Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a

Baba Mezi'a 91a

Not that one is permitted to make an exchange, but that if he did the exchange is valid, and he receives forty [lashes]!¹  He replied: That accords with R. Judah, who maintained that one is flagellated for [violating] a negative precept which involves no action.²  But can you make this agree with R. Judah? Does not the first clause state: All have power to exchange, both men and women. Now, we pondered thereon, what is 'all' intended to add?³  [And we answered,] An heir.⁴  And this does not agree with R. Judah: for if it did, surely he maintained that an heir can neither exchange nor lay hands?⁵  — This Tanna agrees with R. Judah in one ruling,⁶  and disagrees in another.⁷

Our Rabbis taught: If one muzzles a beast and threshes therewith, he is flagellated, and pays [to the owner of the cow] four kabs in the case of a cow, and three kabs for an ass.⁸  But [is it not a principle], one is not flagellated and executed; nor is one flagellated and made to pay? — Abaye replied: This is in accordance with R. Meir, who maintained, One is flagellated and also made to pay.⁹  Raba said:¹⁰  The Torah forbade the hire [of a harlot], even if one had relations with his mother.¹¹  R. Papa said: He becomes liable for its food from the moment of meshikah,¹²  whereas flagellation is not incurred until muzzling.¹³

R. Papa said: The following problems were propounded to me by the disciples of R. Papa b. Abba, and I gave stringent rulings,¹⁴  one in accordance with the law, the other not in accordance with the law.¹⁵  They asked of me: May dough be kneaded with milk? And I ruled that it was forbidden, this being in accordance with the law. For it has been taught: Dough may not be kneaded with milk, and if it is, the whole loaf is forbidden, because it may lead to transgression.¹⁶  Likewise, an oven may not be greased with tail fat,¹⁷  and if it is, the whole loaf [baked therein] is forbidden, until the oven is heated through.¹⁸  The other problem they propounded of me was: May two heterogeneous animals [of opposite sexes] be led into a stable?¹⁹  And I answered them that it is forbidden, this not being in accordance with the law. For Samuel said: In the case of adulterers, they [sc. the witnesses] must have seen them in the posture of adulterers;²⁰  but in respect to diverse species, they must have seen him assisting [the copulation] even as [one places the] painting stick in the tube.²¹

R. Ahadboi b. Ammi raised an objection: Had Scripture stated, Thou shalt not cause thy cattle to gender,²²  I might have thought [it to mean], One must not hold a beast when the male [even of its own kind] copulates with it; therefore it is said, with a diverse kind. Surely then this proves that in the case of different species one may not even hold [the female]! — By 'holding', 'assisting' is meant, and why is it designated 'holding'? As a more delicate term.

Rab Judah said: In animals of the same species, one may 'assist' [at copulation] even as [one places the painting] stick in the tube, and it is not even forbidden on account of obscenity. Why? Because he is engaged in his work.²³  R. Ahadboi b. Ammi raised an objection:

1. Tem. 2a. This refers to Lev. XXVII, 33; neither shall he change it (sc. the consecrated animal): and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy. The first clause of the passage states that all have power to exchange, and then it goes on to say that that does not mean that one may exchange, but merely that his action is valid, the substitute too becoming holy, and that his action is punished by flagellation. Now, this offence consists only of speech, and hence this Mishnah refutes Resh Lakish's view that speech is an unsubstantial action.
2. But those who require an action do not consider speech sufficient.
3. V. p. 496, n. 3.
4. I.e., if the heir exchanged the animal consecrated by his deceased father, the substitute is valid.
5. Upon certain sacrifices the owner laid his hands prior to its slaughter. If the owner died, R. Judah maintained that the heir could not perform this ceremony.
6. Viz., that a person is flagellated for a negative precept involving no action.
7. Maintaining against R. Judah that the heir can exchange.
8. That is the estimated quantity they eat per day. V. H.M. 338. 4. Isserles.
9. V. B.K 71a.
10. [MS. Rome inserts: 'It may even be in accordance with the Rabbis, but this is stated if he wishes to appear justified before Heaven (lit., 'at the hands of Heaven'), even as is the case with the hire, for the Torah forbade, etc.' This renders clearer the argument that follows, v. Tosaf.]
11. V. Deut. XXIII, 19: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore … into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow. Now, 'hire' and 'whore' are quite unspecified, even if the latter is his own mother, in which case he is liable to death for incest. This proves that notwithstanding his liability to death, in which the money payment is merged, he strictly speaking (should he wish 'to appear justified before Heaven') must pay her the fee. For if she has no claim upon him at all, then even if he does pay her, it is not the hire of a harlot, but an ordinary gift to her which is not forbidden as a vow. Again, since it is recognised as a debt, if the harlot forcibly seized it from him, he cannot demand its return. So here too: though he is flagellated for threshing with a muzzled ox, he is morally indebted to its owner, and that is the meaning of the Baraitha, 'and pays.' etc. Or, if the owner seized it from him, he need not return it.
12. V. Glos.
13. Though two penalties cannot be imposed, that is only when incurred simultaneously. But these two are not, the one preceding the other.
14. Lit., 'I answered them in the direction of prohibition.'
15. But merely with an extra degree of stringency.
16. The bread may not be eaten with meat, consequently it is altogether forbidden, even with non-meat foods.
17. Which is forbidden fat.
18. To glow heat to remove all traces of the fat.
19. The question is whether this is a transgression of Lev. XIX, 19: Thou shalt not cause thy cattle to gender with a diverse kind. Does 'cause' mean to give the opportunity only, as here, or actually to make the two copulate?
20. I.e., when witnesses testify to adultery, it is not necessary for them to witness fornication in order to impose punishment.
21. Only then is Lev. XIX, 19, quoted in n. 4 infringed; hence, R. Papa's ruling that they may not even be led into one stable was merely a matter of additional stringency, not the Biblical law.
22. Without adding 'with a diverse kind'.
23. Therefore it will not lead to impure thoughts. But one may not look upon the animals copulating, because the spectacle may excite evil passions.

Had Scripture stated, Thou shalt not cause thy cattle to gender, I should have thought [it to mean], One must not hold a beast for the male to copulate with it; therefore it is said, with a diverse kind. Hence, only in regard to different species is it forbidden; but in the same species,it is permitted. Yet even there, only holding is permitted — but not 'assisting'. — What is meant by 'holding'? 'Assisting'. And why is it called 'holding'? As a delicate term.

R. Ashi said: This question was put to me by the scholars of Rabbana¹  Nehemiah, the Resh Galutha:²  May an animal be led into a stable together with one of its own species and another heterogeneous to it? [Do we argue,] Having its own kind, it will be attracted thereto; or perhaps, even so, it is not [permitted]? And I answered them that it is forbidden; not because the law is so, but on account of the licentiousness of slaves.³

MISHNAH. IF HE [THE LABOURER] WORKS WITH HIS HANDS BUT NOT WITH HIS FEET, OR WITH HIS FEET BUT NOT WITH HIS HANDS; [AND] EVEN IF HE WORKS WITH HIS SHOULDERS [ONLY], HE MAY EAT. R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID: [HE MAY NOT EAT] UNLESS HE WORKS WITH HIS HANDS AND FEET.

GEMARA. What is the reason [of the first Tanna]? — When thou comest into they neighbour's vineyard⁴  implies, for whatever work he may do.

R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID: [HE MAY NOT EAT] UNLESS HE WORKS WITH HIS HANDS AND FEET. What is the reason of R. Jose son of R. Judah? — He [the labourer] is likened to the ox:⁵  just as the ox [does not eat unless] it works with its hands and feet,⁶  so the labourer too must work with his hands and feet.

Rabbah son of R. Huna propounded: According to R. Jose son of R. Judah, what if one threshes with geese and fowls?⁷  Is it necessary that [the work shall be done] with all its [sc. the creature that threshes] strength, which provision is complied with? Or perhaps, it must work with its fore-feet and hind-feet, which is here absent? — The problem remains unsolved.

R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Labourers, before they walk both lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress, may eat grapes but drink no wine. Having walked lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress, they may eat grapes and drink wine.⁸

MISHNAH. WHEN HE [THE LABOURER] IS WORKING AMONG FIGS, HE MUST NOT EAT OF GRAPES; AMONG GRAPES, HE MUST NOT EAT OF FIGS. YET HE MAY RESTRAIN HIMSELF UNTIL HE COMES TO THE CHOICE QUALITY [FRUIT] AND THEN EAT.⁹  NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THEM [SC. THE LABOURERS], PERMISSION WAS GIVEN ONLY WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY AT WORK;¹⁰  BUT IN ORDER TO SAVE THE EMPLOYER'S TIME,¹¹  THEY¹²  RULED, LABOURERS MAY EAT AS THEY WALK FROM ROW TO ROW,¹³  AND WHEN RETURNING FROM THE WINEPRESS. AND AS FOR AN ASS, [IT MAY EAT] WHILST BEING UNLADEN.¹⁴

GEMARA. The scholars propounded: Whilst working on one vine, may he [the labourer] eat of another?¹⁵  Is it merely necessary [that thou shalt eat only] of the kind which thou puttest into the employer's baskets,¹⁶  which [requirement] is fulfilled; or is it stipulated that [thou shalt eat only] that [i.e., the tree from] which thou puttest into the employer's baskets, which is here lacking? [But] should you say, when working on one vine he may not eat of another, how can an ox eat of what is attached to the soil?¹⁷  — R. Shisha the son of R. Idi replied: It is possible in the case of a straggling branch.¹⁸  Come and hear: IF HE [THE LABOURER] IS WORKING AMONG FIGS, HE MUST NOT EAT OF GRAPES. This implies that he may eat of figs [when working] on figs, on the same conditions that [he may not eat of] figs [when working] on grapes:¹⁹  but should you say, If he works on one vine he may not eat of another, how is this possible? — R. Shisha, the son of R. Idi said: It is possible in the case of an overhanging branch.²⁰

Come and hear: BUT HE MAY RESTRAIN HIMSELF UNTIL HE COMES TO THE CHOICE QUALITY [FRUIT], AND THEN EAT. But should you say: Whilst employed on one vine he may eat of another, let him go, bring [the choice fruit] and eat it [and why restrain himself]? — There it is [forbidden] because of loss of time; [in that case,] there is no question.²¹  Our problem arises only if he has his wife and children with him:²²  what then? — Come and hear: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THEM [SC. THE LABOURERS], PERMISSION WAS GIVEN ONLY WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY AT WORK, BUT IN ORDER TO SAVE THE EMPLOYER'S TIME, THEY RULED, LABOURERS MAY EAT AS THEY WALK FROM ROW TO ROW, AND WHEN RETURNING FROM THE WINE-PRESS. Now, it was assumed that walking [from vine to vine] is regarded as actual work [it being necessary thereto], yet he may eat only in order to save the employer's time, but not by Scriptural law; thus proving that whilst engaged on one vine he may not eat of another! — No. In truth I may assert that whilst engaged on one vine he may eat of another; but walking is not regarded as actual work. Others say, it was assumed that walking is not regarded as actual work, and only on that account may he not eat by Scriptural law, because he is not doing work; but if he were doing actual work, he might eat even by Biblical law, thus proving that whilst engaged on one vine he may eat of another! — No; in truth I may assert that whilst engaged on one vine he may not eat of another;

1. So the text as emended by Rashal: Rabbana was a Babylonian title.
2. V. p. 387, n. 8.
3. Which might receive an impetus by such an act.
4. Deut. XXIII, 25.
5. V. top of 89a.
6. I.e., with its fore and hind-feet, both of course, being employed in threshing.
7. May their beaks be muzzled or not?
8. Labourers trod out the wine from the grapes by walking upon them lengthwise and crosswise. Now, when they have walked only in one direction, the wine is not yet visible, therefore they must confine themselves to the grapes, since the labourer may eat only of that upon which he is engaged. But when they have walked in both directions, the expressed wine is visible, and therefore they may drink thereof.
9. I.e., he is not bound to eat as soon as he feels hungry, but may wait until he reaches the best.
10. But not to finish their work and then eat.
11. Lit., 'to restore lost property to the owners.'
12. The Rabbis.
13. Though they are not actually working then.
14. This is discussed in the Gemara.
15. I.e., cut a cluster of grapes from one vine of choicer quality and then come and work upon another.
16. The phraseology is based upon Deut. XXIII, 25: but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel, which implies that the labourer may eat only of that which he does put into the employer's vessel.
17. For, as stated supra 89a, the same conditions govern both man and beast. Now, as the ox stands in front of the cart into which the grapes are laden the labourers naturally gather the grapes not from the vine in front of the ox, but behind it, which is level with the cart. Hence, the ox cannot possibly eat of the vine upon which it is employed (Rashi). Tosaf.: When the ox is threshing grain attached to the soil, its mouth cannot reach the ears upon which it actually treads. Now, in the case of detached corn, that does not matter, because the whole is regarded as one bundle; but in the case of growing corn, each little tuft is regarded as separate.
18. A vine which stretches from behind the ox to in front of it, so Rashi. Tosaf.: A luxuriant growth, i.e., long ears of corn which reach from the feet of the ox to its mouth. Hence, the Talmudic objection being answered, the problem remains.
19. I.e., on a different tree.
20. I.e., when one vine overhangs another, and when a vine overhangs a fig-tree. Actually, he has to work upon both, since one must be disentangled from the other. In that case he may eat of the overhanging vine whilst working on the other, but not of the overhanging fig-tree.
21. It is certainly forbidden.
22. There is no loss of time, as they can bring it.