Ravina adds an additional method to derive that a worker is permitted to eat while working with detached produce and that it is prohibited to muzzle an ox even from attached produce. Four tannaitic sources are cited that derive details of the laws regarding the employer allowing a worker to eat from the produce. Each source derives a different detail from the word “thresh” in the verse about the ox – that it refers to items that grow from the ground, at a stage that the produce is ready to be picked and until the stage that it is obligated in tithing or separating challa. A question is asked whether one can toast grains or produce to sweeten them. Is this considered like eating grapes with another substance, which is not permitted, or not? Four sources are cited to address this question, but each is rejected as inconclusive, and the question remains unanswered. The last source states that one may not add salt to fruit, but this contradicts another source that permits it. Abaye and Rava each reconcile the contradiction differently, but both understand the salt issue to be relating to the obligation to tithe and not to what is permitted/not permitted for a worker to eat.
Bava Metzia 89
Share this shiur:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
Bava Metzia 89
מִכְּדֵי כֹּל מִילֵּי אִיתַנְהוּ בַּחֲסִימָה, דְּיָלְפִינַן ״שׁוֹר״ ״שׁוֹר״ מִשַּׁבָּת. אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תָּדוּשׁ בַּחֲסִימָה״, שׁוֹר דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?
Now, consider: All matters, i.e., all animals, are included in the halakha of muzzling, as we derive a verbal analogy between the term “an ox” stated here and the term “an ox” stated with regard to Shabbat. Just as the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat applies not only to oxen but to all animals, as explicitly stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 5:14), so too the halakha of muzzling includes all animals, not merely oxen. If so, and the term “ox” in this verse does not limit the halakha to that animal alone, let the Merciful One write in general terms: You shall not thresh while muzzling; why do I need the word “ox” that the Merciful One writes?
לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי חוֹסֵם לְנֶחְסָם וְנֶחְסָם לְחוֹסֵם. מַה חוֹסֵם אוֹכֵל בִּמְחוּבָּר – אַף נֶחְסָם אוֹכֵל בִּמְחוּבָּר. וּמַה נֶחְסָם אוֹכֵל בְּתָלוּשׁ – אַף חוֹסֵם אוֹכֵל בְּתָלוּשׁ.
It serves to juxtapose and compare the one who muzzles to the muzzled animal, and likewise to compare the muzzled animal to the one who muzzles: Just as the one who muzzles, a person, may eat from produce attached to the ground, so too the muzzled animal may eat from attached produce. And just as the muzzled animal may eat from detached produce, so too the one who muzzles may eat from detached produce.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד – דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כֹּל שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַחוֹלֵב וְהַמְחַבֵּץ וְהַמְגַבֵּן, שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע וְאֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
§ The Sages taught another exposition with regard to the wording in the verse: “You shall not muzzle the ox in its threshing.” The verse mentions threshing. Just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item grown from the ground, and it is performed at the time of the completion of its work, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is grown from the ground, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who milks a cow, one who makes butter from cream, and one who makes cheese from milk, as these are not grown from the ground, and therefore a laborer may not eat them.
לְמָה לִי? מִ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ נָפְקָא. אִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״קָמָה״, לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה, לְרַבּוֹת נָמֵי מִידֵּי דְּלָאו גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע נִינְהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? This halakha can be derived from the words in the verse: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard” (Deuteronomy 23:25), as these actions are not performed in a vineyard. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes: “Standing” (Deuteronomy 23:26), and, as explained earlier, this serves to include all items that stand, i.e., produce of all kinds, one might have thought that it also serves to include items that are not grown from the ground. The tanna therefore teaches us that this halakha applies only to food that grows from the ground.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״ – מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַמְנַכֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּמִים וּבִבְצָלִים, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין גְּמַר מְלָאכָה – אֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בָּהֶם.
It is taught in another baraita, with regard to the same term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item that is at the time of the completion of its work and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is at the time of the completion of its work, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who weeds garlic and onions, i.e., one hired to remove the wild growths from among garlic and onions. The reason is that since it is not the completion of their work, a laborer may not eat from them.
לְמָה לִי? מִ״וְאֶל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״ נָפְקָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא מְשַׁלֵּיף קַטִּינֵי מִבֵּינֵי אַלִּימֵי.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? It can be derived from: “But you shall not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25), which indicates that if the laborer does not place the food into the owner’s vessels, he is not permitted to eat. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the tanna to teach the following halakha: Even though he also plucks and removes the small ones from between the thick ones, and therefore the work of the small garlic and onions has been completed, nevertheless, the laborer may not eat from them, as this is not the completion of the work of the entire field.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגְרוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְנִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר – אֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
It is taught in another baraita concerning the term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for tithes, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithes, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who separates dates and dried figs, which are initially gathered together and stuck to each other before the laborer splits them apart with a rake. The reason is that since its work is completed for tithes when it has been gathered from the field, a laborer may not eat from it.
וְהָתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגְרוֹת פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּתוּחְלָנֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who separates dates and dried figs, this laborer may eat from it? Rav Pappa said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to unripe dates, which are plucked before they are ready, and placed on the ground in order to ripen fully. The work of these fruits has not yet been completed even after they have been separated from each other.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַלָּשׁ וְהַמְקַטֵּף וְהָאוֹפֶה שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה, דְּאֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. וַהֲלֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר!
It is taught in another baraita, with regard to the same term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for ḥalla, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for ḥalla, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who kneads dough, and one who smooths it over with water and oil, and one who bakes, as its work is completed for ḥalla, and therefore a laborer may not eat from it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why do I need this halakha; hasn’t its work already been completed for tithes when the produce is brought inside the house? It was already stated that once the work has been completed for produce which is subject to tithes, a laborer may no longer partake of it.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ עָסְקִינַן, דְּלֵיכָּא מַעֲשֵׂר. אִי הָכִי, חַלָּה נָמֵי לֵיכָּא! אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם בָּאָרֶץ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: בְּשֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וּבְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ, דְּאָמַר מָר: שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּחַלָּה וְלֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since in this baraita we are dealing with places outside of Eretz Yisrael, where there is no obligation of tithes. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that this is referring to a place outside of Eretz Yisrael, the obligation to separate ḥalla also does not apply. Rather, the ruling in the baraita is actually stated with regard to Eretz Yisrael, and it is not difficult, as it is referring to those seven years in which they conquered Eretz Yisrael, and to the seven in which they divided it. As the Master said: During the seven years in which the Jewish people conquered Eretz Yisrael and the seven in which they divided Eretz Yisrael, they were obligated in ḥalla but they were not obligated in the separation of tithes.
מִידֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר קָא גָרֵים? גְּמַר מְלָאכָה קָא גָרֵים!
The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this answer: Is the obligation to separate tithes the decisive factor with regard to a laborer? That is not the case, as the completion of the work is the decisive factor, while the obligation to separate tithes is mentioned only because it coincides with the completion of the work. Even if there is no mitzva to separate tithes, nevertheless the work is completed at the same stage.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּרוֹךְ וּתְנִי. ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד – דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וּלְחַלָּה וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ, אַף כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וּלְחַלָּה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
Rather, Ravina said: One should combine the two baraitot and teach them as one, as follows: With regard to the term threshing, just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for tithe, in the case of most produce, and an item which is not completed for ḥalla, in the case of species of grain, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithe or for ḥalla, a laborer may eat it.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פּוֹעֵל, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהַבְהֵב בָּאוּר וְיֹאכַל, מִי הָוֵי כַּעֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: רַשַּׁאי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְהַשְׁקוֹת פּוֹעֲלִים יַיִן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה, רַשָּׁאִין פּוֹעֲלִין לְטַבֵּל פִּיתָּם בְּצִיר כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה!
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a laborer, what is the halakha concerning the possibility that he may singe fruit or grain in fire, to improve its taste, and eat it? The question is whether this is considered like eating grapes and something else, which is prohibited, or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this problem from a baraita: A homeowner is permitted to give his laborers wine to drink, so that they will not eat many grapes from his harvest, and for their part the laborers are permitted to dip their bread in brine, so that they will eat many grapes. This baraita indicates that such a practice is permitted.
לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי גַּבְרָא לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי פֵּירָא, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹעֲלִין אוֹכְלִין עֲנָבִים בְּרָאשֵׁי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהַבְהֲבוּ בָּאוּר!
The Gemara refutes this proof: We did not raise the difficulty with regard to the fitness of the man himself to eat, as it is obvious that one may act in advance so that he will be able to eat a great deal. When this dilemma was raised to us, it was with regard to the fitness of the produce for eating. May they be prepared by singeing? What, then, is the halakha? The Gemara offers another suggestion: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Laborers may eat grapes at the end of their rows of vines, provided that they do not singe the grapes in fire.
הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו, מַאי?
The Gemara rejects this claim: This affords no proof, as the prohibition there is not because of his use of the fire but due to his neglect of his labor, as he has no right to busy himself with other matters during his work time. When the dilemma is raised to us, it is with regard to a case where he does not have to stop his work, e.g., when he has his wife and children with him, who can singe the fruit for him without him having to pause in his labor. What is the halakha in a case of this kind?
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יְהַבְהֵב בָּאוּר וְיֹאכַל, וְלֹא יִכְמוֹר בַּאֲדָמָה וְיֹאכַל, וְלֹא יַפְרִיךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַסֶּלַע וְיֹאכַל, אֲבָל מְפָרֵיךְ עַל יָד עַל יָד וְאוֹכֵל. הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם מַתּוֹקֵי פֵּירָא – סֶלַע מַאי מַתּוֹקֵי פֵּירָא אִיכָּא? אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא מְמַתֵּיק פּוּרְתָּא.
The Gemara again suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: A laborer may not singe produce in fire and eat, and he may not heat produce in the ground and eat, and he may not break produce on rocks and eat, but he may break it little by little and eat. Once again, the Gemara refutes the proof: There too, the reason is due to his neglect of his labor. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the case. As, if it enters your mind that it is prohibited due to his sweetening of the produce, what sweetening of the produce is there in his use of a rock? The Gemara responds: This is not a conclusive argument, as it is impossible that the produce would not be sweetened a little.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹעֲלִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹדְרִים בִּתְאֵנִים וְגוֹדְרִים בִּתְמָרִים וּבוֹצְרִים בַּעֲנָבִים וּמוֹסְקִין בְּזֵיתִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִים, וּפְטוּרִים, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה זִיכְּתָה לָהֶם. בְּפִיתָּם לֹא יֹאכְלוּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָטְלוּ רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל!
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to laborers who were plucking figs, or plucking dates, or harvesting grapes, or harvesting olives, they may eat and they are exempt from separating tithes, as the Torah entitled them to eat. Nevertheless, they may not eat these fruits together with their bread unless they received permission from the homeowner. Similarly, one may not dip [lo yispot] these fruits in salt and eat. This indicates that it is prohibited to sweeten the fruit.
מֶלַח וַדַּאי כַּעֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר דָּמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Salt is certainly considered like grapes and something else, as one is adding an ingredient, which is undoubtedly prohibited. By contrast, one who singes produce in fire has not added anything, and therefore it is possible that this practice is permitted. Consequently, the Gemara’s question is left unresolved.
וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְעַדֵּר וּלְקַשְׁקֵשׁ תַּחַת הַזֵּיתִים – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יֹאכַל, שְׂכָרוֹ לִבְצוֹר שְׂכָרוֹ לִמְסוֹק שְׂכָרוֹ לְלַקֵּט – הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה זִיכְּתָה לָהֶן. קָצַץ אַחַת וְאַחַת – יֹאכַל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל, וְסוֹפֵת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל.
§ The baraita mentioned earlier taught: And he may not dip these fruits in salt and eat. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita: In the case of one who hires a laborer to till and dig a circle under olives, this one may not eat from the olives. But if he hired him to harvest grapes, or hired him to harvest olives, or hired him to gather any other fruit, this one may eat and he is exempt from separating tithes, as the Torah entitled these laborers to eat. In a case where he stipulated with the owner beforehand that he may eat even when he is not entitled to do so by Torah law, if he eats the fruit one by one, he may eat without separating tithes, but if he consumes two by two he may not eat without separating tithes. And he may dip these fruits in salt and eat.
אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא – כֵּיוָן דְּקָצַץ, כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּבָעֵי לֵיכוֹל, אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא!
The Gemara analyzes this last statement: To which section of the baraita is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause, in which the laborer had an agreement with the owner, it is superfluous: Since the laborer stipulated that he may eat in any manner he wishes, he may certainly eat with salt. Rather, is it not referring to the first clause of the baraita, concerning a laborer who eats by Torah law? This would prove that a laborer may dip fruit in salt without separating tithes.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא. כָּאן – בָּאָרֶץ, כָּאן – בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. בָּאָרֶץ קָבְעָא סְפִיתָא, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָא קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא. אָמַר רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּבָאָרֶץ קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא קִבְעָא סְפֵיתָא, וּמוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה?!
