(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 88

BAVA METZIA 88 (6 Adar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of their father, the Tzadik Harav Yisrael Azriel ben Harav Chaim (Feldman) of Milwaukee.



(a) Rebbi Yanai learns from the Pasuk "Bi'arti ha'Kodesh min ha'Bayis" - that Tevel only becomes subject to Ma'aser once it enters the house.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan learn from the Pasuk "Ve'achlu bi'She'arecha ve'Save'u" - that entering the Chatzer is sufficient to render it subject to Ma'aser if it .

(c) Rebbi Yochanan learns from "Bi'arti ha'Kodesh min ha'Bayis" - that the Chatzer must be guarded (like a Bayis normally is).

(d) Whereas Rebbi Yanai learns from "Ve'achlu bi'She'arecha ve'Save'u" - the Tevel must enter the house through the front-door, and not via roofs and enclosures.

(a) Rebbi Chanina Chuza'a cites the above-mentioned Beraisa "ke'Nafshecha", 'ke'Nafsho shel Ba'al ha'Bayis', exempting the laborer from having to Ma'aser what he eats - implying that a purchaser would be obligated to Ma'aser.

(b) Assuming that the Tana is speaking in the field - we see that Tevel becomes subject Ma'aser even in the field, and there is no S'vara that Mekach should create the obligation to Ma'asering in a case where G'mar Melachah does not (posing a Kashya on both Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan)

(c) To answer the Kashya, Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa, by a fig-tree which is growing in the garden, but which overhangs ...

1. ... the Chatzer, according to Rebbi Yochanan.
2. ... the house, according to Rebbi Yanai.
(d) The Kashya then arises, that in that case, why is the owner Patur from Ma'asros, seeing as at the time of G'mar Melachah (when the fruit is picked), it is inside the Chatzer or the house? We answer it - by drawing a distinction between a purchaser, who is concerned with the fruit that he bought (which is indeed in a location which obligates it), and the owner, who is concerned about all the fruit on his tree (not just the overhanging branch), most of which is still in a location which is Patur from Ma'asros.
(a) We query the need for a Pasuk to preclude a laborer from the Din of a purchaser, on the grounds that it should not be necessary - since even a purchaser is not Chayav to Ma'aser min ha'Torah.

(b) The Beraisa attributes the fact that the shops of Beis Hino were destroyed three years before Yerushalayim - because they kept the Torah law of not Ma'asering purchased fruit (even though the Rabbanan obligated it).

(c) Chazal learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Aser Te'aser ... Ve'achalta" - 've'Lo Mocher'.
2. ... "Tevu'as Zar'echa" - 've'Lo Loke'ach'.
(a) The Tana nevertheless learned from "ke'Nafshecha", that a laborer is Patur from Ma'asros (seeing as even Mekach is) - by way of Asmachta (as if Mekach was needed to be Ma'asered mi'd'Oraysa).

(b) The Tana really learns from "ke'Nafshecha" - 'ke'Nafshecha, Im Chasamta, Patur ... ' (that if the employer stipulated that he would pay the laborer for not eating, or forced him physically to desist from eating, he is not subject to the La'av of "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho" [see Shitah Mekubetzes]).




(a) The Mishnah in Ma'asros gives the stage that squash and pumpkins as 'mi'she'Yipaksu', which Rav Asi interprets to mean - from the time the fluff on its end is removed.

(b) On the assumption that the Tana is speaking in the field, Rav Asi asks from this Mishnah on Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan (who require the fruit to have entered the house and the Chatzer respectively. Rav Asi declines to establish the Mishnah in the Chatzer or the house - because then, seeing as the Tana is coming to teach us that even entering the house does not determine the obligation to Ma'aser until its fluff has been removed, the Tana ought to have said (not 'mi'she'Yipaksu' but) 'Ad she'Yipaksu'.

(c) To counter Rav Asi's Kashya, we establish the Mishnah - in the Chatzer or the house. And the reason the Tana uses the Lashon 'mi'she'Yipaksu', because, had he said 'Ad she'Yipaksu', we would have thought that it only reaches the stage of Ma'aser when all the fluff has been removed. 'mi'she'Yipaksu' on the other hand, conveys the (correct) impression that all that is required, is for the fluff to begin coming off.

