Bava Metzia 177

מכדי כל מילי איתנהו בחסימה דילפינן שור שור משבת א"כ לכתוב רחמנא לא תדוש בחסימה שור דכתב רחמנא למה לי

Now consider: everything is included in this prohibition of muzzling, because we employ the analogy of 'ox' written here and in the case of the Sabbath:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 54b. Just as 'ox' is singled out in connection with the Sabbath, yet at the same time Scripture adds that all animals must rest (Deut. V. 14), so by 'ox' here all animals are meant. ');">¹</span>

לאקושי חוסם לנחסם ונחסם לחוסם מה חוסם אוכל במחובר אף נחסם אוכל במחובר ומה נחסם אוכל בתלוש אף חוסם אוכל בתלוש

then Scripture should have written, 'Thou shalt not thresh with muzzled [animals]:' why write, 'ox'? To assimilate the muzzler [sc. man] to the muzzled [sc. ox and animals in general], and vice versa. Just as the muzzler [man] may eat of what is attached, so the muzzled may eat of what is attached; and just as the muzzled may eat of what is detached, so the muzzler may eat of what is detached.

ת"ר דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שגידולי קרקע (ובשעת גמר מלאכה) ופועל אוכל בו אף כל שגידולי קרקע פועל אוכל בו יצא החולב והמחבץ והמגבן שאין גידולי קרקע ואין פועל אוכל בו

Our Rabbis taught: 'Threshing':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law forbidding the muzzling of an ox during 'threshing', 'treading out the corn', from which it was deduced that both man and beast may eat of that upon which they labour. ');">²</span>

למה לי (דברים כג, כה) מכי תבא בכרם רעך נפקא איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב קמה לרבות כל בעלי קמה לרבות נמי מידי דלאו גדולי קרקע נינהו קמ"ל

just as threshing is peculiar in that it applies to what is grown in the earth, and the labourer may eat whilst employed thereon; so also, of everything which is grown in the earth, the labourer may eat. Hence milking, pressing thick milk,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the process of making a certain kind of cheese, ');">³</span>

תניא אידך דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שבשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו אף כל שהוא בשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו יצא המנכש בשומים ובבצלים הואיל ואין גמר מלאכה אין פועל אוכל בהם

and cheese-making are excluded: since they are not earth-grown, the labourer may not partake thereof. But why is this needed? Does it not follow from, 'When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard'? — It is necessary: I might think, since 'kamah' is written to include everything that stands upright,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. ');">⁴</span>

למה לי (דברים כג, כה) מואל כליך לא תתן נפקא לא צריכא אע"ג דקא משליף קטיני מביני אלימי

it also embraces what is not earth-grown; therefore we are taught otherwise.

תניא אידך דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו למעשר פועל אוכל בו אף כל שלא נגמרה מלאכתו למעשר פועל אוכל בו יצא הבודל בתמרים ובגרוגרות הואיל ונגמרה מלאכתו למעשר אין פועל אוכל בו

Another [Baraitha] teaches: 'Threshing': just as threshing is peculiar in that it is an employment at the completion of its labour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of harvesting. ');">⁵</span>

והתניא הבודל בתמרים ובגרוגרות פועל אוכל בו אמר רב פפא כי תניא ההיא בתוחלני

and the worker may eat whilst engaged thereon; so during every thing which is done at the completion of its labour, the worker may eat. Hence weeding amongst garlic and onions is excluded: as it is not the completion of the work,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of producing these vegetables. ');">⁶</span>

תניא אידך דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו לחלה ופועל אוכל בו אף כל דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו לחלה פועל אוכל בו יצא הלש והמקטף והאופה שנגמרה מלאכתו לחלה דאין פועל אוכל בו והלא נגמרה מלאכתו למעשר

the labourer may not eat. But why is this necessary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the analogy from threshing. ');">⁷</span>

לא קשיא בחוצה לארץ עסקינן דליכא מעשר אי הכי חלה נמי ליכא אלא לעולם בארץ ולא קשיא בשבע שכיבשו ובשבע שחילקו דאמר מר שבע שכיבשו ושבע שחילקו נתחייבו בחלה ולא נתחייבו במעשר

Does it not follow from, but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 25. V. p. 505, n. 9. ');">⁸</span>