Abaye said: This is not difficult, as here it is prohibited because he is in Eretz Yisrael, whereas there he is outside of Eretz Yisrael. The reason for the difference is as follows: In Eretz Yisrael, dipping fruit in salt establishes his consumption as a fixed meal, which renders the fruit subject to tithes. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, dipping fruit in salt does not establish his consumption as a meal, as the mitzva of tithes does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law. Rava said: Is there any produce with regard to which the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael dipping establishes it as a meal by Torah law, and yet outside Eretz Yisrael dipping does not establish it as a meal and it is even permitted ab initio? It cannot be that there is such a great difference between these places, as the enactments of the Sages are modeled on Torah law.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, חֲדָא לָא – קִבְעָא סְפֵיתָא, תַּרְתֵּי – קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא. קָצַץ: בֵּין סָפַת וּבֵין לֹא סָפַת, אַחַת אַחַת – אוֹכֵל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל. לֹא קָצַץ וְלֹא סָפַת – אוֹכֵל שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, סָפַת: אַחַת אַחַת – אוֹכֵל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנָטַל רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, דְּאִיטְּבִיל לְהוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְקָבְעָא סְפִיתָא.
Rather, Rava rejected Abaye’s answer and stated a different resolution: Whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael, if he ate one fruit, its dipping in salt does not establish it as anything more than a casual meal, but if he ate two, dipping in salt does establish it as a meal. Therefore, in a case where he stipulated that he may eat, whether he dipped in salt or did not dip in salt, he may eat one by one, but he may not eat two by two. If he did not stipulate and did not dip in salt, he may eat two by two. If he dips in salt he may eat one by one, but he may not eat two by two, even though he received permission to eat two at a time from the homeowner. The reason is that they have already been rendered untithed produce with regard to tithes, because the dipping established them as ready for tithing. Consequently, the laborer may not partake of them until he has separated tithes.
וְתַרְתֵּי דְּקָבְעָא סְפִיתָא מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי קִבְּצָם כֶּעָמִיר גֹּרְנָה״.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha that with regard to eating fruit two at a time, dipping in salt establishes that they are subject to tithes? Rav Mattana said that it is as the verse states: “For He has gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing-floor” (Micah 4:12). This verse shows that one who gathers items together, an act that involves at least two items, is considered to have brought them into his granary. Consequently, if he also dips them in salt he has established his consumption as a fixed meal, which means that he must separate tithes.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרוֹת הַמְרַכְּסוֹת בִּתְבוּאָה,
The Sages taught: In the case of cows that tread on produce for which the work has been completed but which is threshed again in this manner as part of its preparation into food,
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Bava Metzia 89
מִכְּדֵי כֹּל מִילֵּי אִיתַנְהוּ בַּחֲסִימָה, דְּיָלְפִינַן ״שׁוֹר״ ״שׁוֹר״ מִשַּׁבָּת. אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תָּדוּשׁ בַּחֲסִימָה״, שׁוֹר דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?
Now, consider: All matters, i.e., all animals, are included in the halakha of muzzling, as we derive a verbal analogy between the term “an ox” stated here and the term “an ox” stated with regard to Shabbat. Just as the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat applies not only to oxen but to all animals, as explicitly stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 5:14), so too the halakha of muzzling includes all animals, not merely oxen. If so, and the term “ox” in this verse does not limit the halakha to that animal alone, let the Merciful One write in general terms: You shall not thresh while muzzling; why do I need the word “ox” that the Merciful One writes?
לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי חוֹסֵם לְנֶחְסָם וְנֶחְסָם לְחוֹסֵם. מַה חוֹסֵם אוֹכֵל בִּמְחוּבָּר – אַף נֶחְסָם אוֹכֵל בִּמְחוּבָּר. וּמַה נֶחְסָם אוֹכֵל בְּתָלוּשׁ – אַף חוֹסֵם אוֹכֵל בְּתָלוּשׁ.
It serves to juxtapose and compare the one who muzzles to the muzzled animal, and likewise to compare the muzzled animal to the one who muzzles: Just as the one who muzzles, a person, may eat from produce attached to the ground, so too the muzzled animal may eat from attached produce. And just as the muzzled animal may eat from detached produce, so too the one who muzzles may eat from detached produce.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד – דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כֹּל שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַחוֹלֵב וְהַמְחַבֵּץ וְהַמְגַבֵּן, שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע וְאֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
§ The Sages taught another exposition with regard to the wording in the verse: “You shall not muzzle the ox in its threshing.” The verse mentions threshing. Just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item grown from the ground, and it is performed at the time of the completion of its work, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is grown from the ground, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who milks a cow, one who makes butter from cream, and one who makes cheese from milk, as these are not grown from the ground, and therefore a laborer may not eat them.
