Bava Metzia 178

לאכשורי גברא לא קמיבעיא לן כי קמיבעיא לן לאכשורי פירא מאי ת"ש פועלין אוכלין ענבים בראשי אומניות שלהם ובלבד שלא יהבהבו באור

— As for making the man fit [to eat more], of that there is no question: our problem is only whether the food may be rendered more appetising?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fit'. ');">¹</span>

התם משום ביטול מלאכה כי קא מיבעיא לן היכא דאיכא אשתו ובניו מאי

What is the ruling? — Come and hear: Labourers may eat the top most grapes of the [vine-] rows,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They may conserve their appetite till they reach these, which being more exposed to the sun than the lower ones, are sweeter (Rashi). ');">²</span>

ת"ש לא יהבהב באור ויאכל ולא יכמור באדמה ויאכל ולא יפריך ע"ג הסלע ויאכל אבל מפריך על יד על יד ואוכל התם משום ביטול מלאכה הכי נמי מסתברא דאי ס"ד משום מתוקי פירא סלע מאי מתוקי פירא איכא אי אפשר דלא ממתיק פורתא

but must not parch them at the fire! — There it [the prohibition] is on account of loss of time:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cessation of work'. ');">³</span>

ת"ש פועלין שהיו עודרים בתאנים וגודרים בתמרים ובוצרים בענבים ומוסקין בזיתים הרי אלו אוכלים ופטורים שהתורה זיכתה להם בפיתם לא יאכלו אלא אם כן נטלו רשות מבעה"ב ולא יספות במלח ויאכל

but our problem arises when he has his wife or children with him; what then?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no loss of time, as they can singe it. ');">⁴</span>

מלח ודאי כענבים ודבר אחר דמי

— Come and hear: He [the labourer] may not parch [the crops] at the fire and eat, nor warm them in the earth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By placing them in warm soil. ');">⁵</span>

ולא יספות במלח ויאכל ורמינהו השוכר את הפועל לעדר ולקשקש תחת הזיתים הרי זה לא יאכל שכרו לבצור שכרו למסוק שכרו ללקט הרי זה אוכל ופטור שהתורה זיכתה להן קצץ אחת ואחת יאכל שתים שתים לא יאכל וסופת במלח ויאכל

nor crush them on a rock; but he may crush them between his hands and eat them! — There [too] it is on account of loss of time. That too is logical: for should you think it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Prohibition referred to. ');">⁶</span>

אהייא אילימא אסיפא כיון דקצץ כל היכי דבעי ליכול אלא לאו ארישא

is because he [thereby] makes the fruit tasteful, what tastefulness is there [acquired by crushing them] on a rock? — [No; the reasoning is incorrect,] because it is impossible for it not to become slightly [more] tasteful.

אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן בארץ כאן בחוצה לארץ בארץ קבעא ספיתא בחוצה לארץ לא קבעא ספיתא אמר רבא מי איכא מידי דבארץ קבעא ספיתא מדאורייתא ובחוצה לארץ לא קבעא ספיתא ומותר לכתחילה

Come and hear: Workers engaged in picking figs, harvesting dates, vintaging grape, or gathering olives, may eat, and are exempt [from tithes],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 507, n. 3. ');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר רבא בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ חדא לא קבעא ספיתא תרתי קבעא ספיתא קצץ בין ספת ובין לא ספת אחת אחת אוכל שתים שתים לא יאכל לא קצץ ולא ספת אוכל שתים שתים ספת אחת אחת אוכל שתים שתים לא יאכל ואע"ג דנטל רשות מבעה"ב דאיטביל להו למעשר וקבעא ספיתא

because the Torah privileged them. But they must not eat these with their bread, unless they obtain permission from the owner, nor dip them in salt and eat!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, it was assumed that dipping in salt is forbidden because it renders it more appetising, and therefore parching too will be forbidden. ');">⁸</span>

ותרתי דקבעא ספיתא מנא לן אמר רב מתנא דאמר קרא (מיכה ד, יב) כי קבצם כעמיר גורנה

— Salt is certainly the same as grapes and something else.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., no deduction may be drawn from this, for salt is an addition. Yet it may be permissible to parch corn, since nothing is added. ');">⁹</span>

תנו רבנן פרות המרכסות בתבואה

[It has just been stated:] 'Nor dip them in salt and eat.' But the following contradicts it: if one engages a labourer to hoe and to cover up the roots of olive trees, he may not eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the olives, because it is not the finish of the work. ');">¹⁰</span> But if he engages him to vintage [grapes], pluck [olives], or gather [fruit], he may eat, and is exempt [from tithes], because the Torah privileged him. If he [the labourer] stipulates [that he is to eat], he may eat then, singly, but not two at a time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two together count as a store, therefore are subject to tithes. Since the labourer stipulates that he is to eat, it is part of his payments and hence ranks as bought, and therefore he may not eat them; v. supra 88a. ');">¹¹</span> And be may dip them in salt and eat. Now, to what [does this refer]? Shall we say, to the last clause? But having stipulated, he can [obviously] eat just as he wishes! Surely then it must refer to the first clause!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where no stipulation was made: hence it contradicts the first Baraitha. ');">¹²</span> — Abaye answered: There is no difficulty: here it [the second Baraitha] refers to Palestine; there [the first] to the Diaspora. In Palestine, dipping [in salt] establishes [a liability to tithes]; in the Diaspora, it does not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one dips an olive in salt he shews that he attaches value to it, which renders it completely ready for eating, and precludes further storing. Hence, in Palestine, where tithing is Biblical, the dipping imposes a liability. But in the Diaspora, where it is only Rabbinical and consequently less stringent, it does not. ');">¹³</span> Raba demurred: Is there aught for which dipping establishes [a liability] in Palestine, but not in the Diaspora, so that it is permitted from the very outset?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to partake thereof without having rendered the tithes. Though tithes in the Diaspora are only Rabbinical, the Rabbis formulated the law on the same conditions as in Palestine, and therefore, whatever establishes a liability there establishes it in the Diaspora too. ');">¹⁴</span> But, said Raba, both in palestine and without, for one [fig] salting does not establish [liability],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being of insufficient value. ');">¹⁵</span> but for two it does. But if he [sc. the labourer] stipulates [that he is to eat], whether he salts or not, he may eat [them] one by one, but not in twos. [Hence:] If he neither stipulates nor salts them, he may eat them two by two; if he salts them, he may eat them one by one, but not two by two, even if he obtained the employer's permission,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise, not having stipulated, he may not salt them at all, as stated above. ');">¹⁶</span> because they become <i>tebel</i> in respect of tithes, the salting establishing [that liability].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 515, n. 7. Only when the stage of liability is reached it is called tebel. — Thus the first Baraitha refers to eating two at a time; no stipulation having been made, they may not be dipped in salt, But the second refers to a case where a stipulation was made; since the mere stipulation establishes a liability for two, it follows that he must eat the fruit singly, and that being so, the Tanna can state in general terms that he may salt them. ');">¹⁷</span> And whence do we know that salting establishes [liability only for] two? — Said R. Mattena: Scripture saith, For he hath gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing floor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mic. IV, 12. Thus there can be no threshing floor, i.e., storage, the final stage of which imposes liability, without gathering, and there cannot be gathering of less than two (actually, the Heb. has [H] sing., but the plural must be understood). ');">¹⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: When cows stamp [<i>hullin</i>] grain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Barley grain was soaked in water, dried in an oven, and threshed by the treading of cows, which removed the husks. ');">¹⁹</span>