Blog Yomi – Bava Metzia #88/Daf 89

We begin on דף פּ״ט עמוּד א:

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 רַבָּנַן taught in a baraisa regarding the wording in the pasuk: “לֹא־תַחְסֹ֥ם שׁ֖וֹר בְּדִישֽׁוֹ.” The pasuk mentions threshing [דַּיִשׁ]. Just as דַּיִשׁ 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 [גְּמַר מְלָאכָה], and a laborer [פּוֹעֵל] may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is grown from the ground, a פּוֹעֵל 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 פּוֹעֵל may not eat them.

לְמָה לִי? מִ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ נָפְקָא. אִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״קָמָה״, לְרַבּוֹת כל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה, לְרַבּוֹת נָמֵי מִידֵּי דְּלָאו גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע נִינְהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן

Why do I need this diyuk? The halacha can be derived from the words in the pasuk: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard” (כִּ֤י תָבֹא֙ בְּכֶ֣רֶם רֵעֶ֔ךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ֧ עֲנָבִ֛ים כְּנַפְשְׁךָ֖ שבְעֶ֑ךָ וְאֶֽל־כֶּלְיְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִתֵּֽן – Devarim 23:25), as these actions are not performed in a vineyard. It was necessary to state this halakha, as otherwise you might say that since it is written: “Standing” [קָמָה] (כִּ֤י תָבֹא֙ בְּקָמַ֣ת רֵעֶ֔ךָ וְקָטַפְתָּ֥ מְלִילֹ֖ת בְּיָדֶ֑ךָ וְחֶרְמֵשׁ֙ לֹ֣א תָנִ֔יף עַ֖ל קָמַ֥ת רֵעֶֽךָ – Devarim 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 halacha applies only to food that grows from the ground [גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע].

Rabbi Stern pointed out the following Tosafos:

גידולי קרקע יצא החולב כו’ – בריש בכל מערבין (עירובין דף כז:) חשיב בעלי חיים גידולי קרקע דדריש ונתתה הכסף בבקר ובצאן מה הפרט מפורש פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע התם קרי להו גידולי קרקע לפי שניזונין מן הקרקע אבל הכא מפיק שפיר חולב ומגבן דלא הוי בכלל דיש שהוא גודל וצומח מן הקרקע

Tosafos asks the question that with regard to מַעַשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, it appears that one could use the money to buy animal, and therefore an animal can be considered גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע. Tosafos answers that’s only because an animal gets its nutrients from the ground, but isn’t classified as foodstuff that grows from the ground directly enough to fall under דַיָשׁ.

So that was the first baraisa that teaches about דַיָשׁ. The Gemara will add three additional ones, and here is #2:

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 baraisa, 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 גְּמַר מְלָאכָה and a פּוֹעֵל may eat from it, so too with regard to any item that is at the time of פּוֹעֵל a פּוֹעֵל 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 at the stage of גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, a פּוֹעֵל 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 diyuk? It can be derived from: “But you shall not put any in your vessel” (כִּ֤י תָבֹא֙ בְּכֶ֣רֶם רֵעֶ֔ךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ֧ עֲנָבִ֛ים כְּנַפְשְׁךָ֖ שבְעֶ֑ךָ וְאֶֽל־כֶּלְיְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִתֵּֽן – Devarim 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 that it’s necessary for the tanna to teach the following halacha: 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 פּוֹעֵל may not eat from them, as this is not the גְּמַר מְלָאכָה of the entire field.

Now on to baraisa #3 regarding דַּיִשׁ:

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגְרוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְנִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר – אֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ

Regarding the term דַּיִשׁ, that just as דַּיִשׁ is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for מַעֲשֵׂר and a פּוֹעֵל may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for מַעֲשֵׂר, a פּוֹעֵל 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 פּוֹעֵל splits them apart with a rake. The reason is that since its work is completed for מַעֲשֵׂר when it has been gathered from the field, a פּוֹעֵל 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 baraisa: With regard to one who separates dates and dried figs, this פּוֹעֵל may eat from it? רַב פָּפָּא said: When that baraisa 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.

Rashi describes “בְּתוּחְלָנֵי” “unripe dates” as follows:

בתוחלני – תמרים רעים שאין מתבשלין באילן ומכניסן לקיום בכלי של כפות תמרים ושמן חותלות ומתחממות ומתבשלות וקודם שנתבשלו קאמר דהבודל מהן פועל אוכל בהן דלא נגמרה למעשר

Meaning, poor-quality dates that do not ripen on the tree. They are taken into storage in palm-frond baskets where they are wrapped tightly, heat up and ripen. This baraisa refers to before they ripen; one who separates them is a פּוֹעֵל who may eat from them, since their work has not yet been completed with regard to מַעֲשֵׂר.

Now on to baraisa #4 regarding דַּיִשׁ:

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. יָצָא הַלָּשׁ וְהַמְקַטֵּף וְהָאוֹפֶה שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה, דְּאֵין פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. וַהֲלֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר

Just as דַּיִשׁ is unique in that it applies to an item whose work is not yet completed for challa, and a פּוֹעֵל may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for challa, a פּוֹעֵל 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 challa, and therefore a פּוֹעֵל may not eat from it. But why do I need this halacha; 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 מַעֲשֵׂר, a פּוֹעֵל 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

For English, press 2:

Since in this baraisa we are dealing with places outside of Eretz Yisrael, where there is no obligation of מַעַשֵׂר. If so, the obligation to separate challa also does not apply! Rather, the ruling in the baraisa is actually stated with regard to Eretz Yisrael, and it is not a kasha, as it is referring to those seven years in which they conquered Eretz Yisrael, and to the seven in which they divided it (during which they were obligated in cḥalla but they were not obligated in מַעַשֵׂר).

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this answer:

מִידֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר קָא גָרֵים? גְּמַר מְלָאכָה קָא גָרֵים

Is the obligation to separate tithes the decisive factor with regard to a פּוֹעֵל? That is not the case, as גְּמַר מְלָאכָה is the decisive factor, while the obligation of מַעַשֵׂר is mentioned only because it coincides with גְּמַר מְלָאכָה. Even if there is no mitzva to bring מַעַשֵׂר, nevertheless גְּמַר מְלָאכָה is completed at the same stage.

The Gemara therefore comes up with a “combo solution” proposed by רָבִינָא:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּרוֹךְ וּתְנִי. ״דַּיִשׁ״, מָה דַּיִשׁ מְיוּחָד – דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וּלְחַלָּה וּפוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ, אַף כל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וּלְחַלָּה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ

Rather, רָבִינָא said: One should combine the two baraisos and teach them as one, as follows: With regard to the term דַּיִשׁ, just as דַּיִשׁ 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 challa, in the case of species of grain, and a פּוֹעֵל may eat from it, so too with regard to any item whose work is not completed for tithe or for challa, a פּוֹעֵל may eat it.

As Rashi notes:

אמר רבינא כרוך ותני – הנך תרתי מתניתין דלעיל לא תיתננהו לחודא למיתני בקמייתא מה דיש מיוחד דבר שלא נגמר מלאכתו למעשר דא”כ שמע מינה הא נגמרה למעשר לא אכיל וקשיא בתרייתא אלא כרוך ותני חדא מה דיש מיוחד שלא נגמר מלאכתו למעשר ולחלה שהן דברים הנהוגין בו אף כל שלא נגמרה מלאכתו לדבר הנהוג בו אם למעשר לחודיה למעשר אם לחלה. לחלה יצא הבודל בתמרים דנגמר למעשר ואין בהם דבר מאוחר ממנו ויצא הלש שנגמרה מלאכתו למאוחר שבו

רָבִינָא said: “Combine and teach – the two baraisos quoted earlier are not meant to be taught individually”. [That is, it is not meant] to be taught in the first quotation that “דַּיִשׁ” specifically implies something whose work is not complete with regard to tithes, because this would imply that if it were complete with regard to tithes [the worker] would not be able to eat; that would contradict the latter [ baraisa]. Rather, combine and teach them as one: Just as “דַּיִשׁ” [grain] is specifically something whose work is not complete with respect to מַעַשֵׂר and challa — which are laws pertinent to [grain] — likewise for anything whose work is not complete with respect to laws pertinent to it: if with respect to מַעַשֵׂר alone, then for מַעַשֵׂר; if with respect to challa, then for challa [as well]. This excludes one who is separating dates [from being allowed to eat], which are already complete with regard to מַעַשֵׂר, and for which there is no later [task]. This [also] excludes one who kneads, since its work — the latter [of work with respect to מַעַשֵׂר and work with respect to challa] — has been completed.

Now that we’ve threshed דַּיִשׁ to death, the Gemara will continue on but we’ll leave the balance to Rabbi Stern’s video.