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.