Bava Metzia - Daf 90
- Threshing terumah and maaser
A Baraisa teaches that if one muzzles animals which are threshing terumah or maaser grain, he does not violate the muzzling prohibition. Still, because of מראית העין, he must put food in a bag attached to its mouth. The Gemara asks that another Baraisa says that one does violate "לא תחסום" when threshing terumah or maaser!? Regarding terumah, the Gemara answers that the first Baraisa refers to actual terumah, which is not included in the prohibition (because it is not standard threshing), and the second Baraisa refers to גידולי תרומה – produce which grew from terumah. Since it is only considered terumah Rabbinically, but Biblically is chullin, it is subject to לא תחסום. After proving that the maaser contradiction cannot be answered the same way, the Gemara instead answers that the second Baraisa refers to maaser rishon, which may be eaten by anyone and is subject to לא תחסום, whereas the first Baraisa refers to maaser sheni, which is prohibited to eat outside of Yerushalayim. After another answer for maaser is offered, the Gemara answers both contradictions by saying that the second Baraisa refers to terumah and maaser of דמאי (grain purchased from an עם הארץ), which is only Rabbinically obligated in maaser. Since דמאי is not obligated in terumah, the Gemara clarifies that the Baraisa would refer to terumas maaser.
- אמירה לנכרי regarding לא תחסום שור בדישו
The Gemara asks: מהו שיאמר אדם לנכרי חסום פרתי ודוש בה – What is the halachah about a man saying to a gentile, “Muzzle my cow and thresh with it?” Do we say that אמירה לנכרי שבות – telling a gentile to violate a prohibition for Jews is Rabbinically forbidden only with regard to Shabbos, דאיסור סקילה – which is a prohibition punished by stoning, whereas muzzling, which is a mere לאו, is not forbidden to instruct a gentile to do? Or is it equally prohibited to instruct a non-Jew to violate a לאו for Jews, such as muzzling?
An inquiry was sent from Eretz Yisroel to Shmuel’s father about bulls which were stolen by gentiles and castrated as a favor for their Jewish owners (since they were superior for plowing), and Shmuel responded: הערמה אתעביד בהו – Trickery was done with [the bulls] to evade the castration prohibition; אערימו עלייהו ויזדבנון – trick [the owners] and penalize them not to plow with them; rather, they must be sold. This proves that instructing a gentile to perform a Jewish prohibition is forbidden, even with a לאו!? Rav Pappa deflects the proof, saying that the residents of Eretz Yisroel held that castration is prohibited even for gentiles, so encouraging them to do so violates לפני עור.
- חסמה בקול: עקימת פיו
Amoraim discuss transgressions performed by voice: חסמה בקול – regarding one who muzzled by voice alone, e.g., he shouted at it to prevent it from eating while threshing, והנהיגה בקול – or he led [the animal] by voice while it was yoked together with another species (violating כלאים), Rebbe Yochanan said he is liable to malkus, and Reish Lakish said he is not. Rebbe Yochanan holds: עקימת פיו הויא מעשה – bending his mouth to create sound is considered sufficient action to incur malkus. Reish Lakish holds: קלא לא הוי מעשה – making sounds is not considered sufficient action to incur malkus. Rebbe Yochanan challenged Reish Lakish from a Mishnah, which teaches that one who transgresses תמורה – substituting a chullin animal for a hekdesh animal incurs malkus, although it is performed verbally!? Reish Lakish answers that this Mishnah reflects the view of Rebbe Yehudah, that לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו – one receives lashes for violating a prohibition which is transgressed without action.
Siman – Tzedakah Box.
The tzedakah collector who used a muzzle shaped like a pushka to muzzle his ox when it threshed terumah grain, was horrified when someone took one of his muzzles and instructed a nochri to muzzle his ox to thresh with it, and then heard another man muzzled his ox with his voice, shouting at it to prevent it from eating while threshing.