מידי מעשר קא גרים גמר מלאכה קא גרים

— It is necessary, [to intimate that he may not eat] even when removing small onions from amongst large ones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., onions which never grow to a large size. These were removed to give the others room for more vigorous growth. Now, although these are 'Put into the employer's basket,' the labourer may not eat, not being engaged upon the completion of the work. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר רבינא כרוך ותני דיש מה דיש מיוחד דבר שלא נגמר מלאכתו למעשר ולחלה ופועל אוכל בו אף כל שלא נגמר מלאכתו למעשר ולחלה פועל אוכל בו

Another [Baraitha] taught: 'Threshing': just as threshing is peculiar as being a process which does not complete its work [to render it liable] to tithes, and the labourer may eat thereof; so also during everything which does not complete the work [to subject it] to tithes, the labourer may eat. Hence separating dates and dried figs [sticking together] is excluded: since its work is finished in respect of tithes, the worker may not eat. But has it not been taught: When separating dates and dried figs, the worker may partake thereof? — R. Papa replied: That refers to half-ripe dates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a kind of date and fig which does not fully ripen on the tree but only in the house. The 'separating' spoken of here means before they have ripened in the house, and so are not finished in respect of tithes. ');">¹⁰</span>

איבעיא להו פועל מהו שיהבהב באור ויאכל מי הוי כענבים ודבר אחר או לא תא שמע רשאי בעה"ב להשקות פועלים יין כדי שלא יאכלו ענבים הרבה רשאין פועלין לטבל פיתם בציר כדי שיאכלו ענבים הרבה

Another [Baraitha] taught: 'Threshing': just as threshing is peculiar in that it is a process which does not finish its work for <i>hallah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹¹</span> and the labourer may eat whilst engaged thereon; so during every process which does not finish its work in respect of <i>hallah</i>, the labourer may eat. Thus kneading, shaping [the dough] and baking are excluded; since its work is completed in respect of <i>hallah</i>, the worker may not eat whilst engaged thereon. But its work is complete in respect of tithes!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, as stated above, that alone forbids the worker to eat; why then base the ruling upon hallah? ');">¹²</span> — There is no difficulty: the reference is to the Diaspora,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'outside the land,' sc. Palestine. ');">¹³</span> where there are no tithes. If so, <i>hallah</i> too is not practised!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a small Portion of dough is separated and burnt even in the Diaspora, that is only symbolical; but the real law of hallah requires that a definite portion be given to the priests, and that is not practised outside Palestine. ');">¹⁴</span> — But after all, this refers to Palestine, yet there is no difficulty. For the reference is to the seven years of conquest and seven years of division.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Baraitha treats of the fourteen years during which Palestine was conquered and allotted to the tribes by Joshua. ');">¹⁵</span> For a Master said: In the seven years of conquest and the seven of division there was a liability to <i>hallah</i>, but not to tithes. But is it the tithing that is responsible? It is the finishing of the work that is responsible!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As deduced by analogy from 'threshing'. And therefore, whether the law of tithes is in force or not, once the stage of threshing or its equivalent is reached, when there would be a liability to tithes if the law were in force, the labourer may not eat. And so the difficulty remains: why exclude kneading on the grounds of liability to hallah, seeing that threshing preceded it? ');">¹⁶</span> — But, said Rabina, combine [the two Baraithas] and read [thus]: 'Threshing': just as threshing is peculiar in that its work is not complete in respect of tithes and <i>hallah</i>, and the worker may eat whilst engaged thereon, so during everything, the work of which is not complete in respect of tithes and <i>hallah</i>, the labourer may eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if it is a process which completes the work for tithes, and there is no further stage to subject it to hallah, e.g., the separating of dates, the labourer may not eat. If, however, its final stage is liability to hallah, e.g., wheat, the last stage of which is the kneading, when it is subject to hallah, if the worker is engaged upon an earlier stage, though it is already liable to tithes, he may eat. Rashi and Tosaf. ');">¹⁷</span> The scholars propounded: Is the labourer permitted to parch [the ears of corn] at a fire and eat them? Is it the equivalent of [eating] grapes together with something else,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden. Supra. ');">¹⁸</span> or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it may be argued that since grapes may not be eaten with bread, because thereby an unreasonably large quantity is consumed, the same holds good of parched corn, which is more palatable than unparched. ');">¹⁹</span> — Come and hear: An employer may give his employees wine to drink, that they should not eat many grapes; [on the other hand,] the labourers may dip their bread in brine, that they should eat many grapes!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The moistened bread creating an appetite. So, by analogy, a labourer may parch the corn. ');">²⁰</span>