Commentary for Bava Metzia 179:16

תא שמע דשלחו ליה לאבוה דשמואל הלין תורי

Another alternative is this: there is no difficulty: one refers to a certain tithe, the other to a doubtful tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H]. Corn purchased from the ignorant peasants, who were very lax in their rendering of tithes, had to be tithed by the purchaser, for fear that the vendor had not done so. This was called a doubtful tithe, and required only by Rabbinical law; therefore the prohibition of muzzling applies; v. p. 517, n. 2. ');">¹⁶</span> Now that you have arrived at this [solution], there is no contradiction between the two rulings on <i>terumah</i> too: the one refers to certain <i>terumah</i>, the other to doubtful <i>terumah</i>. Now, that is well with respect to a doubtful tithe, which exists. But is there a doubtful <i>terumah</i>? Has it not been taught: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. John Hyrcanus. ');">¹⁷</span> also abolished the widuy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'confession'; v. Deut. XXVI, 1-15. The declaration referred to is called widuy. But John Hyrcanus abolished it, because of the verse, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, 'Them' refers to the first tithe, but according to the Talmud, after the return from Babylon Ezra enacted that it should be given to the priests, as a punishment to the Levites for their reluctance to return to the Holy Land. Since one could not truthfully say, I have given them unto the Levite, the recital was abolished. ');">¹⁸</span> and enacted the law of <i>demai</i>. Because he sent [messengers] throughout the territory of Israel, and saw that only the great <i>terumah</i> was rendered!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of the dread of the penalty involved — death at the hands of Heaven. The separation of terumah made by the Israelites and given to the priests was called 'the great terumah', to distinguish it from 'the terumah of the tithe', i.e., a tenth part given by the Levite, of the tithe he received, to the priest, and which had the higher sanctity of terumah. Since, then, even the irreligious rendered the great terumah, the law of demai would not have been enacted in respect thereto. ');">¹⁹</span> — But there is no difficulty: the one refers to <i>terumah</i> of the certain tithe; the other to <i>terumah</i> of the doubtful tithe. The scholars put a problem to R. Shesheth: What if it ate and excreted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through suffering with diarrhoea. ');">²⁰</span> Is it [sc. the prohibition of muzzling] because it [the crops] benefits her, whereas here it does not; or because it sees and is distressed [through inability to eat], and here too it is distressed [if muzzled]? — R. Shesheth replied: We have learnt it: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: He must bring vetches and hang them up for her, because these are better for her than anything else. This proves that the reason is that it benefits her. This proves it. The scholars propounded: May one say to a heathen, 'Muzzle my cow and thresh therewith'? Do we say, the principle that an instruction to a heathen is a shebuth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'rest, abstention from work', and is mainly applied to types of work which, though not falling within the definition of labour forbidden on the Sabbath, are nevertheless prohibited as being out of keeping with its sacredness. To instruct a Gentile to work on the Sabbath is a shebuth, i.e., not actual labour, yet interdicted as not harmonising with the Sabbath. This is an instance where one may not instruct a Gentile to do what is forbidden to oneself, and the problem here is whether this prohibition applies to all forbidden acts. ');">²¹</span> applies only to the Sabbath, [work] being forbidden on pain of stoning;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is unseemly to bid a Gentile do it. ');">²²</span> but not to muzzling, which is prohibited merely by a negative precept: or perhaps there is no difference? — Come and hear: If a heathen threshes with the cow of an Israelite, he [the Israelite] does not infringe the precept, Thou shalt not muzzle! [This implies,] He merely does not infringe it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that he incurs punishment. ');">²³</span> yet it is forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For an Israelite to bid him to do this. ');">²⁴</span> — Actually, it is not even forbidden; but because the second clause states that if an Israelite threshes with a heathen's cow, he does infringe;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is punished. ');">²⁵</span> the first clause too teaches that he does not infringe. Come and hear: For they [the scholars] sent to Samuel's father: What of those oxen

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 179:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.