Bava Metzia 174

בשעה שאין גמר מלאכה ובתלוש מן הקרקע מאחר שנגמרה מלאכתו ובדבר שאין גידולו מן הארץ:

BEFORE ITS LABOUR IS COMPLETED, UPON THAT WHICH IS DETACHED FROM THE SOIL AFTER ITS LABOUR IS COMPLETED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense stated in n. 2. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי דכתיב (דברים כג, כה) כי תבא בכרם רעך ואכלת אשכחן כרם כל מילי מנא לן

AND UPON THAT WHICH DOES NOT GROW FROM THE SOIL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., one who milks cows or makes cheeses may not partake of the milk or cheese. ');">²</span>

גמרינן מכרם מה כרם מיוחד דבר שגידולי קרקע ובשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו אף כל דבר שגידולי קרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Whence do we know these things? — It is written, When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 25. Further on it is explained that the verse refers to a labourer. ');">³</span>

מה לכרם שכן חייב בעוללות גמרינן מקמה קמה גופה מנא לן דכתיב (דברים כג, כו) כי תבא בקמת רעך וקטפת מלילות בידך

We have found [this law to be true of] a vineyard: whence do we know it of all [other] things? We infer [them] from the vineyard: just as the vineyard is peculiar in that it [sc. its products] grow from the earth, and at the completion of its labour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the grapes are vintaged. ');">⁴</span>

מה לקמה שכן חייבת בחלה וממאי דהאי קמה קמה דמתחייבת בחלה היא דלמא כל קמה קאמר רחמנא

the labourer may eat thereof; so everything which grows from the soil, the labourer may eat thereof at the completion of its work. [But, might it not be argued:] As for a vineyard, [the worker's privilege may be due to the fact] that it is liable to [the law of] gleanings, [which other cereals are not]? — We, deduce it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the law applies to other products too. ');">⁵</span>

אתיא קמה קמה כתיב הכא כי תבא בקמת רעך וכתיב התם (דברים טז, ט) מהחל חרמש בקמה מה התם קמה דמיחייבא בחלה אף הכא נמי קמה דמיחייבא בחלה

from the standing corn. But how do we know it of standing corn itself? — Because it is written, When thou comest into the kamath [standing corn] of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26. ');">⁶</span>

איכא למיפרך מה לקמה שכן חייבת בחלה כרם יוכיח מה לכרם שכן חייב בעוללות קמה תוכיח

But [may you not argue:] as for standing corn, that is because it is liable to <i>hallah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁷</span>

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שכן דבר שגידולי קרקע ובשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו אף כל דבר שגידולי קרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה פועל אוכל בו

(And how do you know that this kamah means [only] such standing crops as are liable to <i>hallah</i>: perhaps Scripture means all standing crops?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., crops of beans, which are not liable to hallah. ');">⁸</span>

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח ואתא נמי זית דאית ביה צד מזבח

— That is derived from the use of kamah in two places. Here it is written, When thou comest into the kamath [standing corn of] thy neighbour; whilst elsewhere it is written, from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the kamah [corn]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVI, 9. The reference is to the 'omer of barley brought on the second day of Passover. cf. Lev. XXIII, 10: barley is liable to hallah. ');">⁹</span>

וזית במה הצד אתי הוא גופיה כרם איקרי דכתיב (שופטים טו, ה) ויבער מגדיש ועד קמה ועד כרם זית אמר רב פפא כרם זית אקרי כרם סתמא לא אקרי

just as there, a kamah which is liable to <i>hallah</i> is meant, so here too.) [Hence, repeating the difficulty] one may refute [the analogy drawn from standing corn]: as for standing corn, that is because it is liable to <i>hallah</i>! — Then let the vineyard prove it. As for a vineyards that is because it is liable to [the law of] gleanings! — Let the standing corn prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the peculiarity of one is not that of the other, and vice versa. The feature common to both is, they grow from the soil, and the worker may [thus] eat of them when their labour is being finished; so also, everything which grows from the soil, when at the completion of its labour, the worker may eat of it. [No, this does not follow, as it might be argued that] their common feature is that both are used in connection with the altar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine for libations and meal for meal offerings. ');">¹⁰</span>

מכל מקום קשיא אלא אמר שמואל אמר קרא וחרמש לרבות כל בעלי חרמש

and so olives will be inferred too, since they also are thus used?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Most of the meal offerings were mingled with oil. ');">¹¹</span>

והאי חרמש מיבעי ליה בשעת חרמש אכול שלא בשעת חרמש לא תיכול

(But are olives inferred through [partaking of] a common feature? They themselves are designated kerem,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word translated 'vineyard' in Deut. XXIII, 25. ');">¹²</span>