לְמָה לִי? מִ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ נָפְקָא. אִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״קָמָה״, לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה, לְרַבּוֹת נָמֵי מִידֵּי דְּלָאו גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע נִינְהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? This halakha can be derived from the words in the verse: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard” (Deuteronomy 23:25), as these actions are not performed in a vineyard. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes: “Standing” (Deuteronomy 23:26), and, as explained earlier, this serves to include all items that stand, i.e., produce of all kinds, one might have thought that it also serves to include items that are not grown from the ground. The tanna therefore teaches us that this halakha applies only to food that grows from the ground.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״ – מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַמְנַכֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּמִים וּבִבְצָלִים, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין גְּמַר מְלָאכָה – אֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בָּהֶם.
It is taught in another baraita, with regard to the same term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item that is at the time of the completion of its work and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is at the time of the completion of its work, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who weeds garlic and onions, i.e., one hired to remove the wild growths from among garlic and onions. The reason is that since it is not the completion of their work, a laborer may not eat from them.
לְמָה לִי? מִ״וְאֶל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״ נָפְקָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא מְשַׁלֵּיף קַטִּינֵי מִבֵּינֵי אַלִּימֵי.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need this exposition? It can be derived from: “But you shall not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25), which indicates that if the laborer does not place the food into the owner’s vessels, he is not permitted to eat. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the tanna to teach the following halakha: Even though he also plucks and removes the small ones from between the thick ones, and therefore the work of the small garlic and onions has been completed, nevertheless, the laborer may not eat from them, as this is not the completion of the work of the entire field.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגְרוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְנִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר – אֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
It is taught in another baraita concerning the term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for tithes, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithes, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who separates dates and dried figs, which are initially gathered together and stuck to each other before the laborer splits them apart with a rake. The reason is that since its work is completed for tithes when it has been gathered from the field, a laborer may not eat from it.
וְהָתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגְרוֹת פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּתוּחְלָנֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who separates dates and dried figs, this laborer may eat from it? Rav Pappa said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to unripe dates, which are plucked before they are ready, and placed on the ground in order to ripen fully. The work of these fruits has not yet been completed even after they have been separated from each other.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַלָּשׁ וְהַמְקַטֵּף וְהָאוֹפֶה שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה, דְּאֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. וַהֲלֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר!
It is taught in another baraita, with regard to the same term: Threshing, that just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for ḥalla, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for ḥalla, a laborer may eat it. This serves to exclude one who kneads dough, and one who smooths it over with water and oil, and one who bakes, as its work is completed for ḥalla, and therefore a laborer may not eat from it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why do I need this halakha; hasn’t its work already been completed for tithes when the produce is brought inside the house? It was already stated that once the work has been completed for produce which is subject to tithes, a laborer may no longer partake of it.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ עָסְקִינַן, דְּלֵיכָּא מַעֲשֵׂר. אִי הָכִי, חַלָּה נָמֵי לֵיכָּא! אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם בָּאָרֶץ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: בְּשֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וּבְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ, דְּאָמַר מָר: שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּחַלָּה וְלֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since in this baraita we are dealing with places outside of Eretz Yisrael, where there is no obligation of tithes. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that this is referring to a place outside of Eretz Yisrael, the obligation to separate ḥalla also does not apply. Rather, the ruling in the baraita is actually stated with regard to Eretz Yisrael, and it is not difficult, as it is referring to those seven years in which they conquered Eretz Yisrael, and to the seven in which they divided it. As the Master said: During the seven years in which the Jewish people conquered Eretz Yisrael and the seven in which they divided Eretz Yisrael, they were obligated in ḥalla but they were not obligated in the separation of tithes.
מִידֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר קָא גָרֵים? גְּמַר מְלָאכָה קָא גָרֵים!
The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this answer: Is the obligation to separate tithes the decisive factor with regard to a laborer? That is not the case, as the completion of the work is the decisive factor, while the obligation to separate tithes is mentioned only because it coincides with the completion of the work. Even if there is no mitzva to separate tithes, nevertheless the work is completed at the same stage.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּרוֹךְ וּתְנִי. ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד – דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וּלְחַלָּה וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ, אַף כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וּלְחַלָּה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.