(a) The Beraisa gives the G'mar Melachah as 'Hachnasasan'. Assuming this to mean in the field, Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Nachman - who interprets the word 'Hachnasasan' - to mean gathering into a pile, asks from here on Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan.

(b) We counter his Kashya however - by interpreting 'Hachnasasan' to mean gathering into the house.

(c) The ramifications of these interpretations are - from which stage a person will be Chayav for eating Tevel (and from which stage it will be forbidden to eat from the fruit, even casually).

(a) Alternatively, Rebbi Yanai differentiates between two different kinds of fruits. Hachnasasan le'Sadeh is Kove'a - by produce, where the Torah specifically writes 'Goren' (in Re'ei ["Ma'asar *Degancha*", which is synonymous with Goren]), whereas Rebbi Yanai is speaking about fruit, which does not have its own Goren.

(b) The Sugya in Pesachim assumes that the crops left behind by a deceased Chaver were never Tevel (that needed to be Ma'asered), because maybe the Chaver did like Rebbi Oshaya - who permits a person to avoid Ma'asering his crops, by taking them into his house together with the chaff to enable his animal to eat from it, and to exempt him from having to Ma'aser it.

(c) That Sugya clearly holds - like the first interpretation of Rebbi Yanai, which considers the house the Goren with regard to crops and fruit alike.

(a) We have discussed Adam bi'Mechubar. The Pasuk that teaches us that a Shor may eat be'Talush is - "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho" (Ki Seitzei).

(b) We try to learn Adam be'Talush from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from an animal, whom the Torah allows to eat, even though it does not specifically allow it to eat by Mechubar. If so, Adam, whom the Torah *does* specifically allow to eat by Mechubar, should certainly be allowed to eat by Talush.

(c) The Pircha on this 'Kal va'Chomer' is - that we cannot learn Adam from Beheimah, since we find one instance where the Torah protects Beheimah more than Adam, inasmuch as one receives Malkos for muzzling an animal, but not for muzzling a person, as we learned above.

(d) We have already cited the D'rashah from "ke'Nafshecha", which precludes a laborer from being subject to the La'av of Chasimah. Otherwise, we would have learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that he is included - from the fact that one is obligated to sustain a person but not an animal.

(a) So we learn Adam be'Talush from the fact that the Torah writes "Kamah" twice - using the principle of 'Im Eino Inyan' (because, seeing as we don't need two Pesukim by Mechubar, we use one of them to teach us Talush).

(b) Rebbi Ami dispenses with the need for this D'rashah. He extrapolates Adam be'Talush from the Pasuk "Ki Savo be'Kerem Re'echa" - which incorporates a case where the laborer was employed to carry the picked grapes from the vineyard to the wine-press, yet the Torah permits him to eat.

(a) We attempt to learn Beheimah by Mechubar from Adam, using the same 'Kal va'Chomer' (though in reverse) as we used earlier to try and learn Adam be'Talush from Beheimah. The Pircha we ask on this is - 'Mah le'Adam, she'Kein Metzuvin Le'hachyoso'.

(b) We suggest that perhaps one ought to be Chayav to sustain a Beheimah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Adam - since one is not forbidden to muzzle the latter, whereas one is, the former.

(c) We counter this suggestion however - by Darshening "ve'Chei Achicha Imach", 'Achicha, ve'Lo Shor'.

(a) We finally learn Beheimah bi'Mechubar from the fact that the Torah writes "Re'echa" twice by Adam by Mechubar - that 'Im Eino Inyan' regarding Adam, the second Pasuk permitting eating from Mechubar must pertain to Beheimah.

(b) Ravina dispenses with the need for this D'rashah. He learns it from "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho", from the superfluous word "Shor" - since the Torah ought to have written - "Lo Sadush ba'Chasimah".

(c) Consequently, from "Lo Sachsom Shor ... ", he compares the muzzler (Adam) to the muzzled (Beheimah), to permit Adam to eat be'Talush; and the muzzled to the muzzler, to permit Beheimah bi'Mechubar.

(d) He knows that the Torah did not write "Shor" to preclude other animals from the concession to eat - because we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos, that wherever the Torah writes "Shor", it incorporates all animals, like it does by Shabbos.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,