ההוא (דברים כג, כה) מואל כליך לא תתן נפקא תינח דבר חרמש דלאו בר חרמש מנא לן

as it is written, And he burnt up both the shocks and the standing corn, and also the olive kerem.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judg. XV, 5. ');">¹³</span>

אלא אמר ר' יצחק אמר קרא קמה לרבות כל בעלי קמה והא אמרת קמה קמה דמיחייבא בחלה

— R. Papa said: It is designated olive kerem, but not simply kerem.) But still, the difficulty remains!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the common feature is that they are employed in connection with the altar. ');">¹⁴</span>

הני מילי מקמי דניתי חרמש השתא דאתי חרמש איתרבי ליה כל דבר חרמש ואף על גב דלא מיחייב בחלה קמה למה לי לרבות כל בעלי קמה

— Samuel answered: Scripture saith, and a sickle [thou shalt not move unto thy neighbour's standing corn], which [i.e., the 'and'] extends the law to everything which requires a sickle. But this word 'sickle' is needed [to intimate that] when the sickle [is used] you may eat, but not otherwise!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the cereals are ready to be cut off with the sickle. ');">¹⁵</span>

והשתא דנפקא לן מחרמש ומקמה כי תבא בכרם רעך למה לי

— That follows from, but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 25. This shews that the reference is to those which can be put in a vessel. sc. removed from the soil. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רבא להלכותיו כדתניא כי תבא נאמר כאן ביאה ונאמר להלן (דברים כד, טו) לא תבא עליו השמש מה להלן בפועל הכתוב מדבר אף כאן בפועל הכתוב מדבר

Now, this [deduction] is satisfactory in respect of that which requires the sickle, but what of that which does not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the harvesting of dates. How do we know that the labourer may eat of them? ');">¹⁷</span>

בכרם רעך ולא בכרם כותי הניחא למ"ד גזל כותי אסור היינו דאיצטריך קרא למישרי פועל אלא למ"ד גזל כותי מותר השתא גזילה מותר פועל מיבעיא

— But, said R. Isaac, the Writ says, kamah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'standing', E.V.: standing corn. ');">¹⁸</span>

מוקים לה בכרם רעך ולא של הקדש ואכלת ולא מוצץ ענבים ולא ענבים ודבר אחר

to extend the law to everything which stands upright [from the soil].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all crops. ');">¹⁹</span>

כנפשך כנפש של בעל הבית כך נפשו של פועל מה נפשך אוכל ופטור אף נפשו של פועל אוכל ופטור

But have you not employed the analogy of kamah, written twice, to shew that it means [only] such standing crops as are liable to <i>hallah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. ');">²⁰</span>

שבעך ולא אכילה גסה ואל כליך לא תתן בשעה שאתה נותן לכליו של בעל הבית אתה אוכל ובשעה שאי אתה נותן לכליו של בעה"ב אי אתה אוכל

— That was only before the word 'sickle' was adduced: now, however, that 'sickle' has been quoted, everything which needs a sickle is embraced, even if not liable to <i>hallah</i>; hence, what is the purpose of kamah? To include everything which stands upright.

אמר רבי ינאי אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר

But now that we infer [these laws] from <i>'sickle</i>' and <i>kamah</i>, what is the need of, <i>'When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard'</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the vineyard too may be deduced thus. ');">²¹</span> — To teach its [detailed] laws, replied Raba. As it has been taught: <i>When thou comest</i> — 'coming' is mentioned here; and elsewhere too it is said, [<i>Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant&nbsp;… At this day thou shalt give him his hire,</i>] <i>neither shall the sun come down upon it</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIV, 14, 15. ');">²²</span> just as there Scripture refers to an employee, so here too. '<i>Into</i> thy neighbour's <i>vineyard</i>', 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</span> Now, on the view that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden, it is well: but if it be held permitted — does an <i>employee</i> 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</span> — He interprets '<i>into</i> thy neighbour's <i>vineyard</i>', as excluding a vineyard of <i>hekdesh</i>.<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</span> '<i>Then thou mayest eat</i>', but not suck out [the juice]; <i>'grapes</i>', but not grapes and something else;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the labourer must not make a meal of bread and grapes. ');">²⁶</span> <i>'as thine own person'</i>, as the person of the employers, so the person of the employee: just as thou thyself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom the grapes belong. ');">²⁷</span> 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</span> '<i>To thy satisfaction</i>': but not gluttonously; <i>'but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel</i>': [only] when thou canst put it into thine employer's baskets, thou mayest eat, but not otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 505, n. 9. ');">²⁹</span> R. Jannai said: <i>Tebel</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³⁰</span> is not liable to tithes