Rather, Ravina said: One should combine the two baraitot and teach them as one, as follows: With regard to the term threshing, just as threshing is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for tithe, in the case of most produce, and an item which is not completed for ḥalla, in the case of species of grain, and a laborer may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithe or for ḥalla, a laborer may eat it.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פּוֹעֵל, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהַבְהֵב בָּאוּר וְיֹאכַל, מִי הָוֵי כַּעֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: רַשַּׁאי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְהַשְׁקוֹת פּוֹעֲלִים יַיִן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה, רַשָּׁאִין פּוֹעֲלִין לְטַבֵּל פִּיתָּם בְּצִיר כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה!
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a laborer, what is the halakha concerning the possibility that he may singe fruit or grain in fire, to improve its taste, and eat it? The question is whether this is considered like eating grapes and something else, which is prohibited, or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this problem from a baraita: A homeowner is permitted to give his laborers wine to drink, so that they will not eat many grapes from his harvest, and for their part the laborers are permitted to dip their bread in brine, so that they will eat many grapes. This baraita indicates that such a practice is permitted.
לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי גַּבְרָא לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי פֵּירָא, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹעֲלִין אוֹכְלִין עֲנָבִים בְּרָאשֵׁי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהַבְהֲבוּ בָּאוּר!
The Gemara refutes this proof: We did not raise the difficulty with regard to the fitness of the man himself to eat, as it is obvious that one may act in advance so that he will be able to eat a great deal. When this dilemma was raised to us, it was with regard to the fitness of the produce for eating. May they be prepared by singeing? What, then, is the halakha? The Gemara offers another suggestion: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Laborers may eat grapes at the end of their rows of vines, provided that they do not singe the grapes in fire.
הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו, מַאי?
The Gemara rejects this claim: This affords no proof, as the prohibition there is not because of his use of the fire but due to his neglect of his labor, as he has no right to busy himself with other matters during his work time. When the dilemma is raised to us, it is with regard to a case where he does not have to stop his work, e.g., when he has his wife and children with him, who can singe the fruit for him without him having to pause in his labor. What is the halakha in a case of this kind?
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יְהַבְהֵב בָּאוּר וְיֹאכַל, וְלֹא יִכְמוֹר בַּאֲדָמָה וְיֹאכַל, וְלֹא יַפְרִיךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַסֶּלַע וְיֹאכַל, אֲבָל מְפָרֵיךְ עַל יָד עַל יָד וְאוֹכֵל. הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם מַתּוֹקֵי פֵּירָא – סֶלַע מַאי מַתּוֹקֵי פֵּירָא אִיכָּא? אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא מְמַתֵּיק פּוּרְתָּא.
The Gemara again suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: A laborer may not singe produce in fire and eat, and he may not heat produce in the ground and eat, and he may not break produce on rocks and eat, but he may break it little by little and eat. Once again, the Gemara refutes the proof: There too, the reason is due to his neglect of his labor. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the case. As, if it enters your mind that it is prohibited due to his sweetening of the produce, what sweetening of the produce is there in his use of a rock? The Gemara responds: This is not a conclusive argument, as it is impossible that the produce would not be sweetened a little.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹעֲלִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹדְרִים בִּתְאֵנִים וְגוֹדְרִים בִּתְמָרִים וּבוֹצְרִים בַּעֲנָבִים וּמוֹסְקִין בְּזֵיתִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִים, וּפְטוּרִים, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה זִיכְּתָה לָהֶם. בְּפִיתָּם לֹא יֹאכְלוּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָטְלוּ רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל!
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to laborers who were plucking figs, or plucking dates, or harvesting grapes, or harvesting olives, they may eat and they are exempt from separating tithes, as the Torah entitled them to eat. Nevertheless, they may not eat these fruits together with their bread unless they received permission from the homeowner. Similarly, one may not dip [lo yispot] these fruits in salt and eat. This indicates that it is prohibited to sweeten the fruit.
מֶלַח וַדַּאי כַּעֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר דָּמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Salt is certainly considered like grapes and something else, as one is adding an ingredient, which is undoubtedly prohibited. By contrast, one who singes produce in fire has not added anything, and therefore it is possible that this practice is permitted. Consequently, the Gemara’s question is left unresolved.
וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְעַדֵּר וּלְקַשְׁקֵשׁ תַּחַת הַזֵּיתִים – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יֹאכַל, שְׂכָרוֹ לִבְצוֹר שְׂכָרוֹ לִמְסוֹק שְׂכָרוֹ לְלַקֵּט – הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה זִיכְּתָה לָהֶן. קָצַץ אַחַת וְאַחַת – יֹאכַל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל, וְסוֹפֵת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל.
§ The baraita mentioned earlier taught: And he may not dip these fruits in salt and eat. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita: In the case of one who hires a laborer to till and dig a circle under olives, this one may not eat from the olives. But if he hired him to harvest grapes, or hired him to harvest olives, or hired him to gather any other fruit, this one may eat and he is exempt from separating tithes, as the Torah entitled these laborers to eat. In a case where he stipulated with the owner beforehand that he may eat even when he is not entitled to do so by Torah law, if he eats the fruit one by one, he may eat without separating tithes, but if he consumes two by two he may not eat without separating tithes. And he may dip these fruits in salt and eat.
אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא – כֵּיוָן דְּקָצַץ, כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּבָעֵי לֵיכוֹל, אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא!
The Gemara analyzes this last statement: To which section of the baraita is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause, in which the laborer had an agreement with the owner, it is superfluous: Since the laborer stipulated that he may eat in any manner he wishes, he may certainly eat with salt. Rather, is it not referring to the first clause of the baraita, concerning a laborer who eats by Torah law? This would prove that a laborer may dip fruit in salt without separating tithes.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא. כָּאן – בָּאָרֶץ, כָּאן – בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. בָּאָרֶץ קָבְעָא סְפִיתָא, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָא קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא. אָמַר רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּבָאָרֶץ קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא קִבְעָא סְפֵיתָא, וּמוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה?!
Abaye said: This is not difficult, as here it is prohibited because he is in Eretz Yisrael, whereas there he is outside of Eretz Yisrael. The reason for the difference is as follows: In Eretz Yisrael, dipping fruit in salt establishes his consumption as a fixed meal, which renders the fruit subject to tithes. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, dipping fruit in salt does not establish his consumption as a meal, as the mitzva of tithes does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law. Rava said: Is there any produce with regard to which the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael dipping establishes it as a meal by Torah law, and yet outside Eretz Yisrael dipping does not establish it as a meal and it is even permitted ab initio? It cannot be that there is such a great difference between these places, as the enactments of the Sages are modeled on Torah law.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, חֲדָא לָא – קִבְעָא סְפֵיתָא, תַּרְתֵּי – קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא. קָצַץ: בֵּין סָפַת וּבֵין לֹא סָפַת, אַחַת אַחַת – אוֹכֵל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל. לֹא קָצַץ וְלֹא סָפַת – אוֹכֵל שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, סָפַת: אַחַת אַחַת – אוֹכֵל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנָטַל רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, דְּאִיטְּבִיל לְהוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְקָבְעָא סְפִיתָא.
Rather, Rava rejected Abaye’s answer and stated a different resolution: Whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael, if he ate one fruit, its dipping in salt does not establish it as anything more than a casual meal, but if he ate two, dipping in salt does establish it as a meal. Therefore, in a case where he stipulated that he may eat, whether he dipped in salt or did not dip in salt, he may eat one by one, but he may not eat two by two. If he did not stipulate and did not dip in salt, he may eat two by two. If he dips in salt he may eat one by one, but he may not eat two by two, even though he received permission to eat two at a time from the homeowner. The reason is that they have already been rendered untithed produce with regard to tithes, because the dipping established them as ready for tithing. Consequently, the laborer may not partake of them until he has separated tithes.
וְתַרְתֵּי דְּקָבְעָא סְפִיתָא מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי קִבְּצָם כֶּעָמִיר גֹּרְנָה״.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha that with regard to eating fruit two at a time, dipping in salt establishes that they are subject to tithes? Rav Mattana said that it is as the verse states: “For He has gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing-floor” (Micah 4:12). This verse shows that one who gathers items together, an act that involves at least two items, is considered to have brought them into his granary. Consequently, if he also dips them in salt he has established his consumption as a fixed meal, which means that he must separate tithes.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרוֹת הַמְרַכְּסוֹת בִּתְבוּאָה,
The Sages taught: In the case of cows that tread on produce for which the work has been completed but which is threshed again in this manner as part of its preparation into food,
