Related%20passage for Bava Metzia 176:17

רבינא אמר לא אדם בתלוש ולא שור במחובר צריכי קראי דכתי' (דברים כה, ד) לא תחסום שור בדישו

may nevertheless eat of what is detached; then a man, who may eat of what is attached,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., permission is explicitly granted: Deut. XXIII, 25f. ');">¹⁶</span> may surely eat of what is detached! As for an ox, [it may be argued] that [sc. the privilege mentioned] is because you are forbidden to muzzle him; can you assume the same of man, whom you are not forbidden to muzzle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 509, n. 5. ');">¹⁷</span> (But then let the muzzling of man be interdicted, <i>a fortiori</i>, from an ox: if you must not muzzle an ox, whose life you are not bidden to preserve, then man, whose life you are bidden to preserve,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXV, 36. ');">¹⁸</span> you must surely not muzzle him! — Scripture teacheth, 'As thine own person', so is the person of the labourer: just as 'thine own person', if you muzzle [yourself], you are free [from penalty], so also, if you muzzle the labourer, you are free.) Then [the question remains], whence do we know that man [may eat when engaged upon] what is attached? — Scripture saith, '[When thou comest into] the standing corn&nbsp;… [but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's] standing corn,' — twice: since its purpose is not to teach that man may eat of what is attached,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being unnecessary to state 'standing corn' twice for that purpose. ');">¹⁹</span> apply it to man, in respect of what is detached. R. Ammi said: That man may eat of what is detached, no [redundant] verse is necessary. For it is written, 'When thou contest into thy neighbour's vineyard': does this not hold good even if he was hired for porterage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for carrying the cut-off grapes to the press or elsewhere; for Scripture does not specify the nature of the work. ');">²⁰</span> And yet the Torah states that he may eat [of the grapes]. Whence do we know than an ox [may eat] of what is attached? — It follows, a <i>minori</i>, from man: if man, who does not eat of what is detached,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 510, n. 7. ');">²¹</span> may eat of what is attached; then an ox, which may eat of what is detached, may surely eat of what is attached! — As for man, [may it not be argued,] that [sc., the privilege mentioned] is because you are bidden to preserve his life; will you say the same of an ox, whose life you are not bidden to preserve? (But then infer a duty to preserve the life of an ox,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., until it is actually needed for food, one should be bidden to keep it in good health and save it from an unnecessary death. ');">²²</span> a <i>minori</i>: if man, though you are not forbidden to muzzle him, you are commanded to preserve his life; then an ox, which you may not muzzle, you are surely commanded to keep it alive! — Scripture saith, <i>That thy brother may live with thee</i>, — thy brother, but not an ox.) Then [the question remains,] whence do we know that an ox may eat of what is attached? — Scripture saith, '[When thou contest into] thy neighbour's [vineyard]&nbsp;… [When thou comest into the standing corn of] thy neighbour' — twice: since it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The repetition of 'thy neighbor'. ');">²³</span> is unnecessary for man in respect of what is attached, apply it to an ox in respect of what is attached. Rabina said: Neither for a man, in respect of what is detached, nor for an ox, in respect of what is attached, are the [above] verses necessary; because it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, when he treadeth out the corn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 4. ');">²⁴</span>

Explore related%20passage for Bava Metzia 176:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.