Bava Metzia 91b — the Talmud in English

As it was taught:

If it had been stated, “You shall not mate your animal,”

and the verse had not specified that the prohibition of mating is with mixed species,

I would say: A person may not hold

the animal when a male mounts it,

lest he come to improper thoughts. And even when mating a species with its own species.

The verse therefore states, “mixed species,”

that the prohibition is specifically when he mates it with a species unlike its own.

And Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami proves:

Is it not

[is it not learned]

by inference

that the beraita permitted holding the animal at the time of mating specifically with its own species, implying:

with mixed species, holding

the animal itself

also is not permitted,

even though he does not actually insert the male organ into the female.

The Gemara rejects this:

What is “holding”? —

Insertion.

And why does it call it “holding”? —

A refined expression

[a clean expression].

Rav Yehuda said: With a species with its own species, it is permitted to insert

the male organ into the female

like a brush into a tube, and even on account of promiscuity

lest he come to improper thoughts

there is none.

And although we learned: A person may not look at a male donkey and a female donkey when they are mating with one another, and all the more so it is forbidden to mate them by hand, here, since the animals are his, the matter is different.

What is the reason? —

He is occupied with his work

[busy with his work], and is not free to entertain improper thoughts.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami objected: If it had been stated, “You shall not mate your animal,”

and the Torah had not said specifically “mixed species,”

I would say: A person may not hold the animal so that a male will mount it.

The verse therefore states, “mixed species,”

that the Torah prohibited this only with mixed species.

And the Gemara infers:

It is mixed species that is prohibited. But a species

with its own species is permitted,

and there is no concern here lest he come to improper thoughts.

And with a species with its own species also, holding is permitted, but insertion is not.

Holding the animal specifically is permitted, but

insertion

of the male into the female

is not.

Lest he come to improper thoughts.

This is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who says that a householder occupied with his work is permitted even to insert.

And the Gemara answers:

What is “holding”? Insertion.

And in this the beraita said that with mixed species it is prohibited, and with a species with its own species it is permitted.

And why does it call it “holding”

and not insertion? Because

a refined expression

it used, a clean expression.

Rav Ashi said: This matter, they asked me in the house of

[they asked this question from the household of]

Rav Neḥemya:

The Exilarch: What is the ruling regarding bringing a species, its own species, and a species unlike it into an enclosure,

is there in this a prohibition of mating mixed species?

Since there is one of its species, it follows its species,

and there is no need to be concerned that by bringing the species unlike it as well, they will cause the mating of mixed species.

Or perhaps, even so, no;

lest it mate with the species unlike it, and it will emerge that the one who brings them together into the enclosure is the cause.

And they resolved it for them as prohibited, not in accordance with the halakha,

and according to the essential law it is permitted, but I imposed stringency upon them

on account of the promiscuity of the servants,

out of concern lest they come to treat lightly the prohibition of mating mixed species.

Mishna:

If the laborer

does

his work

with his hands, but not

with his feet.

Or if the laborer worked

with his feet,

for example, he was treading grapes in the winepress,

but not with his hands.

Even if the laborer worked only with his shoulder,

as he was carrying the produce,

he may eat.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A laborer may not eat until he works with his hands and with his feet.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses it:

From where do we know,

from where did the first tanna learn that in every manner in which the laborer works, he may eat, even if he does not work with his hands and with his feet?

As it is stated: “When you come

[for every type of coming to work]

into your fellow’s vineyard, and you eat grapes,”

and the meaning of the verse is that

with whatever he does

[with whatever he does], even if he works only with his hands, he has the right to eat.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Until he works with his hands and with his feet:

And the Gemara discusses it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?

Because the laborer who is permitted to eat was juxtaposed

to an ox,

like an ox, which it is forbidden to muzzle.

Just as an ox,

the prohibition against muzzling it was not stated

until it works with its hands and with its feet,

for the prohibition was stated only regarding muzzling it during its threshing, and the manner of an ox’s threshing is with its hands and with its feet.

So too, a laborer,

may not eat

until he works with his hands and with his feet.

Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a question: If he threshes with geese and chickens, according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits muzzling an ox during its threshing only when it threshes with its hands and with its feet together,

what is the ruling

regarding muzzling geese that thresh only with their feet?

Is “with its hands and with its feet,” which was stated regarding an ox, referring to

we require it to work with all its strength,

for the prohibition of muzzling,

and here there is that.

The geese, too, that thresh with their feet, work with all their strength, and it is forbidden to muzzle them while they thresh with their feet.

Or perhaps we require with its hands and with its feet

for the prohibition of muzzling, like an ox itself that works with its hands and with its feet,

and here there is not

in geese and chickens, since they thresh only with their feet, and there is no prohibition against muzzling them.

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: Laborers

who tread grapes to make them into wine,

before they have gone back and forth in the winepress,

and the flow of wine from the grapes is not yet recognizable,

may eat grapes.

But they may not drink wine,

for their work is not yet with wine, but only with grapes that are softening in preparation for the continuation of the treading that will extract wine from them.

Once they have gone back and forth in the winepress,

and much wine has flowed from the grapes, they have already reached the stage of making wine. And those who make wine

may eat both grapes,

for in the end the treading is performed on grapes, although the main work is the wine,

and wine.

Mishna:

If the laborer

works with figs, he may not eat grapes.

This is so even though he was also hired to gather grapes. In any event, since at present he is working with figs, he is forbidden to eat from the grapes, since at present the grapes are not of the type of his work.

And likewise, if he was a laborer working

with grapes, he may not eat figs,

even though he was also hired to gather figs.

But

the laborer is permitted to be

restraining himself

for the time being, to make himself hungry at the beginning of his work, from eating the produce,

until he reaches the place of the beautiful ones, and he eats.

This is so even though, because of the hunger with which he made himself hungry, since until now he refrained from eating, he eats much produce from the beautiful ones.

And regarding all laborers,

they did not say

that they are permitted to eat from the produce of the owner

except at the time of their work,

and not that they should interrupt their work for the sake of eating.

But on account of returning a lost object to the owners,

so that the eating during the work should not interfere with the laborers’ work,

they said

the Sages enacted

that laborers eat while walking from one row to another,

from one row of trees to the next, even though by Torah law they do not eat then,

and

they likewise enacted that laborers eat at the winepress

when they return from the winepress.

And in the case of a donkey, when it is unloading,

it is forbidden to muzzle it from eating the produce of the load, by Torah law.

Gemara:

The law of our Mishna, that one who works with figs is forbidden to eat from the grapes, was stated principally regarding a laborer who will ultimately work with grapes as well. For otherwise, it is obvious that one who works with figs does not eat grapes, as the Gemara learned from the verse, “And into your vessel you shall not put”: When you are putting into the owner’s vessels, you eat. And this is when you are working and gathering his vineyard. But one who gathers only figs—what does he have to do with grapes?

And necessarily, the case in our Mishna is principally regarding a laborer who was also hired to gather grapes. And our Mishna came to teach that since at present he is working with figs, with regard to the grapes he is still considered like a stranger, and he has no right to eat from them until he begins to work with them.

And if so, we must discuss, regarding every laborer who comes to work in the field, at what time he is considered a laborer with regard to this thing, even though he is not presently actually working with it. And the following discussion comes to discuss this.

They raised a dilemma:

A laborer

working on this vine—what is the ruling: may he eat from another vine,

one carrying choice produce from the vine on which he is working? Is he permitted to go and cut a beautiful cluster of grapes from it, return to this vine on which he is working, and eat the beautiful grapes, even though at present he is still not harvesting the grapes of the beautiful vine?

That is to say, in order to determine what he is considered a laborer with regard to, is it sufficient that

“of the type that you put into the owner’s vessels” is required,

and the type of produce with which he works is all considered the type with which he works, and therefore one who works on one tree is considered one who is now working on all of them,

and here there is

“of the type with which you work,” and one harvesting from one vine may eat from another vine.

Or perhaps,

specifically

from what,

from that very tree itself

that you put into the owner’s vessels is required, and here there is not!

And the Gemara comes to resolve that the laborer may eat from all the vines, and he is not required to restrict his eating to only the vine on which he is presently working, because:

And if you should say

[Rashi’s version: And if you say], a laborer

working on this vine may not eat from another vine,

even though it is all one species, this is difficult:

If so, an ox attached,

which we learned above from the verses that it eats,

how does it eat!?

After all, the ox’s work is not actually with that which is attached, but it is carrying the produce, which is taken from that which is attached, and they load it onto the cart harnessed [by means of a yoke] to the ox, and the cart is behind the ox.

And it emerges that the vine adjacent to the cart, from which they load the clusters onto the cart, is behind the ox, whereas the produce that the ox can eat at the time when they load the cart behind it is only the produce of the vine located before it. It emerges that it eats from another tree !

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: With a trailing branch,

the case here is one in which there is a long branch extending from the vine from which they load onto it, all the way to the mouth of the ox, and it is forbidden to muzzle it only from that branch.

And the Gemara brings proof to resolve the dilemma:

Come and hear

from what we learned:

If he was working with figs, he may not eat grapes,

because his occupation is with figs, which are another species.

And it implies:

Figs and figs,

which are of the same species,

analogous to figs and grapes,

that is, figs from different trees,

he may eat.

And if you say that one working on this vine does not eat from another vine, how can you find

a laborer eating from different trees?

After all, he eats only if he works on that same tree, and how can there be a laborer working on two trees at once!?

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: With a trained vine.

Our Mishna is speaking of a vine trained over a fig tree, and for the sake of gathering the figs he must lift and separate the branches of the vine so that they will not obstruct him. Were the vine not another species, he would be considered one who also works with it, and he would be permitted to eat from it. And similarly, with figs and figs trained over one another, he eats from both trees.

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned:

But

he is permitted to be

restraining himself

from eating,

until he reaches the place of the beautiful ones, and he eats.

And if you say that one working on this vine eats from another vine,

why should he restrain himself for the time being until he reaches the place of the beautiful ones?

Let him go

at once, at the beginning of his work, to the beautiful produce,

and bring,

and bring beautiful produce for himself,

and let him eat!

Rather, a proof may be brought from here that one working on this vine does not eat from another vine. Therefore, since he is not yet working on the beautiful trees, even though they are of the same species, he does not eat from them.

The Gemara rejects this:

There, on account of interruption of work, the dilemma was not raised

that it is forbidden for him to be idle from his work in order to go and bring produce for himself from the distant trees.

The dilemma was raised for us when he has his wife and his sons

who bring it for him, and he is not idle from his work,

what

is the ruling?

Come and hear

from what we learned in our Mishna:

And all of them, they said it only at the time of work.

It is forbidden to interrupt the work in order to eat from the produce.

But on account of returning a lost object to the owners,

so that his laborers should work without the interruption of eating in the middle,

they said

[the Sages enacted] that

laborers eat while walking from one row to another, and when they return from the winepress.

Even though by Torah law they have no right to eat then.

They assumed,

the members of the bet midrash assumed, that the

one walking

in the field, while walking to the tree on which he must work,

is considered like one performing an action,

that the walking too is included in the work, and his law in this regard is like that of a laborer who has already begun working, and he has the right to eat.

And

nevertheless, only

on account of returning a lost object to the owners is he eating

the laborer who walks from one row of trees to another to gather, and this is from the enactment of the Sages, but

by Torah law, he does not eat!

It follows,

necessarily, that from here there is proof that the

one working on this vine,

[the vine to which he is going to harvest]

does not eat from another vine

except on account of the enactment of the Sages.

The Gemara rejects this:

No, in truth I will say to you: One working on this vine eats from another vine.

And the one walking,

for which the Sages had to enact that he eat, is because he is

not considered like one performing an action,

and without the enactment of the Sages he does not eat except at the time of work.

Some say,

this is how it should be taught:

They assumed

in the bet midrash that

one walking is not considered like one performing an action.

And this is the reason that by Torah law he does not eat

one who walks from one row to another,

because he is not considered like one performing an action.

And it implies:

But one performing an action eats by Torah law,

even though his work is on the vine to which he is walking to harvest, whereas the produce in his hand, from which he eats, is from another vine.

It follows,

it is proven that the

one working on this vine eats from another vine.

The Gemara rejects this:

No. In truth I will say to you: One working on this vine does not eat from another vine,

and therefore one who walks to another vine would not eat without the enactment of the Sages.

And one walking is considered like one performing an action.