Blog Yomi – Bava Metzia #87/Daf 88

You’ll note at the outset of today’s video (embedded at the end, as usual) that Rabbi Stern dedicated the shiur l’iluy nishmas his uncle Elliot, אֶלִיָהוּ בֶּן מָרְדְכַי, who became a member of the Daf in 1997 and completed an entire cycle. I too remember “Uncle Elliott and Aunt Marsha” fondly. By coincidence last night, as I opened one of the two volumes that I use to follow along the Daf, I noticed in the ArtScroll edition (Schottenstein Daf Yomi) that R’ Chaim Malinowitz was the general editor of the enterprise. I distinctly recall Chaim from our days together as classmates in the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, and he enjoyed an illustrious career until his untimely passing in 2019 at the age of 67. I hadn’t fully grasped the magnitude of his contributions and influence until I read his biography this morning.

Rabbi Stern began the Daf by briefly reviewing a principle from yesterday that pertains to the obligation of מַעַשֵׂר. It stems from this source pasuk in פַּרְשַׁת כִּי תֵצֵא:

כִּ֤י תָבֹא֙ בְּכֶ֣רֶם רֵעֶ֔ךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ֧ עֲנָבִ֛ים כְּנַפְשְׁךָ֖ שבְעֶ֑ךָ וְאֶֽל־כֶּלְיְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִתֵּֽן׃        

Which translates as follows: “When you enter a neighbor’s vineyard (who is Jewish), you may eat as many grapes as you want (just like the owner), until you are satiated, but you must not put any in your vessel.”

Rabbi Stern pointed out Rashi’s commentary here on the operative word “כְּנַפְשְׁךָ֖”, which invites the question: Why is it necessary to have a pasuk that tells you that a פּוֹעֵל who’s working in a field is any different than the owner of the vineyard? Rashi writes: מה נפשך אוכל ופטור מן המעשר – דהא לא נגמרה מלאכתו למעשר דתנן (מעשרות פ”א מ”ז) יין משירד לבור. Just like the owner doesn’t have to take off מַעַשֵׂר before there is a גְמַר מְלָאכָה (completion of the work), so too the פּוֹעֵל doesn’t have to take off מַעַשֵׂר. But why would we have thought otherwise? Rashi adds:

אף פועל אוכל ופטור – ולא אמרינן הואיל דבאגריה אכיל על כרחו של בעל הבית הוה ליה כמקח ומקח קובעת למעשר אף דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו כיון דזבניה אחשביה

And we don’t say that since the wages that the פּוֹעֵל is being paid includes eating the grapes, it is like a מֶקַח, and the fact that you’re purchasing it would obligate you to give מַעַשֵׂר even before there is גְמַר מְלָאכָה. Therefore the pasuk is necessary to tell you that is not the case.

The Gemara continues at the bottom of דף פ״ז עמוּד ב:

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין הַטֶּבֶל מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר

עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה פְּנֵי הַבַּיִת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַבַּיִת״

רַבִּי יַנַּאי says: The owner of untithed produce [טֶּבֶל] is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing [מַעֲשֵׂר] until it sees the front of the house through which people enter and exit, and it is brought into the house through that entrance (but not through the back door or a skylight), as it is stated: “I have removed the consecrated from the house” (וְאָמַרְתָּ֡ לִפְנֵי֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהֶ֜יךָ בִּעַ֧רְתִּי הַקֹּ֣דֶשׁ מִן־הַבַּ֗יִת וְגַ֨ם נְתַתִּ֤יו לַלֵּוִי֙ וְלַגֵּר֙ לַיָּת֣וֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָ֔ה כְּכל־מִצְוָתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֣ר צִוִּיתָ֑נִי לֹֽא־עָבַ֥רְתִּי מִמִּצְתֶ֖יךָ וְלֹ֥א שָׁכָֽחְתִּי – Devarim 26:13), which indicates that the obligation to tithe produce whose purpose has not yet been designated applies only when it is brought into the house.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר קוֹבַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂבֵעוּ״

And רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן says: Even bringing produce into the courtyard determines that the production process of the produce has been completed and that the produce is therefore subject to tithes, as it is stated in the confession of the tithes: “And I have given to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, and they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied” (כִּ֣י תְכַלֶּ֞ה לַ֠עְשֵׂ֠ר אֶת־כל־מַעְשַׂ֧ר תְּבוּאָתְךָ֛ בַּשָּׁנָ֥ה הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֖ת שְׁנַ֣ת הַֽמַּעֲשֵׂ֑ר וְנָתַתָּ֣ה לַלֵּוִ֗י לַגֵּר֙ לַיָּת֣וֹם וְלָֽאַלְמָנָ֔ה וְאָכְל֥וּ בִשְׁעָרֶ֖יךָ וְשָׂבֵֽעוּ – Devarim 26:12).

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״מִן הַבַּיִת״! אָמַר לָךְ: חָצֵר – דֻּמְיָא דְּבַיִת: מָה בַּיִת הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּר – אַף חָצֵר הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת

The Gemara asks: But according to רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן also, isn’t it written: “מִן הַבַּיִת”? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the term “בַּיִת” is not to be taken literally. Rather, it indicates that bringing טֶבֶל (untithed produce) into a courtyard is similar to bringing it into a house: Just as a house is a secured area, so too, the courtyard must be secured. An area that is accessible to the public is not considered a courtyard for the purposes of this halacha.

וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״! הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דִּמְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ דֶּרֶךְ שַׁעַר, לְאַפּוֹקֵי דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְקַרְפֵּיפוֹת דְּלָא.

And according to רַבִּי יַנַּאי also, isn’t it written: “בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ”? The Gemara answers: That term is necessary to teach that this halacha, that the production process is considered complete [גְמַר מְלָאכָה], applies only when one brings the produce into his house through the gate, i.e., the entranceway, to the exclusion of produce that was brought in through rooftops and enclosures, in which case the produce is not subject to מַּעֲשֵׂר.

מֵתִיב רַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה: ״כְּנַפְשְׁךָ״ – כָּךְ נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל, מָה נַפְשְׁךָ אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, אַף נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר

רַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה raises an objection from a statement of the baraisa mentioned above: The term “כְּנַפְשְׁךָ” teaches that just as the halacha is concerning the owner of the vineyard himself, so is the halacha concerning the פּוֹעֵל: Just as the owner, alluded to by the term כְּנַפְשְׁךָ, may eat from the produce before its labor is complete and is exempt from separating tithes, so too, the פּוֹעֵל may eat and is פָּטוּר from מַעַשֵׂר.

הָא לוֹקֵחַ חַיָּיב, מַאי לָאו בַּשָּׂדֶה

This indicates that only an owner and a פּוֹעֵל may eat from produce without giving מַעַשֵׂר; but one who buys produce is obligated by Torah law to give מַעַשֵׂר before partaking of it. Is it not correct to conclude that this is the halacha even when he purchased the produce while it was still in the field? In other words, why isn’t a regular לוֹקֵחַ, who is obligated to give מַעַשֵׂר even though it has not entered his house or courtyard?

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בִּתְאֵנָה הָעוֹמֶדֶת בְּגִינָּה וְנוֹפָהּ נוֹטֶה לְחָצֵר עָסְקִינַן, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְבַיִת – לְבַיִת.

Rav Pappa said: Here, in the baraisa, we’re dealing with a fig tree that is standing in a garden outside a courtyard and its leaves are leaning into a courtyard, or, according to the one who says that the obligation to give מַעַשֵׂרapplies when the produce is brought into the house, the branches are leaning into the house. Therefore, the produce entered the courtyard or house.

אִי הָכִי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נָמֵי נִיחַיַּיב! בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֵינָיו בִּתְאֵנָתוֹ, וְלוֹקֵחַ עֵינָיו בְּמִקָּחוֹ

The Gemara asks: If so, the בַּעַל הַבַּיִת himself, not only the לוקֵחַ, should also be obligated to give מַעַשֵׂר, as the produce is in either the courtyard or the house. The Gemara answers: The homeowner’s eyes are on his fig tree, i.e., his primary concern is the tree, not its produce, and the main part of the tree is outside the courtyard. But the לוֹקֵחַ’s eyes are on his purchase (on the produce itself), which is in the space of the courtyard or house.

וְלוֹקֵחַ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִי מִחַיַּיב? וְהָתַנְיָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה חָרְבוּ חֲנוּיוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית הִינוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים קוֹדֶם יְרוּשָׁלַיִם – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִין

״עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר וְאָכַלְתָּ״ – וְלֹא מוֹכֵר. ״תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ״ – וְלֹא לוֹקֵחַ. אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא

The Gemara asks: And is a buyer obligated by Torah law to give מַעַשֵׂר on the produce he purchases? But isn’t it taught in a baraisa: For what reason were the shops of בֵּית הִינוֹ, a town near יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, destroyed three years before the destruction of יְרוּשָׁלַיִם itself? It was because they based their practices strictly on matters of Torah, i.e., they did not adhere to the safeguards of the רַבָּנַן. The baraisa explains that they would say that a לוֹקֵחַ need not give מַעַשֵׂר on the produce he purchases, as derived from the following two פְּסוּקִים in Devarim:

עַשֵּׂ֣ר תְּעַשֵּׂ֔ר אֵ֖ת כל־תְּבוּאַ֣ת זַרְעֶ֑ךָ הַיֹּצֵ֥א הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה שָׁנָ֥ה שָׁנָֽה

וְאָכַלְתָּ֞ לִפְנֵ֣י ׀ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֗יךָ בַּמָּק֣וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר֮ לְשַׁכֵּ֣ן שְׁמ֣וֹ שָׁם֒ מַעְשַׂ֤ר דְּגָֽנְךָ֙ תִּירֹֽשְׁךָ֣ וְיִצְהָרֶ֔ךָ וּבְכֹרֹ֥ת בְּקָרְךָ֖ וְצֹאנֶ֑ךָ לְמַ֣עַן תִּלְמַ֗ד לְיִרְאָ֛ה אֶת־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ כל־הַיָּמִֽים

They claimed that the phrases “עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר וְאָכַלְתָּ” indicate that only the one who eats the produce must give מַעַשֵׂר, but not the מוֹכֵר. Likewise, the phrase “תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ” teaches that the one who performs the planting must give מַעַשֵׂר, but not the לוֹקֵחַ. Rather, the obligation of a לוֹקֵחַ to give מַעַשֵׂר is מִדְּרַבָּנַן, and the pasuk is cited as mere support for this halacha [an אַסְמַכְתָּא]. The residents of בֵּית הִינוֹ did not adhere to this rabbinic law [מִדְּרַבָּנַן] and did not observe the halacha requiring the מוֹכֵר to give מַעַשֵׂר.

אֶלָּא ״כְּנַפְשְׁךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״כְּנַפְשְׁךָ״, מָה נַפְשְׁךָ אִם חָסַמְתָּ – פָּטוּר, אַף פּוֹעֵל אִם חָסַמְתָּ – פָּטוּר

It was stated previously that a לוֹקֵחַ is not required to give מַעַשֵׂר on produce by Torah law. If so, the same certainly applies to a פּוֹעֵל. Consequently, the term ״כְּנַפְשְׁךָ״ can’t be used to teach that a פּוֹעֵל may eat without giving מַעַשֵׂר, as claimed earlier. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does כְּנַפְשְׁךָ come to teach? Just as with regard to your own person, i.e., the owner, if you “muzzled yourself” and did not eat from your field’s produce, you are פָּטוּר from the חֵטְא of: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain” (לֹא־תַחְסֹ֥ם שׁ֖וֹר בְּדִישֽׁוֹ – Devarim 25:4), so too with regard to a פּוֹעֵל, if you muzzled him, i.e., you did not allow him to eat, you are פָּטוּר from the חֵטְא of muzzling an ox while it is working.

מֵתִיב מָר זוּטְרָא: אֵיזֶהוּ גּוֹרְנָן לְמַעַשְׂרוֹת? בַּקִּישּׁוּאִים וּבַדִּלּוּעִים מִשֶּׁיְּפַקֵּסוּ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: מִשֶּׁיִּנָּטֵל פֵּיקֶס שֶׁלָּהֶן. מַאי לָאו מִשֶּׁיְּפַקֵּסוּ – אֲפִילּוּ בַּשָּׂדֶה

מָר זוּטְרָא raises an objection from a mishna (Ma’asros 1:5): With regard to different types of produce, what is the equivalent of their granary, i.e., the point at which the processing of various types of produce is completed so that they become subject to מַעַשֵׂר? With regard to cucumbers and gourds, they become obligated from when they lose their blossom; and רַבִּי אַסִּי said: This means from when their blossom is removed. The Gemara clarifies the objection from the mishna: What, is it not correct to say that the mishna means from when they lose their blossom, even while the produce is still in the field? This would mean that the produce is subject to מַעַשֵׂר before it enters the house or the courtyard, which is not in accordance with the opinions of either רַבִּי יַנַּאי or רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

לֹא מִשֶּׁיְּפַקְּסוּ בַּבַּיִת. אִי הָכִי, ״מִשֶּׁיְּפַקֵּסוּ״ ״עַד שֶׁיְּפַקֵּסוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ

The Gemara answers: No, the mishna means: From when they lose their blossom specifically in the house or courtyard, i.e., the house or courtyard renders the produce subject to מַעַשֵׂר only when the produce loses its blossom. The Gemara asks: If so, the phrase: מִשֶּׁיְּפַקֵּסוּ is inaccurate, as the mishna should have said: עַד שֶׁיְּפַקֵּסוּ. The expression “מִשֶּׁיְּפַקֵּסוּ” indicates that the obligation applies as soon as that happens, i.e., before the produce enters the courtyard or house. By contrast, the expression עַד שֶׁיְּפַקֵּסוּ indicates that the obligation does not come into effect until they lose their blossom, regardless of whatever else is done to them, i.e., only when they are in the house and they lose their blossom.

Well we’ve made it beyond our arbitrary minimum of the halfway point of the shiur, and you can finish up with the balance of Rabbi Stern’s video.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BsGoWd5avwY?si=ZLYUBNTf_Pb8eWuP