Bava Metzia - Daf 88
- Machlokes at which point produce becomes obligated in maaser
Rebbe Yannai says: אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר עד שיראה פני הבית – tevel does not become subject to maaser until it sees the face of the house. Even after processing is completed (e.g., the pile of grain was smoothed), it is not Biblically subject to maaser until it enters the house. This is based on the passuk: "בערתי הקדש מן הבית" – I have removed the holy [produce] from the house, indicating that the maaser obligation takes effect upon entering the house. Rebbe Yochanan says: אפילו חצר קובעת – even a courtyard establishes the produce as subject to maaser, because the passuk says: "ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו" – and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied, indicating that the obligation begins when it enters the courtyard gates. Rebbe Yochanan explains that the passuk referencing a house teaches that entering a courtyard only obligates in maaser if it is similar to a house, namely, that it is משתמרת – guarded (i.e., secure and private). Rebbe Yannai says the word “gates” teaches it must enter the house through the main entrance, and not through rooftops or backyards.
- Source that a human worker may eat detached produce
On the previous Daf, the Gemara provided the source that a worker may eat from produce he is working with which is attached to the ground. We also know that an ox (or any animal) working with detached produce may eat from it, from the prohibition to muzzle an animal while it is threshing (detached grain). The Gemara seeks the source that a human worker may eat from detached produce he is working with, as taught by our Mishnah. It suggests a kal vachomer: an ox, whose right to eat attached produce is not explicitly taught, yet may eat from detached produce, then a human worker, who may eat from attached produce when working, certainly may eat from detached produce!? This kal vachomer is rejected, because oxen have a stringency in that one incurs malkus for muzzling it while it threshes, as opposed to humans. The Gemara ultimately derives it from a second mentioning of "קמה" – standing grain. Since the law of attached produce is already known, this superfluous word includes even detached produce. Rebbe Ami says that no additional source is needed, because the passuk entitling a worker in a vineyard to eat produce presumably includes ששכרו לכתף – where he hired him to carry (detached) grapes on his shoulder.
- Source that animals may eat from attached produce
The Gemara then asks: שור במחובר מנלן – from where do we know an ox’s allowance to eat from attached produce? A kal vachomer from humans is suggested, but rejected because people have a stringency that אתה מצווה להחיותו – you are commanded to sustain him, as opposed to animals. The Gemara therefore derives it from a second mentioning of "רעך" – your fellow. This extra term includes animal in the law of attached produce. Ravina says that both the laws of a human eating detached produce, and an animal eats attached produce, may be derived from the passuk which prohibits muzzling an ox. Since all animals are included in this law, why did the Torah mention “ox”? It teaches לאקושי חוסם לנחסם ונחסם לחוסם – to compare the muzzler to the muzzled, and the muzzled to the muzzler. Just as the (human) muzzler may eat attached produce, the muzzled (animal) may as well. And just as the muzzled may eat detached produce, the muzzler may as well.
