Quoting%20commentary for Bava Metzia 174:22

אמר רבי ינאי אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר

But now that we infer [these laws] from 'sickle' and kamah, what is the need of, 'When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard'?21 — To teach its [detailed] laws, replied Raba. As it has been taught: When thou comest — 'coming' is mentioned here; and elsewhere too it is said, [Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant … At this day thou shalt give him his hire,] neither shall the sun come down upon it:22 just as there Scripture refers to an employee, so here too. 'Into thy neighbour's vineyard', but not into a heathen's vineyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text has [H], Cuthean, but under the influence of the censorship this word was frequently substituted for Gentile. The deduction is, only in an Israelite's vineyard is the labourer enjoined, but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel, but not in a Gentile's. ');">23 Now, on the view that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden, it is well: but if it be held permitted — does an employee need [a verse to grant him permission]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The robbery of a heathen, even if permitted, is only so in theory, but in fact it is forbidden as constituting a 'hillul hashem', profanation of the Divine Name. But the consensus of opinion is that it is Biblically forbidden too, i.e., even in theory; v. H.M. 348, 2, and commentaries a.l.; Yad, Genebah, 1, 2; 6, 8; v. however, n. 9. ');">24 — He interprets 'into thy neighbour's vineyard', as excluding a vineyard of hekdesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The labourer is not permitted to pluck and eat grapes from a vineyard belonging to the sanctuary. [The interpretation of the passage follows Rashi, who was driven to adopt it, having regard to the text he had before him. The difficulty of this interpretation is, however, evident. It not only involves a difference in the explanation of the same deduction as applying to a heathen (v. n. 7) and as applying to hekdesh, but it runs counter to the passage in Sanh. (v. Sonc. ed. pp. 388f), which makes it clear that robbery of a heathen was never condoned, hut always regarded as an offence, though it was non-actionable. Moreover, the condemnation of taking usury from a heathen (supra 70b) should be sufficient to dispel all doubt as to the Rabbinic attitude on the matter. A solution to the Problem is supplied by the variant (v. D.S. a.l.): 'Now on the view that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden, it is well; but if it is held to be permitted, what can be said?' The argument would accordingly run as follows: 'If it is held that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden (to be kept) and is then on all fours with that of an Israelite, it is understood that the Law has permitted the employee to pluck and eat the grapes only in an Israelite's vineyard, but not if the vineyard belonged to a heathen; but if the robbery of a heathen is permitted, i.e., to be kept, is it possible that the Law, whilst allowing a delinquent to enjoy the property stolen from a heathen, should forbid the employee to pluck the grapes from the employer's vineyard?'] ');">25 'Then thou mayest eat', but not suck out [the juice]; 'grapes', but not grapes and something else;26 'as thine own person', as the person of the employers, so the person of the employee: just as thou thyself27 mayest eat [thereof] and art exempt [from tithes], so the employee too may eat and is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until the grapes have been turned into wine and conducted into the pit, whither the expressed juice runs, their owner may eat of them without tithing. Should he, however, sell them before that, they are immediately subject to tithes, which must be rendered by the purchaser before eating. Now, I might think that since the employee eats them in part remuneration for his labour, they are as bought with his labour, and therefore may not be eaten without tithing. Therefore this word [H] (lit., 'as thy own soul,' 'person') intimates that he is on the same footing in this respect as the owner. ');">28 'To thy satisfaction': but not gluttonously; 'but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel': [only] when thou canst put it into thine employer's baskets, thou mayest eat, but not otherwise.29 R. Jannai said: Tebel30 is not liable to tithes

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Metzia 174:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse