Bava Metzia 179

והדשות בתרומה ומעשר אינו עובר משום בל תחסום אבל מפני מראית העין מביא בול מאותו המין ותולה לה בטרסקלין שבפיה ר"ש בן יוחאי אומר מביא כרשינים ותולה לה שהכרשינים יפות לה מן הכל

or thresh <i>terumah</i> and tithes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though stated above that at the stage of threshing there is no liability of tithes, yet the owner can separate the terumah and the tithes, if he wishes, whilst the grain is in the ear; in that case the cows thresh ears of corn that are actually terumah or tithes. ');">¹</span>

ורמינהי פרות המרכסות בתבואה אינו עובר משום בל תחסום והדשות בתרומה ומעשר עובר משום בל תחסום ונכרי הדש בפרתו של ישראל אינו עובר משום בל תחסום וישראל הדש בפרתו של נכרי עובר משום בל תחסום קשיא תרומה אתרומה קשיא מעשר אמעשר

there is no prohibition of, <i>Thou shalt not muzzle [the ox when he treadeth out</i> — i.e., threshes — <i>his corn</i>];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 4; stamping, because that is a later stage. With respect to terumah, (v. Glos.) etc., two reasons are given: (i) Since threshing of terumah is not usual, the injunction could not have applied to it (Rashi); (ii)&nbsp;… when he treadeth out his corn, excludes terumah, which is entirely prohibited to an Israelite (i.e., not a priest), and tithes, which are considered as sacred property, though not forbidden, and therefore not 'his' (Tosaf.). ');">²</span>

בשלמא תרומה אתרומה לא קשיא כאן בתרומה כאן בגידולי תרומה אלא מעשר אמעשר קשיא

but for the sake of appearances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one who sees it should not think he is transgressing. ');">³</span>

וכי תימא מעשר אמעשר נמי לא קשיא כאן במעשר כאן בגידולי מעשר בשלמא גידולי תרומה תרומה אלא גידולי מעשר חולין נינהו דתנן גידולי טבל וגידולי מעשר שני חולין

he must bring a handful of that species and hang it on the nosebag at its mouth. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: He must bring vetches and hang them up for it, because these are better for it than anything else. Now the following contradicts it: When cows are stamping on grain, there is no prohibition of, Thou shalt not muzzle; but when they thresh <i>terumah</i> or tithes, there is. When a heathen threshes with an Israelite's cow, that prohibition is not transgressed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Jew does not transgress by permitting the Gentile to muzzle his cow. ');">⁴</span>

אלא לא קשיא הא במעשר ראשון הא במעשר שני ואיבעית אימא הא והא במעשר שני ולא קשיא הא רבי מאיר הא רבי יהודה

but if an Israelite threshes with a heathen's beast, he does. Thus the rulings on <i>terumah</i> are contradictory, and likewise those on tithes. Now, as for the rulings on <i>terumah</i>, it is well, and there is no difficulty: the one refers to <i>terumah</i> [itself]; the other to the produce of <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With respect to the former there is no prohibitions as explained on p. 516, n. 7. But if it were sown and produced a further crop, Biblically speaking it is not terumah at all, but ordinary hullin, though by a Rabbinical enactment it ranks as such. Since the Rabbis cannot nullify a Scriptural prohibition, the injunction, Thou shalt not muzzle, remains in force. The reason for this Rabbinical measure was that otherwise the Israelite might evade his obligations by separating terumah and then resowing it. Also, should a priest possess defiled terumah, which may not be eaten, he might keep it for resowing, when likewise it reverts to hullin by Scriptural law; but whilst keeping it he might forget its defiled nature and eat it. ');">⁵</span>

הא ר"מ דאמר מעשר ממון גבוה הוא הא רבי יהודה דאמר מעשר שני ממון הדיוט הוא

but as for the rulings on tithes, these are certainly difficult. And should you answer, there is no contradiction in the rulings on tithes either, one referring to tithes and the other to the produce of tithes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of terumah. ');">⁶</span>

היכי דמי כגון שהקדימו בשבלין

— as for the produce of <i>terumah</i>, the answer is fitting, since it is <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by Rabbinical law, and therefore it is necessary to teach that in this respect the Scriptural law applies. ');">⁷</span>

ולר' יהודה והא בעי חומה כגון שדש לפנים מחומת בית פאגי

but the produce of tithes is <i>hullin</i>. For we learnt: The produce of <i>tebel</i> and the produce of the second tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two tithes were separated; the first, given to the Levite, and the second, which was retained by the Israelite and eaten in Jerusalem, v. Deut. XIV, 22ff. ');">⁸</span>

איבעית אימא לא קשיא כאן במעשר ודאי כאן במעשר דמאי השתא דאתית להכי תרומה אתרומה נמי לא קשיא כאן בתרומת ודאי כאן בתרומת דמאי

are <i>hullin</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated above, p. 516, n. 3, the crops are called tebel only when the stage of liability to this has been reached. Before that it is permissible to make a light meal thereof even without tithing, but not after. Now, if the stage of liability was reached, so that it became tebel, and it was resown, the produce is not tebel but hullin, and one may enjoy a light meal thereof before tithing. As for the second tithe, the Rabbis did not enact that its produce shall be second tithe too, as in the case of terumah, because there was no fear that the Israelite would keep and resow it, in order to evade his obligations, since the second tithe might be redeemed and eaten outside palestine, v. Ter. IX. 4. ');">⁹</span>

בשלמא מעשר דמאי איכא אלא תרומת דמאי מי איכא והתניא אף הוא ביטל את הוידוי וגזר על הדמאי לפי ששלח בכל גבול ישראל וראה שלא היו מפרישין אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד

— But there is no difficulty: the one refers to the first tithe; the other to the second.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first tithe is regarded as his corn, since an Israelite may eat it too, and without restriction of place, hence the prohibition of muzzling applies. But the second tithe, since it must be eaten in Jerusalem, is regarded as sacred property, and so not included in the prohibition (Tosaf.). ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא לא קשיא כאן בתרומת מעשר ודאי כאן בתרומת מעשר דמאי

Alternatively, both refer to the second tithe, yet there is no difficulty: the one [sc. the first Baraitha] agrees with R. Meir; the other with R. Judah. [Thus:] The one agrees with R. Meir, who maintained that the second tithe is sacred property;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'property of the (Most) High.' ');">¹¹</span>

בעו מיניה מרב ששת היתה אוכלת ומתרזת מהו משום דמעלי לה הוא והא לא מעלי לה או דלמא דחזיא ומצטערא והא חזיא ומצטערא

the other with R. Judah, who held it secular property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 24a. ');">¹²</span>

אמר להו רב ששת תניתוה רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר מביא כרשינים ותולה לה שהכרשינים יפות לה מן הכל שמע מינה משום דמעלי לה הוא שמע מינה

[And] how is it conceivable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it should be a tithe before threshing: — The bracketed 'and' ([H]) is absent from our text and Rashi's, but given in Tosaf. ');">¹³</span>

איבעיא להו מהו שיאמר אדם לנכרי חסום פרתי ודוש בה מי אמרינן כי אמרינן אמירה לנכרי שבות הני מילי לענין שבת דאיסור סקילה אבל חסימה דאיסור לאו לא או דלמא לא שנא

— E.g., if he [the owner] anticipated [the tithing] whilst it was yet in ear. But [even] on R. Judah's view, does it not require the wall [of Jerusalem]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since he tithed the crops in ear, nothing thereof is to be consumed — not even by beasts — outside the walls of Jerusalem. How then may the animal thresh it unmuzzled? ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ש נכרי הדש בפרתו של ישראל אינו עובר משום בל תחסום מעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דתנא סיפא דישראל הדש בפרתו של נכרי עובר תנא רישא אינו עובר

— He threshed it within the walls of Beth Pagi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The outer wall of Jerusalem, added to the original limits of the town; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 67, n. 9. ');">¹⁵</span>

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