you have reached this point] and have distinguished, with regard to the prohibition against muzzling, between certain maaser and dmai maaser, the contradiction between

teruma and teruma is also not difficult.

Here,

the beraita that permits muzzling speaks

of certain teruma,

which is forbidden to feed to an animal, and it is permitted and necessary to muzzle it.

Here,

the beraita that prohibits muzzling speaks

of dmai teruma,

which, although rabbinically it has the status of teruma, nevertheless, since by Torah law it is not teruma, it is forbidden to muzzle the animal.

And the Gemara asks:

Granted, “dmai maaser” exists

[there is maaser from dmai produce], and concerning this maaser we prohibited muzzling the animal threshing it.

But does “dmai teruma” exist?!

For even rabbinically, teruma is not separated from dmai produce; only maaser is separated!

But it was taught,

and so we learned:

He too,

Yohanan the High Priest:

a.

Abolished the confession,

so that they would not recite the confession of tithes at the time of removing the maaser, since in it they say: “I have removed the sacred thing from the house, and I have also given it to the Levite,” and this applies specifically when they give the maaser to Levites. But after Ezra fined the Levites and decreed that they give first maaser, which is fit for the Levites, to priests, it is impossible to confess and say, “And I have also given it to the Levite.”

b.

And decreed concerning dmai.

One who purchases produce from an am ha-aretz must be liable to separate tithes from it.

Because he sent throughout all the borders of Israel and saw that they were separating only the great teruma.

But with regard to tithes they were treating the matter lightly and not separating them.

And learn from this that they were concerned to decree concerning dmai produce only with regard to tithes, and not with regard to teruma.

Rather, it is not difficult.

Here,

the beraita that permits muzzling with teruma speaks

of certain terumat maaser—

after they separate first maaser from the tevel and give it to the Levite, the Levite separates terumat maaser from the first maaser, and its law is the law of teruma, and it is forbidden to an animal.

Here,

the beraita that prohibits muzzling with teruma speaks

of terumat maaser

separated from the first maaser of

dmai,

and by Torah law it does not have the status of teruma, and it is forbidden to muzzle the animal threshing it.

They asked Rav Sheshet:

An animal that

was eating and was defecating,

because the food was difficult for its intestines and caused it to defecate,

what is

the law regarding muzzling it from eating, so that it should not suffer illness in its intestines?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Is what the Torah prohibited to muzzle

because it is beneficial to it,

because eating at the time of threshing is beneficial and healthy for it,

and

therefore

here,

when its eating causes it to defecate, so that

it is not beneficial to it,

it is permitted to prevent it from eating?

Or perhaps,

the prohibition against muzzling is because

it sees

and suffers,

for it sees the grain that it is threshing, and if it is muzzled from eating, it suffers.

And this

animal that is defecating, although the food harms it, nevertheless

it sees and suffers.

Rav Sheshet said to them: You have learned it,

we learned this matter in a beraita, and from it the uncertainty can be resolved:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says:

With an animal that he muzzled, it is not effective for rescuing him from the prohibition that he hang at its neck a basket with a species other than that with which it is threshing, for it to eat from it. Rather,

he brings vetches and hangs them for it,

because

the vetches are beneficial to it,

beneficial and good for its health,

more than everything,

even more than the grain with which it is threshing.

Learn from it,

from the fact that Rabbi Shimon permitted hanging vetches at its neck, that the reason for the prohibition against muzzling is

because it is beneficial to it,

and when he hangs vetches for it, which are more beneficial to it, there is no prohibition of “You shall not muzzle.”

Learn from it,

the uncertainty is resolved: it is permitted to muzzle it when the food is not beneficial to it, but rather causes it intestinal illness and defecation.

They raised a question before them: What is the law concerning a person saying to a gentile, “Muzzle my cow and thresh with it

your grain”?] There is certainly no prohibition of “You shall not muzzle” in this, as we learned in a beraita: A gentile threshing with the ox of a Jew does not violate. But it is possible that there is in this the prohibition of instructing a gentile, which the Sages prohibited a Jew, concerning an act forbidden for him to perform, from telling a gentile to perform it. And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say that when we say,

when do we say that

instructing a gentile

to perform a forbidden act is a prohibition of

“shevut,”

a rabbinic prohibition?

These words

[this applies specifically]

with regard to Shabbat, whose prohibition

is severe, and one who violates it is liable to

stoning. But muzzling, which is a prohibition of a negative commandment

and whose punishment is only lashes,

not

did they impose the stringency of prohibiting a Jew from telling a gentile to perform the prohibition.

Or perhaps, it is no different.

And the Sages prohibited instructing a gentile to perform a prohibition even in the case of a mere negative commandment.

Come and hear

from what we learned:

A gentile threshing with a Jew’s cow does not transgress on account of “You shall not muzzle,”

since the one who muzzles it is the gentile.

And from the wording “does not transgress,” it follows that only

transgression he does not transgress

the negative commandment of “You shall not muzzle.”

But there is a prohibition.

Because he instructed the gentile to perform a prohibition, to muzzle the animal, and it is forbidden to instruct him in this way, on account of the rabbinic prohibition of instructing a gentile.

The Gemara rejects this:

By rights, there is no prohibition either.

For there is no prohibition of instructing a gentile with regard to a negative commandment. And the fact that the beraita used the wording “does not transgress,” whose implication is that he does not transgress the negative commandment but it is nevertheless forbidden to do so, is

since

because

it taught in its latter clause, “a Jew threshing with a gentile’s cow,”

which he rented from him in order to thresh with it and muzzled it,

transgresses

the negative commandment of “You shall not muzzle”;

it taught in its first clause

concerning a gentile threshing his produce with a Jew’s cow and muzzling it at the Jew’s instruction, with the wording

does not transgress

the prohibition of “You shall not muzzle,” even though there it is entirely permitted, and not merely that he does not transgress the prohibition.

Come and hear

from what

they sent to Samuel’s father: